[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.

                          ____________________