[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 100 (Wednesday, July 9, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H6353-H6356]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2211, READY TO TEACH ACT Of 2003
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 310 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution as follows:
H. Res. 310
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 2211) to reauthorize title II of the Higher
Education Act of 1965 The first reading of the bill shall be
dispensed with. General debate shall be confined to the bill
and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled
by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee
on Education and the Workforce. After general debate the bill
shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule.
It shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the
purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment
in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on
Education and the Workforce now printed in the bill. The
committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be
considered as read. All points of order against the committee
amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived. No
amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute shall be in order except those printed in the
report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this
resolution. Each amendment may be offered only in the order
printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member
designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall
be debatable for the time specified in the report equally
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent,
shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject
to a demand for division of the question in the House or in
the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such
amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of
the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report
the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been
adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House
on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the
bill or to the committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute. The previous question shall be considered as
ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage
without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with
or without instructions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The gentlewoman from North
Carolina (Mrs. Myrick) is recognized for 1 hour.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the
purposes of debate only.
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Committee on Rules met and granted a
structured rule for H.R. 2211, Ready to Teach Act of 2003. This is a
very fair rule. We made five out of the eight amendments offered in
order, and four of them are Democrat amendments. The Ready to Teach Act
seeks to meet the call of the No Child Left Behind Act to place a
highly qualified teacher in every classroom. It makes improvements to
the Higher Education Act that will increase the quality of our Nation's
teacher preparation programs.
I would like to commend the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) for
his work on the Ready to Teach Act. I would also like to thank the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert); the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Boehner), chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce; and
the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), ranking member, for
their continuing efforts to improve all aspects of our country's higher
education system.
As we work to place highly qualified teachers in education classrooms
across the Nation, I am particularly pleased that this legislation
allows for
[[Page H6354]]
innovative programs that provide alternative options to the traditional
teacher training programs. The key to producing highly qualified
teachers is not the path by which they travel, but the destination they
reach. Teachers trained through innovative options, or certified
through alternative means, will still be held to the same standards of
accountability and quality, but will not be constrained by artificial
requirements that could place barriers between highly qualified
individuals and the classrooms where they are desperately needed. In my
community we run into this every day because of people who are
qualified and have had years of experience in an area, but yet cannot
get into the classroom.
Teaching is an honorable profession, and we need to attract and keep
good, qualified teachers. This needs to be an attractive job so more
people will enter the profession as well. H.R. 2211 continues the
current law structure and authorizes three types of teacher training
grants that each play a unique yet critical role in the education of
tomorrow's teachers. Forty-five percent of the funds would be directed
toward State grants, which must be used to reform teacher preparation
requirements and ensure that current and future teachers are highly
qualified. Forty-five percent of the funds would be directed toward
partnership grants, which allow effective partners to join together,
combining their strengths and resources to train highly qualified
teachers to achieve success where it matters most, in the classroom.
Ten percent of the funds would be directed toward teacher recruitment
grants, which will help bring these high-quality individuals into the
teaching programs and ultimately put more highly qualified teachers
into the classroom.
H.R. 2211 also directs the Secretary of Education to give priority to
applicants that will place an emphasis on recruiting minorities into
the teaching profession.
The Ready to Teach Act of 2003 will improve the quality and
accountability of our Nation's teacher preparation programs. I ask my
colleagues to support this rule and the underlying legislation so that
we can ensure that our children are receiving a world-class education.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I consume.
I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick), my friend,
for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, this rule provides for the consideration of H.R. 2211,
the Ready to Teach Act of 2003. It is a relatively noncontroversial
bill that reauthorizes programs under Title II of the Higher Education
Act. The Committee on Education and the Workforce, Democrats and
Republicans, worked together to produce a good bipartisan bill, but
their hard work, Mr. Speaker, is being cheapened by the Republican
leadership in the process by which we are considering this bill today.
The Ready to Teach Act seeks to ensure that teacher training programs
produce well-trained and well-prepared teachers who can fully address
the educational needs of our children as mandated by the No Child Left
Behind Act. It is supported by Members on both sides of the aisle, and
I have no doubt that it will be approved later today.
{time} 1030
But for some reason, Mr. Speaker, we are considering this bill under
a restrictive rule.
Last night, eight amendments were offered in the Committee on Rules.
Of those, seven amendments were offered by Democrats and one was
offered by a Republican. If asked, the distinguished chairman of the
Committee on Rules and his fellow committee Republicans will say that
this is fair, that the Committee on Rules made in order four of the
seven Democratic amendments and we should all be grateful and happy
with their generosity.
But, Mr. Speaker, that is not the point; and the Members of this body
know it. Critical amendments were not made in order, amendments that
people feel very strongly about. With only a handful of amendments
offered in the committee, for the life of me, I cannot figure out why
the Republican leadership wants to shut down debate on this bipartisan
bill, unless, of course, they are continuing their practice of
disallowing amendments that might actually win, unless they are afraid
they will not like the outcome if the House is allowed to work its
will.
This is wrong, and I want all of my colleagues to know that, that
with this rule, the Republican leadership has tainted the good work
introduced by the Committee on Education and the Workforce.
Do not get me wrong: it is not the bill I have strong problems with,
but rather it is the process. I commend the committee chairman, the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner); the ranking member, the gentleman
from California (Mr. George Miller); the subcommittee chairman, the
gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon); and the subcommittee ranking
member, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee), along with the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey), for their bipartisan cooperation
on this bill.
Although this is a good bill, I would like to voice a couple of
concerns. The reauthorization of the Higher Education Act of 1965 that
this House approved in 1998 authorized the Teacher Quality Enhancement
Grants for States and Partnerships at $300 million annually. H.R. 2211
will authorize these critical grant programs at $300 million for fiscal
year 2004 and for such sums as necessary through FY 2008.
However, when compared to the fiscal year 2004 Labor, Health and
Human Services and Education Appropriations Act, I find that the
teacher quality enhancement grants are basically flat-funded at $90
million. That is $210 million less than what the Ready to Teach Act
requires for the preparation of quality teachers.
Mr. Speaker, this is the same old song and dance. Once again, we are
authorizing an education bill for critical education programs; and
after we vote, we will all put out our press releases telling our
constituents that we are strong supporters of education, and we will go
home and say that education is our number one priority. But the
reality, however, is that this Congress starves those programs in the
appropriations process, starves them of the funds they need in order to
successfully prepare our children for the future.
The numbers do not lie. For fiscal year 2004, the Republican
leadership will provide less than one-third of what this bill would
authorize for these programs. Do you know what that is, Mr. Speaker? It
is deliberately deceptive. It is hypocritical. It is cynical. It is
forcing unfunded mandates on our States and our teachers and our local
school districts at a time when they are struggling with terrible
budget problems. It is a lousy way to run education policy.
It is exactly what this House has done on the No Child Left Behind
Act and the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act. You all
remember the No Child Left Behind Act, Mr. Speaker. It was passed by
the Congress and signed by the President with great fanfare and
hundreds of press conferences and press releases. The President and the
Republican leadership claimed that this bill proved that they cared
deeply about our children and were dedicated to ensuring that every
child in America got a quality education.
Well, Mr. Speaker, it was all smoke and mirrors, a big public
relations scam. If you do not believe me, just look at the bill we are
going to take up tomorrow. The No Child Left Behind Act is underfunded
by $8 billion in the Labor-HHS-Education bill, $8 billion. The majority
of the programs to strengthen or improve teacher preparation, teacher
quality, teacher professional development and teacher training in the
FY 2004 Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bill received funding levels
well under the requirements set by the No Child Left Behind Act. Some
are even level-funded or face reduced funding.
For example, in the FY 2004 appropriations bill, the funding for the
Teacher Quality State Grants is $244 million short of the funding level
required 2 years ago under the No Child Left Behind Act, but each of
our States and each of our school districts is still mandated to ensure
that every single teacher of every academic subject be highly qualified
by 2005, with or without the money to carry out that mandate.
This, Mr. Speaker, is the Congress that makes sure that these States
do not have the money. The Republican leadership would rather make sure
the
[[Page H6355]]
lives of millionaires are made even more comfortable than making sure
there is a qualified teacher in every classroom and every school in
this country.
So, here we are, authorizing another education bill, knowing, Mr.
Speaker, that the Republican leadership has absolutely no intention of
actually providing the funding that is promised. Our families and our
schools deserve a heck of a lot better than a long list of broken
promises. The money is there if we want it to be there. It is simply a
matter of choice, a matter of priorities. I hope that as the
appropriations process continues that this Congress begins to keep its
word.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan).
(Mr. DUNCAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina
for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill and the rule that brings
it to the floor today. I especially support the provisions allowing the
use of funds for alternative routes to state certification or
traditional preparation for teachers. We need to give, Mr. Speaker,
local school boards more freedom and flexibility in this area.
This would help solve what we sometimes hear as the ``teacher
shortage'' in this country, but that is a government-created teacher
shortage by every respect of the word. Right now, if a person with
great education and experience in a field wanted to teach, he or she
could not do so without a degree in education, except under very
limited circumstances.
For example, a person with a Ph.D. in chemistry and 25 years of
experience as a chemist could not teach high school chemistry in most
public schools. The local school board would have to hire a young
person with no experience and many fewer chemistry courses instead of
the much-better-educated person who wanted to teach as a career change
or to perform some community service.
Some small private colleges have had financial problems in recent
years, but professors with long experience have not been able to move
to the public schools. A person who taught English for 30 years in a
small college and then decided he wanted to teach in a public school,
even though he had long experience teaching, would not be able to move
because he perhaps had a Ph.D. in English or some other field instead
of a degree in education.
We should allow local school boards and school systems to consider an
education degree as a plus when other factors are fairly equal. But
school boards should also be allowed to hire people with advanced
degrees and long experience and/or great success in a field as teachers
at full pay, perhaps for some brief probationary period.
One respected member of the judiciary told me a couple of years ago
he would like to retire early and teach school, but he would have to go
through a year-long unpaid internship, which, with his age, education
and experience, he simply did not need to do.
I remember reading in The Washington Post a year or two ago that one
of the real experts in this field, Frederick W. Hess, a University of
Virginia professor, called for a radical overhaul of teacher
certification. He said if a person has a degree or degrees, can pass a
difficult test in the subject and has no criminal records, local school
principals are intelligent enough to hire good teachers.
Very highly qualified applicants, Mr. Speaker, should not be rejected
just because they never took an education course. Our local principals
and our local school boards have enough intelligence and sense to hire
good teachers, and we should not put restrictions or hindrances in
their way.
We need to get the best-qualified people we possibly can teaching the
children of this Nation, and the best way we can do that is to give
these local principals and local school boards more freedom and
flexibility in who they are able to hire.
Mr. Speaker, I commend all of the people involved with this
legislation and especially for putting in the part that allows these
funds to be used for alternative routes to certification for
traditional routes of preparation for teachers.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) the chairman of the Committee on
Education and the Workforce, who has done an excellent job with this
bill.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, let me thank my good friend from North
Carolina for yielding me time.
I rise today in support of the rule for H.R. 2211, the Ready to Teach
Act. I believe this is a fair rule that allows for the thorough
consideration of a measure that I believe will make a real difference
in the lives of teachers and students alike.
I first would like to applaud the efforts of my colleague from
Georgia (Mr. Gingrey), a new member on our committee, who has been a
real leader in the effort to strengthen the programs that are training
the teachers of tomorrow. His leadership on this bill is providing us
with an opportunity to help teachers become highly qualified and ready
to teach when they enter the classroom.
H.R. 2211, the Ready to Teach Act, seeks to meet the call of the
bipartisan No Child Left Behind Act to place a highly qualified teacher
in every classroom by the 2005-2006 school year. Congress has embraced
that goal, realizing the critical role that highly qualified teachers
play in the successful education of our Nation's children.
That is why under No Child Left Behind we have provided significant
new resources to help teachers become highly qualified. In fact, in the
first year of No Child Left Behind alone, we increased grants for
teacher-quality funding by 35 percent. And the funding increases keep
oncoming. We have provided the resources, and the bill before us today
will build upon that commitment by providing real reforms.
There is a good reason why we are moving forward with this bill and
why it has received broad bipartisan support. The fact is teacher
training programs are suffering from a serious lack of accountability
that is posing a real threat as we seek to place highly qualified
teachers in classrooms across the Nation.
The No Child Left Behind Act is about supporting the Nation's
schoolteachers, and to do that we need to ensure that the programs
preparing them for the classroom are fulfilling their obligation to
give them the skills to meet the highly qualified standards in No Child
Left Behind. That is what this bill will do; it will ensure that
teacher training programs are meeting the obligation that they have to
teachers to ensure that they are ready to teach.
The Ready to Teach Act will strengthen teacher-training programs,
making improvements to ensure that the teachers of tomorrow are highly
qualified and prepared to meet the needs of American students. The bill
is designed to align teacher-training programs with the high standards
of accountability and results provided for in No Child Left Behind.
The No Child Left Behind Act focuses on three key objectives,
accountability, flexibility and effectiveness, to improve the quality
of these programs.
The first objective, accountability, is essential if we are to gauge
the effectiveness of the programs training our teachers. While current
higher-education law contains some annual reporting requirements, these
reporting measures have proven ineffective in measuring the true
quality of teacher-preparation programs. In fact, the current
requirements have often been manipulated, leaving data skewed and often
irrelevant.
The Ready to Teach Act includes accountability provisions that will
strengthen these reporting requirements and hold teacher preparation
programs accountable for providing accurate, useful information about
the effectiveness of their programs.
I am particularly pleased that the bill before us recognizes that
flexibility should exist in methods used for training highly qualified
teachers, and, for that reason, would allow funds to be used for
innovative methods in teacher-preparation programs such as charter
colleges of education, which can provide an alternative gateway for
teachers to become highly qualified.
The bill takes the important step of recognizing that individuals
seeking to
[[Page H6356]]
enter the teaching profession often have varied backgrounds; and by
creating flexible approaches that step outside the box, these
individuals can become highly qualified teachers through training
programs as unique as their own individual experiences.
H.R. 2211 ensures that program effectiveness can accurately be
measured and places a strong focus on the effectiveness of teacher
preparation and a renewed emphasis on the skills needed to meet the
highly qualified standard found in No Child Left Behind.
{time} 1045
The use of advanced technology in the classroom, rigorous academic
content standards, scientifically-based research, and challenging
student academic standards are all principles that this bill will
follow.
I would like to thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. The
gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), the ranking member; the
gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon), the chairman of the
Subcommittee on 21st Century Competitiveness; and the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Kildee), the ranking member of the subcommittee, are all
to be commended for their bipartisan effort in moving this legislation
forward. They have put together a bipartisan bill that makes common-
sense changes to Title II of the Higher Education Act to help improve
our Nation's teachers.
With that, I urge my colleagues to support the rule and to support
the underlying bill today.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Let me just close by again reiterating my support for the underlying
bill, but also expressing my great concern that what we are doing here
is authorizing a program with no intention of funding the program. I
find that somewhat deceptive. I personally believe that this Congress
and this leadership needs to put its money where its press releases
are, and rather than leave no millionaire behind, I think we should
keep our promise and leave no child behind. We are not doing that when
we authorize educational programs and then we do not follow up with the
appropriations.
I am going to urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule because
while I support the underlying bill, I think this process stinks. I
mean, once again, Members who have serious amendments, who have
legitimate issues that they want to debate on this floor are being shut
out. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah) had an amendment that
would direct the States to reduce the gap between higher-income
districts and lower-income districts by increasing the number of highly
qualified teachers. He was shut out. The gentleman from California (Mr.
Baca) had an amendment that allows for a bonus award to teachers who
achieve technology certification according to the Computer and
Technology Industry Association and the Information Technology
Association. He was shut out. The gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-
Lee) had an amendment that would require the Secretary to collect all
repayments and redirect the funds to low-income and historically low-
achieving school districts. She was shut out.
Now, if my colleagues on the other side of the aisle think these are
amendments that are not worth their support, then they can make that
argument on the House Floor, and they can vote ``no.'' But some of us
think that these amendments are good, and that we should have the
opportunity to not only debate them, but vote up or down on them. So
these Members were shut out of the process, and this has become,
unfortunately, a trend in this Congress.
So I would urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, as I said before, I feel that this is a
very fair rule, and I would urge my colleagues to vote for the rule and
for the underlying legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The question is on the
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this motion will be postponed.
____________________