Doggett, Perry and Their $830 Million Feud in Texas

Texas Tribune 2/14/11
Perry, Doggett and Their $830 Million Feud in Texas

(snip)
Tdispute between Perry and Doggett, D-Austin, began in August, when Congress passed legislation to give $10 billion in aid to allow states to hire and retain teachers. Tacked onto the law was a measure proposed by Doggett and supported by other Democrats — applicable only to Texas — that requires the governor to offer his assurance that the money will be used to “supplement and not supplant” state education financing through 2013.

(snip)
At issue is the Texas-only “maintenance of effort” clause. The clauses — intended to ensure that federal grant money goes to the programs it intends to support — are a common feature in applications for federal education dollars, according to the Department of Education’s brief to the Fifth Circuit. If the governor signed the application and the Legislature was later unable to fulfill his promise, it is unlikely that the state would face legal action from the federal government, said Tom Brandt, a Dallas lawyer who represents school districts and local governments.

(snip)
In response, the nine Democrats in the Texas delegation have written Perry asking for his cooperation in getting the money to Texas classrooms, noting that “repealing the amendment would only indicate that your desire is to use federal aid simply to replace state educational dollars as was done in 2009.”

(snip)
As for Doggett, in an e-mail to The Texas Tribune, he said: “Instead of running to the courtroom, the governor should focus on our classrooms, drop his phony legal excuses and sign a simple, 3-page application that would mean about $830 million for our Texas schools facing the dire consequences of a grossly mismanaged state budget.”

Dictionary.com definition
sup·plant

–verb (used with object)
1.
to take the place of (another), as through force, scheming, strategy, or the like.

Texas Tribune 2/14/11
Can Texas Lege Overrule Perry on Education Money?
(snip)
Gov. Rick Perry has said he won't sign an application to receive money from the federal government's $10 billion Education Jobs Fund because it requires him to make an assurance he cannot constitutionally make: that the Legislature will not use the money to offset state funding of public education programs. Now that they are setting the 2012-13 budget, lawmakers could, hypothetically, pass a resolution that said they would not use that $830 million in federal money to reduce the amount of state dollars going to public education. And that certainly would put political pressure on the governor to go ahead and submit the request for the funding. However, the language in the application for the funds, as Congress wrote it, requires the governor, not the Legislature, to make the assurance.

Obama education budget would allow Texas districts to bypass Rick Perry, apply for grants

-snip-

The new Race to the Top intiative would allow individual school districts to participate in the competition, instead of states. Perry won't be able to opt Texas out of the competition. This might be good news to Houston, who wanted to participate last year, but couldn't.

-snip-

Texas Tribune 2/19/11
U.S. House Votes on Texas Education Money

In the latest round of the political feud over $830 million in federal funding, House Republicans, led by U.S. Rep. Michael Burgess, R-Lewisville, passed a bill Saturday that attempts to block the enforcement of the Texas-specific Education Jobs amendment.

(snip)
Update: Sarah Dohl, Doggett's spokeswoman, e-mailed with the following statement:

Just to be clear, while Republicans certainly wanted to repeal the Save Our Schools amendment introduced by the Texas Democratic Congressional Delegation last summer; their proposal does not do that. The Burgess amendment differs from the Burgess repeal legislation previously introduced. This new and different Burgess proposal does not repeal; it does not strip as Governor Perry requested and as previously proposed. This amendment merely limits use of any funds appropriated WITHIN this continuing resolution to enforce the Texas SOS provision, which remains part of existing federal law. His problem is that there are not any funds in this resolution for enforcing our Texas SOS provision

Neither Congressman Burgess nor any of his supporters offered any explanation or response to this significant defect. There are those who have asked "how did he do it," but there is another more basic question of “what did he really do.”