Paul Ryan on Education
Republican nominee for Vice President; U.S. Rep. (WI-1)
Enacted in 2002, No Child Left Behind (NCLB) highlights greater parental involvement in education, targets more federal education resources to schools that need the most assistance, and increases accountability for our nation's schools. As a result of NCLB, the federal government is now spending far more money for elementary and secondary education than at any other time in American history. For these unprecedented levels of spending, I do not believe we are achieving the results that have been sought.
In an effort to reform NCLB and federal education policy, I have been a vocal supporter of the bipartisan A-PLUS Act. This initiative seeks to empower those in the best position to make curriculum decisions: parents, teachers, the school districts, and states.
Parents feel as though they must fight the prevailing images and values of American popular culture to raise their children as upright and responsible citizens. In many aspects of our society, morality has become relative, ethical behavior is now a mere technicality, and God has been pushed from the public realm with a fervor previously inconceivable.
We live in a nation in which it is permissible to burn the flag on public ground, but our courts of law have ruled it impermissible to pledge allegiance to that same flag in a public school. In short, we must replace moral squalor with both public decency and private civility.
Instead of solving the problem, schools are deflecting the mounting criticism by blaming the rising cost of health care and employee benefits, and reductions in state subsidies and endowments as a result of the recession. While these do represent contributing factors, college costs have risen at twice the rate of inflation for about 30 years.
Increased federal financial aid is simply being absorbed by tuition increases. While financial aid is intended to make college more affordable, there is growing evidence that it has had the opposite effect. The decisions of colleges to raise their prices would have been constrained if the federal government had not stepped in so often to subsidize rising tuitions.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
|2012 Governor, House and Senate candidates on Education:||Paul Ryan on other issues:|
Lame-duck session 2012:
KY-4: Thomas Massie(R)
NJ-9: Donald Payne Jr.(D)
WA-1: Suzan DelBene(D)
Re-seated Former Reps:
AZ-1: Ann Kirkpatrick(D)
AZ-5: Matt Salmon(R)
FL-8: Alan Grayson(D)
NH-1: Carol Shea-Porter(D)
NV-3: Dina Titus(D)
2013 Resignations and Replacements:
IL-2:Jesse Louis Jackson(D,resigned)
MO-8:Jo Ann Emerson(R,resigned)
AZ-9: Kyrsten Sinema
CA-2: Jared Huffman
CA-7: Ami Bera
CA-35:Gloria Negrete McLeod
CT-5: Elizabeth Esty
HI-2: Tulsi Gabbard
IL-8: Tammy Duckworth
MD-6: John Delaney
MA-4: Joe Kennedy III
MI-5: Dan Kildee
MN-8: Rick Nolan
NV-4: Steven Horsford
NH-2: Annie Kuster
NM-1: Michelle Lujan-Grisham
NY-5: Grace Meng
WA-6: Derek Kilmer
WI-2: Mark Pocan
AR-4: Tom Cotton
CA-1: Doug LaMalfa
FL-3: Ted Yoho
FL-6: Ron DeSantis
GA-9: Doug Collins
IN-2: Jackie Walorski
IN-5: Susan Brooks
IN-6: Luke Messer
KY-6: Andy Barr
MO-2: Ann Wagner
MT-0: Steve Daines
NC-8: Richard Hudson
NC-9: Robert Pittenger
ND-0: Kevin Cramer
OH-2: Brad Wenstrup
OK-1: Jim Bridenstine
OK-2: Markwayne Mullin
PA-4: Scott Perry
SC-7: Tom Rice
UT-2: Chris Stewart
Email Contact Form