Search for...
Follow @ontheissuesorg
OnTheIssuesLogo

Lee Terry on Education

Republican Representative (NE-2)


Voted YES on reauthorizing the DC opportunity scholarship program.

Congressional Summary:The SOAR Act award five-year grants on a competitive basis to nonprofit organizations to carry out an expanded school choice opportunities to students who are District of Columbia residents and who come from households:
  1. receiving assistance under the supplemental nutrition assistance program; or
  2. with incomes not exceeding 185% of the poverty line.
Provides funds to the Mayor of DC, if the Mayor agrees to specified requirements, for:
  1. the DC public schools to improve public education, and
  2. the DC public charter schools to improve and expand quality public charter schools.

Proponent's Argument for voting Yes:
[Rep. Bishop, R-UT]: In 1996, Congress insisted upon a charter school program in DC. You will hear from both sides of the aisle recognition of the great value that that program has, and justifiably so. There is a waiting list in DC for those charter schools. This bill increases the percentage of funding going to charter schools in the District. In 2003, an Opportunity Scholarship was instituted, at the insistence of Congress. Again, there was a waiting list of people wanting the opportunity; disadvantaged kids who wanted the opportunity that this scholarship afforded them. There were 216 kids at the time scheduled to enter the program who were not allowed; the bill remedies that.

Opponent's Argument for voting No:
[Rep. Hastings, D-FL]: In the last 41 years voters have rejected private school vouchers every time they have been proposed. In 1981, 89% of the people in a referendum in DC voted against vouchers. So how dare we come here to tell these people that we are going to thrust upon them something they don't want without a single public official in this community being consulted. Congress' oversight of the District is not an excuse for political pandering to the Republicans' special interest of the day du jour.

Reference: Scholarships for Opportunity and Results Act (SOAR); Bill HRes186 ; vote number 11-HV200 on Mar 30, 2011

Voted NO on $40B for green public schools.

Congressional Summary:Make grants to states for the modernization, renovation, or repair of public schools, including early learning facilities and charter schools, to make them safe, healthy, high-performing, and technologically up-to-date.

Proponent's argument to vote Yes: Rep. BETSY MARKEY (D, CO-4): This legislation will improve the learning environment for our children, reduce energy costs and create new jobs across the country. Green schools not only save school districts money but also teach the importance of sustainable living to children at a young age.

Opponent's argument to vote No: Rep. GLENN THOMPSON (R, PA-5): We all know our Nation is drowning in a sea of red ink. The bill we're debating today would add an estimated $40 billion in new spending. And despite the majority's hollow promises of fiscal responsibility, there's nothing in the legislation to offset this hefty price tag with spending reductions elsewhere. This is just more of the same borrow and spend, spend and borrow policy that we've seen under this majority and this administration.

Reference: 21st Century Green Schools Act; Bill H.R.2187 ; vote number 2009-H259 on May 14, 2009

Voted NO on additional $10.2B for federal education & HHS projects.

Veto override on the bill, the American Competitiveness Scholarship Act, the omnibus appropriations bill for the Departments of Departments of Education, Health & Human Services, and Labor. Original bill passed & was then vetoed by the President.

Proponents support voting YES because:

Rep. OBEY: This bill, more than any other, determines how willing we are to make the investment necessary to assure the future strength of this country and its working families. The President has chosen to cut the investments in this bill by more than $7.5 billion in real terms. This bill rejects most of those cuts.

Opponents recommend voting NO because:

Rep. LEWIS: This bill reflects a fundamental difference in opinion on the level of funding necessary to support the Federal Government's role in education, health and workforce programs. The bill is $10.2 billion over the President's budget request. While many of these programs are popular on both sides of the aisle, this bill contains what can rightly be considered lower priority & duplicative programs. For example, this legislation continues three different programs that deal with violence prevention. An omnibus bill is absolutely the wrong and fiscally reckless approach to completing this year's work. It would negate any semblance of fiscal discipline demonstrated by this body in recent years.

Veto message from President Bush:

This bill spends too much. It exceeds [by $10.2 billion] the reasonable and responsible levels for discretionary spending that I proposed to balance the budget by 2012. This bill continues to fund 56 programs that I proposed to terminate because they are duplicative, narrowly focused, or not producing results. This bill does not sufficiently fund programs that are delivering positive outcomes. This bill has too many earmarks--more than 2,200 earmarks totaling nearly $1 billion. I urge the Congress to send me a fiscally responsible bill that sets priorities.

Reference: American Competitiveness Scholarship Act; Bill Veto override on H.R. 3043 ; vote number 2007-1122 on Nov 15, 2007

Voted NO on allowing Courts to decide on "God" in Pledge of Allegiance.

Amendment to preserve the authority of the US Supreme Court to decide any question pertaining to the Pledge of Allegiance. The bill underlying this amendment would disallow any federal courts from hearing cases concerning the Pledge of Allegiance. This amendment would make an exception for the Supreme Court.

Proponents support voting YES because:

I believe that our Pledge of Allegiance with its use of the phrase "under God" is entirely consistent with our Nation's cultural and historic traditions. I also believe that the Court holding that use of this phrase is unconstitutional is wrong. But this court-stripping bill is not necessary. This legislation would bar a Federal court, including the Supreme Court, from reviewing any claim that challenges the recitation of the Pledge on first amendment grounds.

If we are a Nation of laws, we must be committed to allowing courts to decide what the law is. This bill is unnecessary and probably unconstitutional. It would contradict the principle of Marbury v. Madison, intrude on the principles of separation of powers, and degrade our independent Federal judiciary.

Opponents support voting NO because:

I was disappointed 4 years ago when two judges of the Ninth US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that our Pledge, our statement of shared national values, was somehow unconstitutional. I do not take legislation that removes an issue from the jurisdiction of this court system lightly. This legislation is appropriate, however, because of the egregious conduct of the courts in dealing with the Pledge of Allegiance.

By striking "under God" from the Pledge, the Court has shown contempt for the Congress which approved the language, and, more importantly, shows a complete disregard for the millions of Americans who proudly recite the Pledge as a statement of our shared national values and aspirations. No one is required to recite the Pledge if they disagree with its message.

Reference: Watt amendment to Pledge Protection Act; Bill H R 2389 ; vote number 2006-384 on Jul 19, 2006

Voted NO on $84 million in grants for Black and Hispanic colleges.

This vote is on a substitute bill (which means an amendment which replaces the entire text of the original bill). Voting YES means support for the key differences from the original bill: lowering student loan interest rates; $59 million for a new Predominantly Black Serving Institution program; $25 million for a new graduate Hispanic Serving Institution program; provide for year- round Pell grants; and repeal the Single Lender rule. The substitute's proponents say:
  • The original bill has some critical shortcomings. First and foremost, this substitute will cut the new Pell Grant fixed interest rate in half from 6.8% to 3.4%, to reduce college costs to those students most in need.
  • It would also establish a new predominantly black-serving institutions programs to boost college participation rates for low-income black students, and a new graduate Hispanic-serving institution program.
  • As we saw from 1995 to 2000, the questions employers were asking was not your race, not your ethnicity, not your religion, they wanted to know if you had the skills and talents to do the job. Most often today, those skills and that talent requires a higher education. A college education is going to have to become as common as a high school education.
    Reference: Reverse the Raid on Student Aid Act; Bill HR 609 Amendment 772 ; vote number 2006-080 on Mar 30, 2006

    Voted YES on allowing school prayer during the War on Terror.

    Children's Prayers Resolution: Expressing the sense of Congress that schools should allow children time to pray for, or silently reflect upon, the country during the war against terrorism.
    Reference: Bill sponsored by Isakson, R-GA; Bill H.Con.Res.239 ; vote number 2001-445 on Nov 15, 2001

    Voted YES on requiring states to test students.

    No Child Left Behind Act of 2001: Vote to pass a bill that would authorize $22.8 billion in education funding, a 29 percent increase from fiscal 2001. The bill would require states to test students to track progress.
    Reference: Bill sponsored by Boehner R-OH; Bill HR 1 ; vote number 2001-145 on May 23, 2001

    Supports requiring schools to allow prayer.

    Terry co-sponsored a bill requiring schools to allow voluntary prayer:

    H.R.1, S.73:

    No DOE funds shall be available to any educational agency which prevents participation in constitutionally protected prayer in public schools by individuals on a voluntary basis. No educational agency shall require any person to participate in prayer or influence the form or content of any constitutionally protected prayer in such public schools.
    H.Con.Res.199 (Nov 19, 1999, Bonilla et. al.)
    Expressing the sense of the Congress that prayers and invocations at public school sporting events contribute to the moral foundation of our Nation and urging the Supreme Court to uphold their constitutionality.
    H.J.RES. 54
    Recognizing the authority of public schools to allow students to exercise their constitutional rights by establishing a period of time for silent prayer or meditation or reflection, encouraging the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance, and refusing to discriminate against individuals or groups on account of their religious character or speech.
    Source: H.R.1 01-HR1 on Jan 31, 2001

    Tax deductions for private scholarships to public schools.

    Terry co-sponsored for tax deduction for private scholarships to public schools

    OFFICIAL CONGRESSIONAL SUMMARY: To allow an income tax credit for amounts contributed to charitable organizations which provide elementary or secondary school scholarships and for contributions for instructional materials and materials for extracurricular activities.

    SPONSOR'S INTRODUCTORY REMARKS: Rep. PAUL: This act, a companion to my Family Education Freedom Act, takes a further step toward returning control over education resources to private citizens by providing a $3,000 tax credit for donations to scholarship funds to enable low-income children to attend private schools. It also encourages private citizens to devote more of their resources to helping public schools, by providing a $3,000 tax credit for cash or in-kind donations to public schools to support academic or extra curricular programs.

    Many of those who share my belief that the most effective education reform is to put parents back in charge of the education system have embraced government-funded voucher programs as a means to that end. I certainly sympathize with the goals of voucher proponents, but supporters of parental control of education should view Federal voucher programs with a high degree of skepticism because vouchers are a creation of the government, not the market. Vouchers are a taxpayer-funded program benefiting a particular group of children selected by politicians and bureaucrats. Therefore, the Federal voucher program supported by many conservatives is little more than another tax-funded welfare program establishing an entitlement to a private school education. Vouchers thus raise the same constitutional and moral questions as other transfer programs. A superior way of improving education is to return control of the education dollar directly to the American people through tax cuts and tax credits.

    LEGISLATIVE OUTCOME:Referred to House Committee on Ways and Means; never came to a vote.

    Source: Education Improvement Tax Cut Act (H.R.611) 03-HR0611 on Feb 5, 2003

    Rated 18% by the NEA, indicating anti-public education votes.

    Terry scores 18% by the NEA on public education issues

    The National Education Association has a long, proud history as the nation's leading organization committed to advancing the cause of public education. Founded in 1857 "to elevate the character and advance the interests of the profession of teaching and to promote the cause of popular education in the United States," the NEA has remained constant in its commitment to its original mission as evidenced by the current mission statement:

    To fulfill the promise of a democratic society, the National Education Association shall promote the cause of quality public education and advance the profession of education; expand the rights and further the interest of educational employees; and advocate human, civil, and economic rights for all.
    In pursuing its mission, the NEA has determined that it will focus the energy and resources of its 2.7 million members toward the "promotion of public confidence in public education." The ratings are based on the votes the organization considered most important; the numbers reflect the percentage of time the representative voted the organization's preferred position.
    Source: NEA website 03n-NEA on Dec 31, 2003

    Denounce the Common Core State Standards.

    Terry co-sponsored Resolution against Common Core

    Congressional summary:: Strongly denouncing the President's coercion of States into adopting the Common Core State Standards by conferring preferences in Federal grants:

      Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that--
    1. States and local educational agencies should maintain the right and responsibility of determining educational curricula;
    2. the Federal Government should not incentivize the adoption of common education standards; and
    3. no application process for any Federal grant funds should provide any preference for the adoption of the Common Core State Standards.

      Opponent's argument against (CoreStandards.org): The Common Core State Standards provide a consistent, clear understanding of what students are expected to learn, so teachers and parents know what they need to do to help them. 45 states have adopted the Common Core State Standards [not adopted in TX, NE, AK, MN, and VA]. The nation's governors and education commissioners, through their representative organizations the National Governors Association (NGA) and the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) led the development of the Common Core State Standards and continue to lead the initiative. Teachers, parents, school administrators and experts from across the country together with state leaders provided input into the development of the standards.

      Source: HRes.476 & SRes.345 14-HR0476 on Feb 11, 2014

      2012 Governor, House and Senate candidates on Education: Lee Terry on other issues:
      NE Gubernatorial:
      Dave Heineman
      Jon Bruning
      Peter Ricketts
      NE Senatorial:
      Dave Domina
      Deb Fischer
      Shane Osborn

      Left 113th Congress, 2013-2014:
      AL-1: Jo Bonner(R,resigned)
      FL-13:Bill Young(R,deceased)
      FL-19:Trey Radel(R,arrested)
      IL-2: Jesse L. Jackson(D,convicted)
      LA-5: Rodney Alexander(R,resigned)
      MA-5: Ed Markey(D,elected)
      MO-8: Jo Ann Emerson(R,resigned)
      NC-12:Mel Watt(D,appointed)
      NJ-1: Rob Andrews(D,investigated)
      SC-1: Tim Scott(R,appointed)

      Newly-elected special elections 2013-2014:
      AL-1: Bradley Byrne(R)
      FL-13:David Jolly(R)
      FL-19:Curt Clawson(R)
      IL-2: Robin Kelly(D)
      LA-5: Vance McAllister(R)
      MA-5: Katherine Clark(D)
      MO-8: Jason Smith(R)
      NC-12: Pending Jul.15
      NJ-1: Pending Nov.4
      SC-1: Mark Sanford(R)
      Won primary 2014:
      TX-4: John Ratcliffe(R)
      VA-7: Dave Brat(R)

      Retiring to run for Senate in 2014:
      AR-4: Tom Cotton(R)
      CO-4: Cory Gardner(R)
      GA-1: Jack Kingston(R)
      GA-10:Paul Broun(R)
      GA-11:Phil Gingrey(R)
      HI-1: Colleen Hanabusa(D)
      IA-1: Bruce Braley(D)
      LA-6: Bill Cassidy(R)
      MI-14:Gary Peters(D)
      MT-0: Steve Daines(R)
      OK-5: James Lankford(R)
      TX-36:Steve Stockman(R)
      WV-2: Shelley Moore Capito(R)

      Former Reps running for House in 2014:
      AL-5: Parker Griffith(R)
      CA-3: Doug Ose(R)
      GA-11:Bob Barr(R)
      CA-31:Joe Baca(D)
      IL-10:Bob Dold(R)
      IL-17:Bobby Schilling(R)
      MS-4: Gene Taylor(D)
      MT-0: Denny Rehberg(R)
      NH-1: Frank Guinta(R)
      NY-11:Vito Fossella(R)
      NY-18:Nan Hayworth(R)
      OH-7: John Boccieri(D)
      PA-13:Marjorie Margolies(D)
      TX-23:Francisco Canseco(R)
      Lost primary 2014:
      TX-4: Ralph Hall(R)
      VA-7: Eric Cantor(R)

      Retiring to run for State Office in 2014:
      AR-2: Tim Griffin(R)
      CA-35:Gloria McLeod(D)
      ME-2: Mike Michaud(D)
      PA-13:Allyson Schwartz(D)
      VI-0: Donna Christensen(D)

      Retiring effective Jan. 2015:
      AL-6: Spencer Bachus(R)
      AZ-7: Ed Pastor(D)
      CA-11:George Miller(D)
      CA-25:Howard McKeon(R)
      CA-31:Gary Miller(R)
      CA-33:Henry Waxman(D)
      CA-45:John Campbell(R)
      IA-3: Tom Latham(R)
      MI-4: Dave Camp(R)
      MI-6: Tom Petri(R)
      MI-12:John Dingell(D)
      MN-6: Michele Bachmann(R)
      NC-6: Howard Coble(R)
      NC-7: Mike McIntyre(D)
      NJ-3: Jon Runyan(R)
      NJ-12:Rush Holt(D)
      NY-4: Carolyn McCarthy(D)
      NY-21:Bill Owens(D)
      PA-6: Jim Gerlach(R)
      UT-4: Jim Matheson(D)
      VA-8: James Moran(D)
      VA-10:Frank Wolf(R)
      WA-4: Doc Hastings(R)
      Abortion
      Budget/Economy
      Civil Rights
      Corporations
      Crime
      Drugs
      Education
      Energy/Oil
      Environment
      Families/Children
      Foreign Policy
      Free Trade
      Govt. Reform
      Gun Control
      Health Care
      Homeland Security
      Immigration
      Infrastructure/Technology
      Jobs
      Principles/Values
      Social Security
      Tax Reform
      War/Iraq/Mideast
      Welfare/Poverty

      Main Page
      Wikipedia Profile
      Ballotpedia Profile
      NE politicians
      NE Archives

      Contact info:
      Fax Number:
      202-226-5452
      Mailing Address:
      Rayburn HOB 2331, Washington, DC 20515
      Phone number:
      (202) 225-4155

      Page last updated: Jul 21, 2014