OnTheIssuesLogo

Mark Udall on Education

Democratic Representative (CO-2)

 


More money for government-run college aid programs

When asked about the cost of higher education, Udall said he supported government-run college aid programs and said they should be given more money.

Schaffer opposes such programs and said he would fight for more lenders, which would generate competition for lower rates. He warned the collapse of mortgage lenders Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac could also happen to the federal loan system.

Source: 2008 Colorado Senate Debate reported on ABC7-Denver Channel , Oct 17, 2008

Invest in science & technology education

Q: What role do you think the federal government should play in science and technology education?

A: I have worked to increase student opportunities in math and science, increase the number and quality of math and science teachers, and help improve science facilities in our schools. I believe that a nation that invests in educating its students in science, technology, engineering, & math (STEM) subjects will see a return in economic prosperity and global leadership. This must be a national priority

Source: 2008 Senate questionnaire by SEA & 18 science organizations , Sep 9, 2008

Good public education is key to children’s economic future

A strong education system is critical to the survival of our democracy. For most children in Colorado, a good public education is the key to their economic future. The country as a whole also relies on a strong education system to stay competitive in the global market, to remain the world leader in scientific and technological innovation, and to address many of our social and economic challenges.
Source: 2008 Senate campaign website, www.markudall.com, “Issues” , Mar 2, 2008

Voted YES 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 YES 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 YES 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 NO 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

    Reduce class size to 18 children in grades 1 to 3.

    Udall co-sponsored an amendment to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act:

      Amends the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to establish a grants program to:

    1. recruit, train, and hire 100,000 additional teachers over a seven-year period ;

    2. reduce class sizes nationally, in grades one through three, to an average of 18 students per classroom; and

    3. improve teaching in the early grades so that all students can learn to read independently and well by the end of the third grade.
    Source: House Resolution Sponsorship 01-HR1036 on Mar 14, 2001

    Rated 80% by the NEA, indicating pro-public education votes.

    Udall scores 80% 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

    Sponsored bill: elementary school professional development.

    Udall sponsored S.3658

      A bill to provide professional development for elementary school principals in early childhood education and development. Authorize the Secretary of Education to award competitive grants to partnerships to:
    1. provide high quality professional development to elementary school principals in early childhood education and development;
    2. gain a knowledge base and capacity to provide high quality early childhood education; and
    3. collaborate with early childhood education providers, services providers, and families in creating a continuum of high quality development and learning for children in the community and school settings.
      Directs the Secretary to establish a panel of leading experts in elementary and early childhood education to:
    1. identify the best practices in professional development for elementary school principals in early childhood education;
    2. review the effective coordination of such training among this Act's grantees; and
    3. disseminate the latest research and findings regarding such training.
    Source: Elementary and Secondary Education Act Amendment 10-S3658 on Jul 27, 2010

    Don't count combat pay against free school lunch.

    Udall signed Military Family Nutrition Protection Act

    A bill to amend the National School Lunch Act and the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 to require the exclusion of combat pay from income for purposes of determining eligibility for child nutrition programs and the special supplemental nutrition program for women, infants, and children.

    Source: S.581 2009-S581 on Mar 12, 2009

    Other candidates on Education: Mark Udall on other issues:
    CO Gubernatorial:
    Bob Beauprez
    John Hickenlooper
    Matthew Hess
    Tom Tancredo
    CO Senatorial:
    Amy Stephens
    Cory Gardner
    Ken Buck
    Owen Hill
    Randy Baumgardner

    CO politicians
    CO Archives

    Retiring in 2014 election:
    GA:Chambliss(R)
    IA:Harkin(D)
    MI:Levin(D)
    MT:Baucus(D)
    NE:Johanns(R)
    SD:Johnson(D)
    WV:Rockefeller(D)

    Retired as of Jan. 2013:
    AZ:Kyl(R)
    CT:Lieberman(D)
    HI:Akaka(D)
    ND:Conrad(D)
    NM:Bingaman(D)
    TX:Hutchison(R)
    VA:Webb(D)
    WI:Kohl(D)
    Senate races Nov. 2016:
    AK: Murkowski(R) vs.Begich(D) vs.Lamb(R) vs.Stevens(L)
    AL: Shelby(R) vs.Crumpton(D) vs.Bowman(R)
    AR: Boozman(R) vs.Eldridge(D) vs.Gilbert(L) vs.Beebe(D)
    AZ: McCain(R) vs.Ward(R) vs.Kirkpatrick(D) vs.Mealer(I)
    CA: Sanchez(D) vs.Harris(D) vs.Chavez(R) vs.Del Beccaro(R) vs.Sundheim(R) vs.Brannon(R)
    CO: Bennet(D) vs.Glenn(R) vs.Neville(R) vs.Frazier(R) vs.Keyser(R) vs.Littleton(R)
    CT: Blumenthal(D) vs.Kudlow(R) vs.Wolf(R) vs.Foley(R)
    FL: Jolly(R) vs.DeSantis(R) vs.Cantera(R) vs.Murphy(D) vs.Grayson(D) vs.Keith(D)
    GA: Isakson(R) vs.Nunn(D) vs.Barrow(D) vs.Grayson(R) vs.Buckley(L)
    HI: Schatz(D) vs.Cavasso(R)
    IA: Grassley(R) vs.Fiegen(D) vs.Hogg(D) vs.Krause(D) vs.Culver(D)
    ID: Crapo(R) vs.LaRocco(D) vs.Minnick(D) vs.Pro-Life(C)
    IL: Kirk(R) vs.Harris(D) vs.Zopp(D) vs.Duckworth(D)
    IN: Stutzman(R) vs.Hill(D) vs.Holcomb(R) vs.Young(R) vs.Bosma(R)
    KS: Moran(R) vs.Orman(I) vs.Wiesner(D) vs.Sebelius(D)
    KY: Paul(R) vs.Conway(D) vs.Chandler(D)
    LA: Fleming(R) vs.Boustany(R) vs.Maness(R) vs.Kennedy(D) vs.Cao(R) vs.McAllister(R)
    MD: Edwards(D) vs.Van Hollen(D) vs.Flowers(G) vs.Szeliga(R) vs.Douglas(R) vs.Steele(R)
    MO: Blunt(R) vs.Kander(D)
    NC: Burr(R) vs.Rey(D) vs.Ross(D) vs.Wright(R) vs.Hagan(D)
    ND: Hoeven(R) vs.Marquette(L)
    NH: Ayotte(R) vs.Hassan(D) vs.Rubens(R)
    NV: Cortez-Masto(D) vs.Heck(R) vs.Angle(R) vs.Beers(R)
    NY: Schumer(D) vs.King(R) vs.Long(R) vs.Gibson(R)
    OH: Portman(R) vs.Strickland(D) vs.Sittenfeld(D)
    OK: Lankford(R) vs.Johnson(D)
    OR: Wyden(D) vs.Stine(D) vs.Callahan(R)
    PA: Toomey(R) vs.Stern(R) vs.Sestak(D) vs.McGinty(D) vs.Fetterman(D)
    SC: Scott(R) vs.Dickerson(D)
    SD: Thune(R) vs.Williams(D)
    UT: Lee(R) vs.Swinton(D)
    VT: Leahy(D)
    WA: Murray(D) vs.Vance(R)
    WI: Johnson(R) vs.Feingold(D) vs.Lorge(R)
    Abortion
    Budget/Economy
    Civil Rights
    Corporations
    Crime
    Drugs
    Education
    Energy/Oil
    Environment
    Families
    Foreign Policy
    Free Trade
    Govt. Reform
    Gun Control
    Health Care
    Homeland Security
    Immigration
    Jobs
    Principles
    Social Security
    Tax Reform
    Technology
    War/Peace
    Welfare

    Other Senators
    Senate Votes (analysis)
    Bill Sponsorships
    Affiliations
    Policy Reports
    Group Ratings

    Contact info:
    Email Contact Form
    Fax Number:
    202-224-6471
    Mailing Address:
    Senate Office SH-317, Washington, DC 20510





    Page last updated: Apr 28, 2016