I simply state the reason we do not have the authorization levels we should have on the ESEA is that we have not passed ESEA, and the reason we have not passed ESEA is that we have been unable to debate on this floor the issue of education. We have had debate on the issue of campaign finance, on the issue of guns, on the issue of prescription drugs, but not on the issue of education, which is too bad, because the bill out of committee was a good bill and, by the way, it did not demand the States do anything. It set up a set of options for the States which the States could then follow. They could choose to use portability, they could choose to use Straight A's or they could choose the present law. It gave the States total flexibility. The goal was to get the academic achievement of low-income kids up. That should be our goal as a Senate, and that was our goal when we reported out the bill.
Judd Gregg: “I simply state the reason we do not have the authorization levels we should have on the ESEA is that we have not passed…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the lack of debate on the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) in the Senate.
Share
More from Judd Gregg
We cannot continue to let health care costs rise faster than our National income.
But there is no question that if you are going to address this issue in a way that has substantive impact on the future of our Nation, the prosperity of our children, and our standard of living, it is the second 10 years, and the third 10…
A lot of that economic growth was driven by a bubble, and I don't really think we want to revisit that.
I think Dr. Rivlin is absolutely correct on both points, and Simpson-Bowles did the same thing that Domenici-Rivlin did, which was to actually increase benefits to single women over 85, and low-income individuals.