|
Jerry Lewis on Education
Republican Representative (CA-41)
|
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: - receiving assistance under the supplemental nutrition assistance program; or
- with incomes not exceeding 185% of the poverty line.
Provides funds to the Mayor of DC, if the Mayor agrees to specified requirements, for: - the DC public schools to improve public education, and
- 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. The substitute's opponents say: - I feel it is not totally the Federal Government's responsibility to provide for all of higher education. The substitute has three critical flaws.
- 1.The name itself, "Reverse the Raid on Student Aid." Don't believe the hype. Not one student in America will receive less financial aid under our bill. Not one.
- 2. This amendment does not retain the $6,000 maximum Pell Grant award that our legislation has. In fact, they stay with the same old $5,800 maximum award.
- 3. It says that we are going to have a 3.4% interest rate for 1 year that is going to cost $2.7 billion, but it has no offsets whatsoever. How do they pay for it? They don't tell us.
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
Voted YES on allowing vouchers in DC schools.
Vote to create a non-profit corporation to administer federally-funded vouchers for low-income children in the District of Columbia.
Reference: Amendment introduced by Armey, R-TX;
Bill HR 4380
; vote number 1998-411
on Aug 6, 1998
Voted YES on vouchers for private & parochial schools.
Vote to pass a bill to allow states to use certain federal funds designated for elementary and secondary education to provide scholarships, or vouchers, to low-income families to send their children to private schools, including religious schools.
Reference: Bill sponsored by Riggs, R-CA;
Bill HR 2746
; vote number 1997-569
on Nov 4, 1997
Voted YES on giving federal aid only to schools allowing voluntary prayer.
Motion to add language to the "Goals 2000: Educate America Act" to give federal aid only to schools allowing voluntary prayer.
Bill HR 1804
; vote number 1994-85
on Mar 23, 1994
Let schools display the words "God Bless America".
Lewis co-sponsored a Congressional Resolution on support for the Nation:
Title: Expressing the sense of the Congress that public schools may display the words "God Bless America" as an expression of support for the Nation.
Source: House Resolution Sponsorship 01-HCR248 on Oct 12, 2001
Focus educational resources to help those with greatest need.
Lewis adopted the Republican Main Street Partnership agenda item:
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) helps to fulfill the most basic mission of federal education programs—equal opportunity for all children. To help improve the federal role in education, the Republican Main Street Partnership has identified the following areas that should receive priority during the reauthorization of IDEA:
- Focus resources to help those with the greatest need, particularly the disadvantaged and disabled
- Target Title I funds, those specifically designed to aid disadvantaged students, to students with the greatest need
- Although Title I funds are already allocated according to population and poverty, more funds must be targeted to our neediest schools. We propose funding, for the first time, grants that send at least a portion of Title I funds solely on the basis of need.
- Increase the maximum award under Pell Grants to help first-generation & low-income students continue their education
- Increase the maximum award for students
from low-income families to restore the balance between grants and loans, particularly among those with the greatest need.
- Continue efforts to increase federal funding for IDEA to help states and locals offset the cost of providing a ëfree appropriate public educationí for students with special needs
- Move federal funding toward its goal of providing up to 40 percent of the average cost of educating a disabled child.
- In addition, we need to better evaluate the effectiveness of this program and ensure that federal funds for IDEA—particularly in light of recent funding increases—are being targeted to our students with real learning disabilities.
- Finally and most important, any fiscal incentives must be examined to ensure that the overidentification of learning disabled students is prevented, and our efforts must focus on the regular evaluation of the program to ensure that our special needs children are truly being provided a "free appropriate public education."
Source: 2001 GOP Main Street Partnership Action Agenda for Education 01-RMSP2 on Jul 2, 2001
Require state standards, regular assessments, and sanctions.
Lewis adopted the Republican Main Street Partnership agenda item:
To help improve the federal role in education, the Republican Main Street Partnership has identified the following areas that should receive priority: - Require states to implement high standards of achievement in core subject areas, such as reading, math, writing, and science, for all students.
Nearly all states have established high standards for education content in reading, writing and math. To continue to be eligible for Title I funds, we must ensure that states meet these standards. - Require states to demonstrate success in raising the performance of all students -- from those who score below basic to those who are already proficient -- and narrowing the gap between disadvantaged students and their more advantaged peers.
Without regular assessments, we cannot determine how well students are achieving with respect to each state's performance goals. Although states are required to have assessments aligned with their content and performance
standards by the 2000-2001 school year, it now seems that no state will be approved in time. To continue to be eligible for Title I funds, states must continue to work toward this goal and waivers must be provided only for those who are making substantial progress toward the implementation of their aligned assessments. - Establish a meaningful system of rewards for schools that significantly increase student achievement and sanctions for those that fail.
Schools that consistently fail to make progress toward their stateís own performance goals, after assistance and opportunity to improve, must be sanctioned with corrective actions ranging from the reconstitution of the school staff to the authorization of students to transfer to another public school. Schools that meet or exceed their performance goals should receive monetary awards through a new grant program designed to reward achievement.
Source: 2001 GOP Main Street Partnership Action Agenda for Education 01-RMSP3 on Jul 2, 2001
Support Ed-Flex: more flexibility if more accountable.
Lewis adopted the Republican Main Street Partnership agenda item:
To help improve the federal role in education, the Republican Main Street Partnership has identified the following areas that should receive priority: - Provide flexibility in exchange for increased accountability.
- Encourage more states to take advantaged of the Education-Flexibility waiver to better align federal programs with state and local priorities.
- Currently, 15 states have Ed-Flex authority and, according to GAO reports, the waiver authority promotes a climate that encourages state and local educators to explore new approaches to education. Ultimately, the states must make the decision to apply for the waiver, but education leaders must encourage states and schools to be innovative in their approach to education improvement.
- Enact new legislation to give states the option to combine education programs and funding in exchange for demonstrated improvements in student achievement at all levels
- In exchange for new flexibility, a participating state would have to show how it would combine and use funds to advance education priorities, improve student achievement and narrow the learning gap. If, after three years, the state has failed to meet its own requirements, the flexibility authority would be terminated and administrative funds would be withheld.
Source: 2001 GOP Main Street Partnership Action Agenda for Education 01-RMSP4 on Jul 2, 2001
Rated 17% by the NEA, indicating anti-public education votes.
Lewis scores 17% 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
Make employee educational assistance tax-deductible.
Lewis co-sponsored making employee educational assistance tax-deductible
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to restore and make permanent the income tax exclusion of amounts paid under employer-provided educational assistance programs for employees.
Source: Employee Educational Assistance Act (H.R.127) 1993-H127 on Jan 5, 1993
Page last updated: Jun 11, 2012