John Shadegg

Mr. SHADEGG

Mr. SHADEGG. It is a basic character of human nature to take possession of your own ideas. If you get involved in your own school and in your own children's education and you start working on making their education better, you are going to work at it and care about it. If you get told, no, we do not need your input, we have gotten some experts in Washington, DC, to write the test, and those experts know what the right curriculum is, so do not bother showing up for the school board meeting where the curriculum is going to be discussed, that has already been decided in Bill Clinton's Washington, DC.

Mr. SHADEGG. I think it is an excellent question, and probably a great question on which to kind of end this discussion. The reality is that we are on the verge of adopting a national test on which Congress will have had no input, on which local parents and teachers will have had no input. I simply want to make clear to everybody who might be listening tonight across America that this issue will be decided within the next few days to few weeks here in the U.S. Congress, in the House and in the Senate. If they do not think a one-size-fits-all Washington, DC, exam written that is crammed down their throats without the chairman of the subcommittee in charge of this area having some input, without the local State superintendent of public instruction having the ability to have input, but most importantly, without them as parents or teachers of their children, or as a school principal, if they do not want that crammed down your throat, we need their support now to stop this, and stop it before it goes any further. I think it holds the potential, as one of the articles that has been written suggests, of being a national calamity. I think it will be an absolute disaster if we turn the education of our children in America over to Washington, DC. We owe the children of America more than abdicating our responsibility to Washington, DC, and letting their education be dictated millions of miles from their homes and thousands of layers of bureaucrats from their own principal or their own teacher.

Mr. SHADEGG. It may be well-intended, but it has the potential to be a disaster. If we write one test in Washington and it is bad, we will not be able to change it for decades to come. In a global economy, we will perhaps be handicapped. I will yield to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Hoekstra] to close, if he would like.

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for joining me. I want to conclude by saying that national testing is one of those ideas where the proponents believe that Washington knows best and I suggest they are wrong. Washington does not know best how to educate your children in your school or my children in my school. You can do it better. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to help us to reject the idea of national testing, which would give too much responsibility to Washington and take too much away from the parents and their child's teacher.

Mr. SHADEGG

Mr. SHADEGG. If the gentleman would yield again, I understand. Now they will surface the day after the statute of limitations. How foolish of me.

Mr. SHADEGG. After all, the White House spin machine has been running around the clock to spin this thing as coffees, get-togethers. What did my colleague say the other night? What is the coffee shop, prominent coffee shop?

Mr. SHADEGG. This is Starbuck's on Pennsylvania Avenue.

Mr. SHADEGG. Only a lot more expensive. And the fascinating thing is, well, all 44 coffees also happened to be hit under the same computer system for DNC fund-raisers. Now, let me see, the White House spin machine has been saying these were not fund-raisers, ``We were not using public property for fund- raisers.'' But when they searched DNC fund-raisers, the same 44 turned up. And we know that. Now, what is the difference between 44 and 150? There are 106 others out there that we do not know anything about. I find it absolutely fascinating and tremendously humorous. But there is one more point in all of this that I want to bring out. When this came out, I happened to be in Arizona en route back to Washington when I first heard this story of the tapes released: ``White House releases tapes of White House coffees,'' not fund-raisers, even though the White House itself in their own computer called them DNC fund-raisers. But when the tapes came out, the national news reporter I heard on this radio story said, ``But they do not show any breaking of the law; they actually back up the President's story.'' I kind of listened to that for a minute. Then I got here, and I happened to see the tapes the other night. There are fascinating things in the tapes; for example, the missing gap of time. Rosemary Woods surfaces again, and there is, you know, a human gap. Now it just so happens that the gap appears on the one tape where we see none other than John Huang. It is kind of, huh, I wonder how that happened.

Mr. SHADEGG. Mere coincidence. We are leaping to conclusions. ``These were clearly not fund-raisers.'' They will call them fund-raisers in their database, but that was a goof.

Mr. SHADEGG. Of course. But one last point I want to make on this that is also humorous is that while the news spin was that these were, in fact, clearly not fund-raisers, and indeed nothing in the tape shows the President saying, ``give me the money,'' that is true, it is not there, what is there is the understanding of the people who attended. The understanding of the people who attended is quite clearly shown on a tape for which they accidentally released the audio. And you know what it is? It is this gentleman in the audience saying, ``Hey, I got the checks. I got the checks.'' As a matter of fact, the White House spin is, ``Well, these were not fund-raisers because the DNC official in the room turned the checks down.'' Now, I mean, I am certain this is one lost soul who happened to make it to these coffees and had the mistaken notion that he should be offering up these five checks. Clearly, he was a mistaken soul. The fact that there was a DNC official who said, ``Wait until later; wait until later,'' I am certain these were not fund-raisers. Thank goodness the White House has come forward. The last point I want to make: Because the White House has been so incredibly forthcoming, I am certain that within minutes of when we discover there are over 150 events, take away the 44, 106 events, the White House will be forthcoming. They will give us all the tapes of those events, computer records, all the lists of people identified; they had never stalled or delayed in any way of providing information; they have never stonewalled or failed to respond to a subpoena until we threatened contempt. I am certain that within minutes the President himself is going to run down here and say, ``Here is everything.'' As a matter of fact, in this morning's paper, the President said, ``Well, they have the evidence.'' The chairman of our committee, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton], pointed out they do not have the evidence. They, in fact, stonewalled. But I am sure it is just a glitch.

Mr. SHADEGG. Well, certainly I have not. Indeed, perhaps the first laws enacted in the world are laws against murder, therefore the oldest, certainly laws we ought to respect before any other. The notion that an old law is due less deference than a new one is, on its face, absurd. Actually, the existence of a law for a long period of time establishes that it truly embodies the consensus of the society. Clearly, these are searched-for excuses by the White House to try to get out from under what they have done. A fascinating parallel is the line, ``Everybody else does it.'' Another one is, ``Well, we certainly thought we were complying with the law.'' I love that one with regard to the issue of phone calls by the President himself from the White House, because if my colleagues recall the sequence of events, his first story on phone calls from the White House was, ``I don't recall making any.'' And then his second story some several weeks later was, ``Well, I know that at the time we did this, whatever it is we did, we believed we were complying with the law.'' Now, spare me, and maybe my colleagues can help with this. I have problem with the logic that says, ``I do not remember doing it, but if I did it, I remember that I thought I was complying with the law.'' That one is tough for me.

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, I commend the gentleman from Indiana for bringing that information forward. I must say as I stood here I was shocked to listen to that. I had no idea that the editorials across the country and the editorial page editors were that unanimous. I do want to point out the significance of this particular point the gentleman is raising right now. In any free society, we can only survive if people, largely voluntarily, choose to comply with the law. That is, in a democracy, the success or failure of that democracy is dependent upon respect for the law and respect for the government that creates that law. It seems to me that it is absolutely patently clear that Janet Reno is not only not doing her job and covering up and rolling over and playing dead, but most importantly, in not doing her job, in covering up, in rolling over and playing dead, in, for example, ruling as recently as this weekend that the Justice Department for the 18th time was going to refuse to open an investigation or authorize a special prosecutor for the President because he had done nothing wrong; moments, literally moments before the White House released these tapes, her conduct, I would suggest, is eating away at the most fundamental aspect of what our society depends upon, and that is faith and credit by the American people in the integrity of this government. If she continues to cover up for him and to not be forthcoming and to not acknowledge the flagrant conflict of interest she has, and to refuse to recognize the evidence that is staring her in the face, she is helping to destroy the faith that the American people need to have in this government if we are to survive as a Nation.

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much for yielding to me. This is in fact a very important topic and a very timely topic. Indeed, the gentleman was just talking about how the campaign fundraising scandals are sadly partisan. This is one on which I would hope we could be mutually bipartisan. In fact, on the floor of this House within the last few weeks we voted, 290-plus Members voted to oppose national Federal school testing as proposed by President Clinton, a national test. The Senate went a different route, and the Senate has proposed that we should allow national testing, but rather than allow the Federal Department of Education to write that test, they would be comfortable with letting what they claim is an independent body write the test. In point of fact, when we last discussed this issue on the floor, my colleague from Indiana pointed out quite accurately that that so-called independent body would not in fact be independent, but would consist of people appointed by the President, be totally administration-dominated, and not be independent. I have a passion about this issue, because I think it is one where many Americans, mainstream middle-class Americans, do not understand why some of us would be so vehemently opposed to testing; why we would stake out such a tough fight on this issue; why, indeed, we believe that if the provision in our bill that says there should be no national testing gets stripped, we are willing to fight, and fight, quite frankly to the death to put it back in. But let me explain that. I am holding a series of columns which I want to mention tonight. This one, ``National Exams Provide Few Benefits for Students,'' is written by Mark F. Bernstein. I do not know Mr. Bernstein, but he lays the first premise of this fight. He says, point blank, in a very bright and elucidating article, what is tested will be taught. Think of that. What is tested will be taught. That is the first plank in this argument. The President has not come forward and said, I want to have a national curriculum or national standards. The reality is that if we have a national test written by the Federal Government in the Federal Department of Education, what is in that test will be taught to my daughter, Courtney, and to my son, Stephen, in Phoenix, AZ. So once we get to that point, we have to say to ourselves, wow, the content of that test then becomes vitally important, because Courtney's teacher will want Courtney to know what is going to be on that test and she will teach it. And Stephen's teacher will want Stephen to know what they are going to test, and that teacher will teach Stephen the information in that test. So what is tested will be taught. Why should we be concerned about that? Well, many people say these are controversial topics, and some of these articles we have here tonight talk about the fact that when the Federal Government, for example, proposed history standards, those history standards were not what you and I would think about history. They painted a grim and gloomy view of America, of American and western civilization, ignoring many of our heroes and accomplishments and emphasizing our failings. When the Federal Government proposed English and language art standards, they were so bad and considered such a muddle that the Clinton Department of Education threw them out. So the President came in and said, well, we will not test history, because that is subjective, and we will not test English and language, we will test math and science. Who can object to a uniform standard? How can my Arizonans oppose that? The sad truth is as Lynne Cheney detailed in an article in the Wall Street Journal on September 29, there are national experts who believe that we should never teach children simple mathematics skills. Indeed, the expert is a man by the name of Steven Leinwand. He sits on President Clinton's committee to do this. He says, it is downright dangerous to teach children mathematics skills. He wants to test my child on a national test so I can compare my children's performance to those of the children in New Jersey, but he says we should not teach them basic math skills. This is a battle which is going forward soon. Lynne Cheney wrote another article, ``The Latest Education Disaster, Whole Math.'' That is the kind of math where you do not teach children math skills such as addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division. Marianne Jennings wrote an article, ``MTV Math Doesn't Add Up,'' pointing out how bad this is. National testing is a potential disaster for the Nation because it would set one standard driven by the Federal Department of Education, and it is a standard that I think we ought to all be concerned about. I trust the people in Arizona, the Arizona education department, and the experts at my children's school board to make the right decisions about what we need to learn. National testing is scary and dangerous. I urge America to listen up to this debate, and to join us in opposing the President, who may have a well-intended idea but an idea which would be disastrous.

Mr. SHADEGG

Mr. SHADEGG. Well, it would be downright dangerous not to teach them 6 times 7 is 42. But Mr. Leinwand goes on, according to this article by Lynn Cheney, and says we should not teach students basic computational skills, addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division, because it will anoint the few who master those skills and cast out the many who do not. This is a national expert who would be in charge of writing this test saying we should not teach children those skills. I was so shocked at his essay saying those things that I asked my staff to go get a copy of the essay, and it is right here. In fact, Mr. Leinwand says, ``We should be beyond teaching children basic mathematics skills. That is, in fact, a bad idea.'' Indeed, he is not alone on this effort. There is a National Association of Mathematics teachers who says specifically we should not teach children certain knowledge and skills such as whole number computation. And what is their reason? Because it will make them feel bad. What does that have to do with national testing? Why would we not want national testing? The short and clear answer is, if we let people like Mr. Leinwand write a national test which tests kids on thinking or some other theory but does not find out if they can add or subtract or multiply or divide, we are going to create a national disaster across this country. Mr. Speaker, I know that time is short.

Mr. SHADEGG

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. SHADEGG

Mr. SHADEGG. If the gentleman will yield, I just want to conclude what we talked about the last hour. I applaud the gentleman for going into those other areas and pointing out that it is not just the one example that I chose of math, which is what the President is proposing, math and science, but indeed in other areas it goes into far more subjective subjects, far more invasive and intrusive questions, but importantly, as the gentleman pointed out, those invasions, those abuses, those trends occur at the States level where we have a chance to deal with them. I just want to conclude this hour, or the hour and now 5 minutes we picked up, by saying I hope that our colleagues listening realize that it is not that we do not care about the education of our children. I know the gentleman has young children both in high school, grade school and in college, I guess, and I have mentioned earlier in the hour I have young children. I care very much about their education. And as I said, I resent it when the other side says Republicans do not care about education or Republicans do not care about public education. I care deeply about public education. And as I said, I went all the way through public education myself and both my children are in public education. I hope that those listening understand that we can deeply believe in education, we can deeply believe in public education, and we can be very concerned and very, very much opposed to national testing, a sound-good motherhood and apple pie idea, because of the dangerous consequences. What the gentleman said is exactly right. If we have tests written in Fort Wayne, Indiana, or in Phoenix, Arizona, or wherever it might be, we can deal with the problems that might creep into those. But if they are written in Washington, D.C., in a mindless bureaucracy which is hard to penetrate and where, quite frankly, only the views of the most deeply imbedded, entrenched educational bureaucracy are heard, I think we will lose control of our kids' education. I do want to point out that this is a critical issue; that it is in a conference report. There are members in the United States Senate mentioned in Lynne Cheney's article who are fighting against the Senate position on this issue, who agree with us that as good sounding as national testing is, it is, in fact, bad for education in America. And I would urge our colleagues to talk with their friends on the other side and try to get them to accede to the House position on this issue and let us study this issue further and make sure we do not write a national test. I also want to point out that having read Lynne Cheney's column, which mentioned Steven Leinwand, I wanted to find his actual article. I have the actual article and it does in fact say it is time to acknowledge that continuing to teach pencil and paper computational algorithms to our students is not only unnecessary but counterproductive and dangerous. He goes on to say that learning long division and its computational cousins, meaning subtraction and multiplication, is an obsolete notion. These are rather shocking notions that are written here. I also wanted to point out that several times in my remarks I talked about mathematics association with which Mr. Leinwand is associated and it is called the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, and they have already written a national assessment which has reduced the math portion of the exam where we do computational skills by 20 percent already. These are not us talking about crazy ideas that some individual extreme person has. These are trendy ideas that are catching on across America and could be dangerous if they in fact take hold and are embodied into a single national test.

Mr. SHADEGG

Mr. SHADEGG. They would be revealing this information, answering these questions about themselves to be handed over to the school and for the school to use for whatever purpose they chose?

Mr. SHADEGG. These questions are put to the student who answers this?

Mr. SHADEGG. I just want to clarify, you are going to read to us from a survey given to students at a public school, not a religious or private or sectarian school, and administered by the school asking these questions of public school students; is that right?

Mr. SHADEGG. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, for just one moment, we really did get into this debate because there was an earlier debate where the advocates of national tests said, we will just do national tests. They never pointed out there are subjective areas where what you teach can vary rather dramatically. If you teach American history, you can have one view of it or another, and they can be radically different. So the President and others responded and said, we will not do subject areas like social studies or history. We will do the black and white, there is a right answer, there is a wrong answer, like math and science. And on the floor of the House here, in his State of the Union, the President proposed only to test math and science. I think the gentleman from Indiana is about to point out some of the outrageous things that are going on in the other areas. I just want to point out, even when you go to so-called objective subject areas like math and science, you discover that there are these radical trends which say two plus two is not four or you should not teach kids 6 times 7 is 42. And even what we think of as objective in the crazy world of the education bureaucracy has become itself subjective.

Mr. SHADEGG. For a moment, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me the House position is the right position. The House position, the idea of a one- size-fits-all national test is a bad one, and it is not bad because of who writes it. It is bad because of the implications of a single test. Letting parents, teachers, school advocates in my home State write our test I think is the right way to go. There are already many quote unquote national tests. The Iowa Basic Skills Test was given to my school all the time I was growing up. I think they are still given there now. I would be interested in hearing from the gentleman what is given in Indiana. But it is not as though we cannot compare performance from school to school or State to State. And indeed, if we want a non-Federal, that is a nongovernment written test that people could voluntarily choose to give to their children, that might have some value. But the problem in this debate and the concern I have is that we are going to surrender, in the spirit of doing good for our children, we are going to surrender the notion that that means we need a single national test. I heard my colleagues on the other side of the aisle tonight say, you cannot care about kids, you cannot support public education, you cannot believe in the process if you do not support national tests. They are wrong. I think every American in their gut that thinks about it knows that they are wrong. We cannot turn education in America over to the latest fad, as embodied either in the Department of Education or in a sham independent group. That is why I was compelled to come to the floor tonight and talk about this issue, so that the people back home in my district who are just kind of casually thinking about the idea of national standards would think it through one more step and recognize that a national test sets a national standard, and if that national standard is written in Washington, DC, many thousands of miles from my home in Phoenix, AZ, and at least 1,000 miles from your home in Indiana, I think they will recognize they would rather have input at the local level.

Mr. SHADEGG. Is the gentleman suggesting that this might have been just a political charade so it was not publicly vested in the Federal Department of Education, but the reality is that it would be the exact same?

Mr. SHADEGG. That is scary in and of itself. One of the proposals by the Senate was to give this test writing responsibility to an organization called the National Assessment Governing Board. The idea behind the Senate proposal is we will take it out of the Federal Department of Education, where trends in pop math or popular teaching and writing in the education field is most fervent, and we will put it in a more objective group that is not quite as subject to these trends or fads in education. And the problem with that, Ms. Cheney writes about it in this second article entitled ``Yes to High Standards, No to National Tests,'' a position paper written by Lynne Cheney, senior fellow, American Enterprise Institute, she says the problem with the Senate position is one of naivete; is it assumes that the Federal Department of Education is the only one subject to these national fads in education and that if we just take it away from them and give it to this new organization, the National Assessment Governing Board, that they will protect these national one-size-fits-all tests from fads and trends.

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to discuss a topic that has also been discussed earlier tonight, and that is the question of education. I cannot help but comment on my colleagues who were just here on the floor before me. In just a few moments of listening to them I heard one of them, a gentleman who was previously in the educational establishment, either a principal or a superintendent of a school district, say that he supports good education and therefore, supports a voluntary national testing program. It is, indeed, that subject that I want to talk about tonight, because it is a topic that is very close to me. I have back home in Arizona right now a 13-year-old daughter who is a freshman at Thunderbird High School in the Phoenix area, excuse me, a sophomore, and struggling to get through her education this year, and to try to get into the best school in terms of college that she can possibly get into. I have an 11-year-old son who is in grade school. Their education is vitally important to me, because I understand that in this global economy we are in, precisely how well they do in pursuing their education goals will determine in many ways to a great extent how well they do throughout the rest of their lives. There simply is no issue which is, at core, more important to me, and more important in a Nation where we are founded on the notion of universal public schools. I listened to my colleagues from the other side of the aisle talk about public schools and the importance of public schools, yet I have to tell the Members, there are a couple of things that I resent. I want to talk about those tonight. I resent it when my colleagues on the other side of the aisle allege that they are the only ones who care about education and the only ones who care about public education. I think it is wrong to cast those kinds of aspersions and make those kinds of value judgments, because some of us view this issue differently than they do. I was educated in public schools all the way through, never attended a day of private school in my entire life. Not from kindergarten through law school did I attend anything but public schools. My children are in public schools now. I believe very much in a quality public education. But just because I believe in that does not mean I have to accept their view of the world, or even the professional educators' view of the world or, as I like to call them, the educrats' view of the world or the Federal Department of Education's view of the world. Instead, I bring to this debate my own rational thought, my own experience about education, my own views about the importance of public education, but mostly about quality education; about challenging my daughter Courtney to do her best every day in school; and about challenging my son Stephen to do his best every day in school. I listened to the other side and they touched upon this issue of testing, national testing. That is a major topic that I want to talk about tonight. I want to talk about how some of us can believe and believe very strongly that as good and as apple pie and as motherhood and as all-American as national testing sounds, that we can look at our children and see how they are doing in Minnesota versus Arizona, as good as those things sound, in point of fact I believe and I believe deeply that national testing, if we mean by that federally dictated testing, tests written at the Federal Department of Education in Washington, D.C., thousands of miles from my home in Moon Valley, Arizona, if we mean by that a national testing written by a committee set up by this President, or for that matter any other President, if we mean one single uniform Federal test applied to every student in America, and we will judge every student in America by how they do on that test, I submit, it is not only bad, and a bad idea, it could be disastrous. That does not mean that I do not support education. What it means is that when I look at the idea of one Federal test, I recognize that we are placing all of our eggs in one basket. If that test is written badly, if that test is written, as I fear the test might be written, to test the current fads in education, the newest whole math or new math or the newest whole language or whole English, or some other popular fad within the education establishment, not only will the test not measure real performance by my children, by my daughter Courtney or my son Stephen, but instead, it will do massive damage, and damage to every boy and every girl in public and private school in America, at a time when in this global economy we cannot tolerate that. Why do I say that? How could just doing a national test, how could just having a national test, how could a national test which was voluntary, and my colleague pointed out that he could not understand, how could a national test that was voluntary be dangerous? How could it be a problem? I listened to him, and I think many people who view this issue from that standpoint are honest and genuine and sincere, and I can even understand their point. Instead, I get many of my colleagues back home, many of my friends back home, who say, well, explain to me what your concern is about national testing. Why is that such a bad idea? Why should we not have a single test to test the skills of our children across America, so we can look at how they do? Let me make a point here. I just had a friend move from Arizona to New Jersey this last year. His two boys, a little bit older than my children, are now in high school in New Jersey. He thinks they are being challenged more rigorously in New Jersey than they were in Arizona. So why should we not be able to test that? A few years ago I had a good friend who moved from Tucson, Arizona, to Maryland, not far from here, Potomac, Maryland. He felt his children were being challenged better at their new school than at their old school. So what can be wrong with national testing, particularly if it is voluntary? Let me explain that, for people who are listening and watching, and for my colleagues who care about this debate. The problem with national testing begins with the issue of what do tests do. Tests set a benchmark. They set, in and of themselves, an educational standard. They say, we are going to test these subjects and these matters, and if you want your students to do well, they had better know these subjects and these answers. They had better know what is going to be tested and how to answer those questions. What I am saying here is that my children's teachers, and indeed, I think my teachers and all teachers across America, to a certain degree in a very positive sense, teach to the test; that is, they understand what the students whose lives and whose education they have been entrusted with are going to be tested on, and so they want to be sure that they have that knowledge. If math is going to be tested, they will stress math. But then the question comes, what about math? What within math does the test test, because I need to make sure as a teacher that my students know those skills that will be tested? So I believe that one fact we have to begin to entertain a discussion of this topic of a national test is if we agree as a Nation to have a single Federal test, written in Washington, D.C. by the Federal Department of Education or by some consultant hired by the Department of Education, we need to understand that every conscientious teacher in America in public schools, in private schools, wherever, my children's teachers in the Washington Elementary School District in Phoenix, Arizona, will want to know what is in that test and will want to know what skills my children need to learn to do well on that test. And they should do that. My teachers must have taught me the skills that were going to be tested, because I was able to make it through my education through grade school and high school into college and on into law school. So someone taught me what was going to be tested on the test. So we should begin the debate by understanding that this voluntary testing program that my colleagues seem to think is such a great idea in fact is in itself setting a national standard. Now, you say, well, what is wrong with that? What is the problem with setting a national standard? In a minute I am going to talk about some of the substantive problems in setting a national standard, but first I want to deal with the issue of voluntary. How can it be a problem if this is voluntary? Congressman, how can it be a problem if we have national test, but you can choose or you cannot choose to have your students in your school or your school district school take that test? The answer is simple and straightforward. In education in America there are very, very few, a relatively small number of textbook writers. If we as a Nation establish a national test, that tests, for example, math and science, even if we leave out a national test on social studies or some other more controversial topics, then there will be math and science texts written all across America to teach what is on that national test. It is the marketplace. It is reality. So when the parents and the teachers in my school district, the Washington School District in Phoenix, Arizona, want to select a text, most of the texts they will have to choose from, most of the textbooks that they could give to my student, my child, or my son or my daughter in school in Phoenix, Arizona, will be texts, textbooks that are written to that national test. So voluntariness at that moment goes pretty much out the window, because we will have a national test, and we will understand that everyone in America is going to be judged on that, and the textbook writers will understand if kids need to learn to pass that test, they need to have a textbook that gives them those subject matters and teaches them the skills to pass that test. So the notion of, well, it is just voluntary, they can opt not to do it, turns out to be a ruse, a charade, not real, because every teacher in America first will want to teach to the test, because he or she will care about their students' performance. Teachers are genuine, caring, loving people who want their students to do best. So they will teach to that national test. But for a school that wants to opt out, they will feel have a limited choice, because virtually all of the textbooks will be written to that national test. Why is there then a problem with a national test? Here I want to turn to some experts who have greater experience and knowledge than I do. I have to tell you that when I entered this debate I was not sure that national tests were a bad idea. I had not thought through the idea of teachers teaching to the test. I had not thought through the idea of textbooks being written by the handful of textbook companies in America to that test. So I did not instantaneously say, this is a bad idea. As a matter of fact, I was much like most Americans who say, gee, what is wrong with a national test? As a matter of fact, I read a syndicated columnist today about how he had gotten into the cab in a major city, here in town, and the cab driver engaged him in a discussion of this issue of national tests. I think America is engaged in that debate. I think they are uncertain about this issue. That is why I wanted to talk about it tonight. Let me turn to the experts. One of the experts in field, someone I respect a lot, is a woman by the name of Lynn Cheney. Lynn Cheney is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, and her work in this area I think is very important for all Americans to read and understand, because this is an important issue to every American. What could be more important than our children's education? What debate is greater than this question about national tests? The President on the floor of this very House from that dais right there told America in his State of the Union this year that he was going to impose national, that is, federally-written, Washington, D.C. tests in math and science, and he called America to rally to that cause. I am standing here tonight saying, we ought not to rally to that cause. Let me make it clear why. Ms. Cheney in a recent article which appeared in the Wall Street Journal on September 29 addressed this issue. Her column is headed, ``A Failing Grade for Clinton's National Standards.'' Remember, national tests will set national standards. She begins her column by pointing out that, ``A consultant who sits on the President's committee overseeing the proposed national mathematics exam had written an essay, and in this essay, he explained his views of education.'' It turns out this consultant is not alone. His views are shared by apparently hundreds of mathematics teachers across America, because the test that he advocates he is also helping write for an association of math teachers across America. He is also a consultant to the education department of the State of Connecticut. His name is Stephen Leinwand. I do not know that that matters. But what he wrote in the essay, according to Ms. Cheney, was that it is downright dangerous to teach students things like 6 times 7 is 42. ``Put down the 2 and carry the 4.'' It is dangerous, he wrote in this essay, to teach children basic mathematical computational skills. Indeed, he goes on to articulate in this article that he does not think we should teach children any calculation skills that involve whole number computation. We have to say, why? Are we missing something here? The answer is straightforward. He writes if we teach children that 6 times 7 is 42, we will be, and I quote, ``anointing the few'', who master this skill, who learn that 6 times 7 is 42, and learn the rest of the multiplication tables or the division tables. He says we will be anointing the few who master these skills, and I quote, ``casting out the many.'' The bottom line in his view of the world is that we should not teach addition, subtraction, multiplication and division to the students in America, and since we should not teach it, he believes fervently and he advocates we should not test it. We should not teach and we should not test basic mathematical skills to our children in schools in America today because we will be sorting people out. That is, we will be anointing the few and rewarding those who get the answer right, and we will be casting out the many who fail. Well, I happen to disagree with his numbers right there because I think children in America, the vast majority, do learn the multiplication tables and addition, subtraction, and division, and so we are not anointing the few and casting out many, but we are learning to teach children that there are skills that they will need in their life. Mr. Leinwand goes on in his essay and explains why the committee on which he sits, a committee which is helping to write the proposed national test, recommends a national math exam that would avoid directly assessing certain knowledge and skills such as whole number computation, and that is a quote. So, he is anxious to test America and to have a national math test. He is on the President's committee to write this math test, but the test should not test basic knowledge and skills such as whole number computation, that is addition, subtraction, multiplication and division, because we will make children, to put it simply, feel bad. Mr. Leinwand thinks that is a bad idea. The school that Mr. Leinwand comes from is a whole math school or a new math school. There are other articles that talk about it. Lynne Cheney wrote in the Weekly Standard of August 4 in which she talks about the entire school in America of math teachers who believe that we must throw out computational skills and teach whole math and what is also called in different lingo, ``fuzzy math'' or ``new math.'' Some may believe that new math is the greatest thing in the world and may want their child taught that, but what I want to point out in discussing this issue is that the potential disaster here is a national one if we set a national test that all children must learn and pass. If the education establishment in Washington, DC, captures this idea, if the President succeeds in convincing Americans that, by gosh, if we care about our kids we must have a national test, and we write one test and it is fatally flawed because it tests not addition, multiplication, subtraction or division but tests only the newest fad in math, fuzzy math or new math, we will be forever condemning at least a generation of America's children to not learning the basic skills they need. Mr. Leinwand defends his stand saying, Listen, it is more important that kids be able to think their way through problems. I agree. I think kids ought to be able to think through problems. And he defends his position by saying everybody in America uses a calculator and they ought to be able to bring a calculator to school, do the calculations themselves. Mr. Speaker, that is a great idea, but I have had the experience of picking up a calculator and using it and looking at the answer and saying wait a minute, that answer is wrong. Sometimes the electronic devices that we rely upon go bad. Somebody spills their glass of water or something on the calculator and the answer we get is wrong. If students were never taught in school addition, subtraction, multiplication and division, then how are they going to have a gut feeling for what is right or wrong? That concern was expressed by a fellow Arizonian. Marianne Moody Jennings is a woman whom I admire in Arizona. I have never had the pleasure of meeting her, but she became interested in this issue as well. She wrote a column called ``MTV Math Does Not Add Up.'' She is, herself, a professor at Arizona State University. She is the director of the Lincoln Center for Applied Ethics at Arizona State University. Here is her experience with this issue. She has young children like I do. She said one evening she came home and her blood began to boil because she witnessed her daughter, who I am sure she was a grade school student, I do not know, was at home doing her math home work and she was using a calculator to compute 10 percent of 470. Think of it. Do we need a generation of Americans, do we need to decide in this Nation that basic math skills are so unimportant that for a task as 10 percent of 470 they need a calculator? And if we do, who at some point in the history of this world will know whether the calculators are right or wrong? Ms. Jennings became supremely upset about this and began to teach her daughter that she should learn those math skills herself and that the calculation of 10 percent of 470 should be one that she could do in her head in a nanosecond.

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, that is exactly right. Our children in America need these basic skills and they are vitally important. If we say to them, as this national math association proposes to say, and they already by the way have on their tests, those written by I think the National Association of Math Teachers, they have already decreased rather dramatically the amount that current tests used in schools across America test basic skills. But if we adopt a national test, an examination that does not test any or tests almost no basic skills, does not ask eighth graders if they can, without a calculator, add, subtract, divide, multiply basic calculations, we are condemning them to precisely what the gentleman points out. We are condemning an entire Nation to be taken advantage of. More importantly, we are putting ourselves at a huge disadvantage. But I want to make the point that this is not a debate about Bill Clinton and his test proposal. It is not a debate about Steven Leinwand. It is not a debate about whether we like or do not like the Federal Department of Education. It is not a debate about whether we like or do not like new math or whole English. That is not the issue. The issue here is a more fundamental one and it is nothing less than, to use a government term, Federalism. But Federalism is nothing more than the expression of belief in individuals to address and solve their own problems. What really is applied here is the proposition that the parents and the teachers and the administrators at the school down the street from my house, at Lookout Mountain Elementary where my son Stephen goes, or Thunderbird High where my daughter Courtney goes, that those parents and those teachers and those students and those administrators can do a better job of figuring out education at that school. And certainly the Arizona Department of Education, which gets somewhat involved in these issues, can do a better job of listening to the people of the Arizona and they can make those decisions for themselves. But I mention the word ``Federalism.'' I am not just against national standards because I do not like the Department of Education and I do like the people at my children's schools. I am not just against it because I do not trust Bill Clinton and I do trust the principal at Courtney's school and Stephen's schools. I am against it for a bigger reason and that is the whole notion of Federalism. It was a part of the genius of this Nation. It was if we had a Nation that was one Nation but made up of 50 different States as we have now come to be, and if we said that basic national policies, national defense, foreign trade, and trade between the States could be regulated by Congress and the Federal Government, but if we left the other decisions, for example decisions about the education of our children, to those 50 different States and to the little communities and localities within those States, the school board association in my neighborhood, then if one of those schools had a great idea, they could pursue that idea and maybe do a great job and it would be picked up in some other State. Or if one a bad idea, and I suggest Mr. Leinwand's idea in my view is a bad idea, and if the State of Connecticut wants to pay him to teach and write a test that does not test the eighth graders in Connecticut basic math skills, so be it. Maybe in 10 years, the Connecticut schools and the schoolchildren will be way ahead of the Arizona schools and schoolchildren on math. Maybe Mr. Leinwand is right; I suggest he is wrong. But think of it this way. If he is right, Arizona can choose to follow him. If he is wrong, and only Connecticut pursues his radical ideas, then only the children this Connecticut suffer. But if we embrace Bill Clinton's idea, and let us assume it was well-intended, let us assume that my colleagues who were here for the last hour who implored us to adopt a national standard because they think that will help kids, if we follow their lead and if Mr. Leinwand or his colleagues write a national math test which pursues whole math or new math or new new math, the catastrophe to education is not confined to Connecticut; it will spread across America because that national test will set a national standard. The national test and the national standard will be picked up by the textbooks across America and it will not matter if States voluntarily participate or if the people in Arizona choose not to participate voluntarily, opt out, because the only textbooks they will be able to get will be textbooks that teach that national standard. And that one- size-fits-all national standard which does not teach math computational skills as Mr. Leinwand wants it not to teach it and not to test it, and remember he is not only on the President's committee, but he is also on this National Association of Math Teachers committee which as an association has disavowed teaching basic math skills, we will have a disaster. The literature here is pretty clear. California has already pursued whole math and it has turned out to be, in the view of many teachers and parents in California, a disaster. And they have now tried to seize it back, and in many schools, school district by school district they are throwing out the new new math or the whole math and putting back in the basic math. As a matter of fact in one school district they have forbidden calculators in grades one through three because they want kids to learn the basic skills. But if we pursue a national standard. If the President wins this debate which will occur between the House and the Senate in the conference committee in the next few weeks, we do not have a problem in just Connecticut or just California, we will have a nationwide disaster. I want to point this out, because this issue is going to go to a conference committee. The Senate has adopted one position on this issue, the House has another position, and the President a third. The President's position is we should have a national standard written by the Federal Department of Education, a national test written by the Federal Department of Education and if there is a new fad in the Federal Department of Education by the bureaucrats and the ``educrats'' in there, that is fine. Put that fad in the test and we can change that later. It will be hard to change a single Federal standard. The Senate has taken a middle ground. The Senate's position is let us go ahead and have a national test, but let us pick an independent body to write that national test, that one-size-fits-all national test.