Peter Hoekstra on Education

Republican Representative (MI-2)

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.

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 NO 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

Rated 9% by the NEA, indicating anti-public education votes.

Hoekstra scores 9% 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

Support the goals and ideals of Charter Schools.

Hoekstra co-sponsored supporting the goals and ideals of Charter Schools

Whereas charter schools deliver high-quality education and challenge students to reach their potential;
Whereas charter schools provide thousands of families with diverse and innovative educational options for their children;
Whereas charter schools are public schools authorized by designated public entities to respond to the needs of communities, families, and students, and to promote the principles of quality, choice, and innovation;
Whereas, in exchange for the flexibility and autonomy given to charter schools, charter schools are held accountable by their sponsors for improving student achievement and for their finances and other operations;
Whereas 40 States and the District of Columbia have passed laws authorizing charter schools;
Whereas more than 4,000 charter schools operating across the United States serve more than 1,140,000 students;
Whereas, over the last 13 years, Congress has provided more than $2,026,225,000 in support to the charter school movement;
Whereas the eighth annual National Charter Schools Week, to be held April 30 through May 4, 2007, is an event sponsored by charter schools and grassroots charter school organizations across the United States to recognize the significant impacts, achievements, and innovations of charter schools:
Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate acknowledges and commends charter schools and students, parents, teachers, and administrators of charter schools across the United States for their ongoing contributions to education and improving and strengthening the public school system; and supports the goals and ideals of the eighth annual National Charter Schools Week.

Legislative Outcome: Related bills: H.RES.344, H.RES.1168, S.RES.556; agreed to in Senate, by Unanimous Consent. Source: S.RES.183 07-SR556 on May 1, 2007

Make employee educational assistance tax-deductible.

Hoekstra 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

Supports a Constitutional Amendment for school prayer.

Hoekstra co-sponsored a resolution for a School Prayer Amendment:

H.J.RES.52 (2001), H.J.RES.66 (1999), S.J.RES. 1, H.J.RES.12, H. J. RES. 108, & H. J. RES. 55:

Nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to prohibit individual or group prayer in public schools or other public institutions. No person shall be required by the United States or by any State to participate in prayer . Neither the United States nor any State shall compose the words of any prayer to be said in public schools.

H. J. RES. 78 (1997):

To secure the people's right to acknowledge God according to the dictates of conscience: Neither the United States nor any State shall establish any official religion, but the people's right to pray and to recognize their religious beliefs, heritage, or traditions on public property, including schools, shall not be infringed. Neither the United States nor any State shall require any person to join in prayer or other religious activity, prescribe school prayers, discriminate against religion, or deny equal access to a benefit on account of religion.

H.J.RES.52, School Prayer Amendment, 6/13/2001 (Murtha)
H.J.RES.12, School Prayer Amendment, 2/7/2001 (Emerson)
S.J.RES.1, School Prayer Amendment, 1/22/2001 (Thurmond)
H.J.RES.108, Voluntary School Prayer Amendment, 9/21/2000 (Graham)
H.J.RES.55, Voluntary School Prayer Amendment, 2/13/1997 (Stearnes, Hall, Watts)
H.J.RES.78, Amendment Restoring Religious Freedom, 5/8/1997 (Istook, et. al.)

Source: H.J.Res.78 97-HJR78 on May 8, 1997

Click here for definitions & background information on Education. Click here for a profile of Peter Hoekstra. Click here for HouseMatch answers by Peter Hoekstra. Agree? Disagree? Voice your opinions on Education in The Forum. Click here for a summary of Peter Hoekstra's positions on all issues. Click here for issue positions of other MI politicians.
*2010 Governor, House and Senate candidates on Education:*		*Peter Hoekstra on other issues:*
*MI Gubernatorial:* Jennifer Granholm *MI Senatorial:* Carl Levin Debbie Stabenow Special elections in 111th Congress: GA-9:Deal(R) Jun.2010:Graves(R) PA-12:Murtha(D) May 2010:Critz(D) HI-1:Abercrombie(D) May 2010:Djou(R) FL-19:Wexler(D) Apr.2010:Deutch(D) CA-10:Tauscher(D) Nov.2009:Garamendi(D) NY-20:McHugh(R) Nov.2009:Owens(D) CA-32:Solis(D) Jul.2009:Chu(D) IL-5:Emanuel(D) Apr.2009:Quigley(D) NY-20:Gillibrand(D) Mar.2009:Murphy(D)	*Senate races in 2010:* AK:Miller(R) vs.McAdams(D) AL:Shelby(R) vs.Barnes(D) AR:Lincoln(D) vs.Boozman(R) AZ:McCain(R) vs.Glassman(D) CA:Boxer(D) vs.Fiorina(R) vs.Lightfoot(L) CO:Bennet(D) vs.Buck(R) CT:Blumenthal(D) vs.McMahon(R) DE:Coons(D) vs.Castle(R) vs.O`Donnell(R) FL:Rubio(R) vs.Crist(I) vs.Meek(D) vs.DeCastro(C) vs.Snitker(L) vs.Bradley(V) GA:Isakson(R) vs.Thurmond(D) HI:Inouye(D) vs.Cavasso(R) IA:Grassley(R) vs.Conlin(D) ID:Crapo(R) vs.Sullivan(D) IL:Giannoulias(D) vs.Kirk(R) IN:Ellsworth(D) vs.Coats(R) KS:Johnston(D) vs.Moran(R) KY:Conway(D) vs.Paul(R) LA:Vitter(R) vs.Melancon(D) MO:Carnahan(R) vs.Blunt(D) MD:Mikulski(D) vs.Wargotz(R) NC:Burr(R) vs.Marshall(D) ND:Potter(D) vs.Hoeven(R) NH:Alciere(R) vs.Ayotte(R) vs.Hodes(D) NV:Reid(D) vs.Angle(R) NY6:Schumer(D) vs.Townsend(R) NY2:Gillibrand(D) vs.DioGuardi(R) OH:Fisher(R) vs.Portman(D) vs.Deaton(C) OK:Coburn(R) vs.Myles(D) OR:Wyden(D) vs.Huffman(R) PA:Toomey(R) vs.Sestak(D) SC:DeMint(R) vs.Greene(D) SD:Thune(R) vs.Berry(D) UT:Lee(R) vs.Granato(D) VT:Leahy(D) vs.Freilich(D) WA:Murray(D) vs.Rossi(R) WI:Feingold(D) vs.Johnson(D) WV:Manchin(D) vs.Raese(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 Profile MI politicians

Page last updated: Sep 16, 2010