[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 100 (Wednesday, July 9, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H6356-H6363]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 438, TEACHER RECRUITMENT AND 
                         RETENTION ACT OF 2003

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 309 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 309

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order without intervention of any point of order 
     to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 438) to increase the 
     amount of student loans that may be forgiven for teachers in 
     mathematics, science, and special education. The bill shall 
     be considered as read for amendment. The amendment 
     recommended by the Committee on Education and the Workforce 
     now printed in the bill shall be considered as adopted. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, 
     as amended, and on any further amendment thereto to final 
     passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of 
     debate on the bill, as amended, equally divided and 
     controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Education and the Workforce; (2) the further 
     amendment printed in the report of the Committee on Rules 
     accompanying this resolution, if offered by Representative 
     George Miller of California or his designee, which shall be 
     in order without intervention of any point of order or demand 
     for division of the question, shall be considered as read, 
     and shall be separately debatable for ten minutes equally 
     divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent; and 
     (3) one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose 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 
purpose of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, the resolution before us is a fair, modified rule 
providing for the consideration of H.R. 438, the Teacher Recruitment 
and Retention Act of 2003.
  The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate, equally divided and 
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee 
on Education and the Workforce. The rule also provides that all points 
of order against consideration of the bill are waived.
  The rule provides that an amendment in the nature of a substitute 
recommended by the Committee on Education and the Workforce now printed 
in the bill shall be considered as read and as an original bill for the 
purpose of amendment. It also provides that all points of order against 
the amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived.
  This rule allows for the consideration of an amendment printed in the 
Committee on Rules report, if offered by the gentleman from California 
(Mr. George Miller) or his designee, to be considered as read and 
debatable for 10 minutes, equally divided between a proponent and an 
opponent of the amendment, which shall not be subject to a demand for a 
division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. 
Finally, the rule waives all points of order against this amendment, 
and it also provides for one motion to recommit, either with or without 
instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, I am proud to report that today, by taking up and 
passing H.R. 438, the Teacher Recruitment and Retention Act of 2003, 
this Congress will address an urgent crisis facing our Nation's schools 
and their students. Today a shortage of highly qualified teachers in 
mathematics, science, and special education leaves schools all

[[Page H6357]]

across our country unable to provide students with the educational 
opportunities that they deserve. The shortage of highly qualified 
teachers in these subjects is a very real problem and one that 
disproportionately affects children from urban and rural areas. A few 
simple figures do a good job of demonstrating the full and overwhelming 
scope of this problem.
  According to the National Center for Education Statistics, between 
1999 and 2000, 67 percent of public middle and high schools had teacher 
vacancies in special education. Seventy percent had vacancies in 
mathematics. Sixty-one percent had vacancies in biology and life 
sciences. Fifty-one percent had vacancies in physical science. Two-
thirds of our Nation's public elementary schools reported vacancies in 
special education.
  Additionally, according to the Committee for Economic Development, 
almost a third of high school mathematics classes are taught by 
teachers who did not minor or major in mathematics. In biology, that 
level rises to 45 percent, and tops out at 60 percent for teachers of 
life sciences.
  Mr. Speaker, the successful education of our children is inextricably 
tied to the quality of the teachers instructing them. Students cannot 
possibly be expected to fill the jobs of tomorrow if they are not 
getting the instruction that they need during their formative academic 
years today.
  The answer to solving this dilemma which represents one of our 
Nation's greatest educational needs can be boiled down to something 
that is simple, and that is local schools facing teacher shortages need 
the flexibility to recruit and to retain the skilled teachers that 
their students deserve. By forgiving the student loan debts of math, 
science, and special education teachers at high-risk schools, we can 
help these schools to attract and retain the talent that they 
desperately need. By paying off the debts, this will allow the school 
districts the flexibility to go after those teachers that they need 
most.
  Mr. Speaker, as my colleagues know, 5 years ago, Congress passed the 
Higher Education Amendments of 1998 and created a student loan 
forgiveness program for qualified teachers in return for their 
commitment to working in a low-income school for 5 years. This program 
has allowed teachers taking advantage of this opportunity to have up to 
$5,000 of their outstanding loan obligation forgiven after their fifth 
completed year of service.
  The Teacher Recruitment and Retention Act would expand the current 
teacher loan forgiveness available under the Higher Education Act to 
address our Nation's critical teacher shortages in math, science, and 
special education. To be eligible, teachers in these three disciplines 
must serve in a Title I school with 40 percent of its students at or 
below poverty level. The bill also increases the total loan forgiveness 
to a maximum of $17,500 for these enhanced-need subjects, while 
accelerating the speed of these benefits to allow them to accrue after 
the second year. This would allow teachers committed to serving our 
highest-risk schools to receive the benefits when they need them most: 
right in the beginning of their careers when most teachers face their 
most substantial financial obstacles.
  In order to maintain the integrity of the program, the legislation 
requires teachers who fail to meet their end of their commitment to 
repay their loans and debts in full. It also ensures the quality of the 
teachers receiving this benefit by requiring that teachers applying for 
the increased loan forgiveness amount must meet the ``highly 
qualified'' definition before receiving any loan forgiveness.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the chairman of the Committee on 
Education and the Workforce, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner); and 
the sponsor of this legislation, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. 
Wilson) for their hard work in bringing this bill through the 
legislative process and onto the floor today. Both they and their 
colleagues on the Committee on Education and the Workforce have brought 
an outstanding product before the House that answers President Bush's 
challenge to recruit and to retain highly qualified teachers in 
disadvantaged schools, while addressing the critical shortage of math, 
science, and special education teachers now facing elementary and 
secondary schools. Making sure that these teachers can afford to work 
in our highest-risk schools is the first step in ensuring a quality 
education for our children.
  I would also like to thank our President, President Bush, for 
bringing the critical problem facing our most at-risk students and 
schools to the attention of this Congress. I thank the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Boehner) for rising to this challenge in addressing this 
problem.
  I support this rule and the underlying legislation on behalf of 
today's students, and I urge each of my colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Sessions) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield 
myself 4 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the distinguished chairman of the 
Committee on Education and the Workforce, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Boehner), and the ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. 
George Miller) for bringing this bipartisan bill to the floor of the 
House for consideration.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 438, the Teacher Recruitment and Retention Act, 
increases the total amount of student loans that can be forgiven for 
elementary and secondary schoolteachers of math, science, and special 
education in Title I schools. Specifically, the measure increases the 
amount of student loans that can be forgiven for these teachers from 
the current level of $5,000 to a maximum possible total of $17,500.

                              {time}  1100

  The bill also limits eligibility to those who teach in a Title I 
school in which more than 40 percent of the student population comes 
from families with incomes below the poverty line.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 438 is a good first step, but I believe it should 
be expanded to provide increased loan forgiveness to all teachers in 
high-poverty schools, not just math, science and special education 
teachers. It should also include Head Start teachers and teachers in 
extremely rural school districts. Maybe if the majority had thought of 
these funds as a tax break rather than student loan forgiveness, they 
could have found the funding. Unfortunately, a teacher of American 
history and civics, a teacher of social studies teaching in a 
significantly disadvantaged Title I school, a teacher will receive no 
benefit from this bill.
  Still, this is a good first step. This is a good bill, and I urge my 
colleagues to support it. But once again, Mr. Speaker, I must voice my 
concerns in opposition to the process. The Committee on Rules met last 
night and considered 11 amendments. Of these amendments, only one was 
made in order. One of these amendments offered by my colleagues, the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney) and the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), would have made all Head Start teachers 
eligible for the increased loan forgiveness level of $17,500. And three 
amendments by the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra) would have 
made school librarians in Title I schools eligible for the loan 
forgiveness program as well.
  These are important issues and concerns, and they deserve to be 
heard, but the Republican leadership does not believe that Head Start 
teachers and librarians deserve to be included in this important 
legislation. I guess my hope was that if they wanted to vote against 
it, if they do not believe that Head Start teachers and librarians 
deserve this help, then have the courage to come to the floor and speak 
out against these amendments and vote no. But everybody in this House 
should have had the opportunity to debate these amendments and others 
and be able to cast their vote up or down.
  Once again, Mr. Speaker, the Republican leadership is stifling the 
debate in this House and denying the elected Members on both sides of 
the aisle the opportunity to freely offer amendments. I still cannot 
figure out the rationale and the reasoning behind disallowing these 
amendments and so many others. Maybe my colleague from Texas can 
explain this when he has his time as to why these particular amendments 
were disallowed.

[[Page H6358]]

  Mr. Speaker, this is a bipartisan bill reported out of the Committee 
on Education and the Workforce by a voice vote. Why then do we need a 
restrictive rule? Why cannot the House decide whether to expand this 
benefit to other teachers? Why cannot we have a vote in the House on 
these important issues?
  This institution deserves better. The elected Members of this body 
deserve better, and the American people deserve better.
  Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues to vote no on this 
restrictive rule, again, another restrictive rule. This is a trend that 
we are seeing in this House of Representatives, an unfortunate trend. I 
will urge a no vote on this rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, in the 108th Congress, one of the brightest and best 
chairmen who serves this great Congress is a young man from Ohio. And 
as chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, he has 
sought to make sure that the issues that are before his committee and 
this Nation are addressed; they are addressed as a result of hands-on 
looking at the problems in our schools through a lot of intensive work 
all across this country, not just urban and not just rural schools, not 
just inner-city schools, not just certain types of academia looked at, 
but rather all of public education, and the work that the chairman, the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), has put into this bill and other 
bills that are very apparent before this Congress, including IDEA, 
which is related to special education, are very apparent to the energy 
of this chairman.
  Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to welcome the fabulous 
chairman of this committee for such time as he may consume.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, let me thank my colleague for his warm 
words, especially that word ``young'' that he mentioned. And I 
appreciate the work that we have done together, especially when it 
comes to the needs of special needs children in our schools and the 
teachers who teach them.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the rule for H.R. 438, 
the Teacher Recruitment and Retention Act. The rule is necessary to 
allow the House to pass this bill in a timely manner and get the 
necessary support for our teachers.
  I would first like to commend my colleague, the gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. Wilson), for his leadership on this important bill that 
embodies the President's efforts to help needy schools retain and 
recruit highly qualified teachers.
  H.R. 438 will provide teachers of subjects facing critical shortages 
with an important financial incentive to commit to teaching in high-
needs schools for at least 5 years. The importance of highly qualified 
teachers cannot be overstated. That is why in January of 2002 President 
Bush signed into law the bipartisan No Child Left Behind Act, which 
calls for a highly qualified teacher in every classroom by the 2005-
2006 school year. We are standing behind that goal, providing 
significant financial resources to help teachers become highly 
qualified.
  The fact is in the first year of No Child Left Behind, as I stated 
earlier, Congress provided a 35 percent increase in teacher quality 
grants, and the funding increases are continuing, and so it is this 
Congress's commitment to meeting the needs of our Nation's 
schoolteachers. That is why this bill is before us today and why it is 
so important. We are building upon the financial commitment made in No 
Child Left Behind to provide our teachers with yet another tool that 
will help them make a difference in their classrooms all across our 
country.
  The Teacher Recruitment and Retention Act increases the total amount 
of loan forgiveness for teachers now provided for in the Higher 
Education Act to a maximum of $17,500 for elementary and secondary 
teachers in math, science or special education who commit to teaching 
in a needy school for 5 years. Now, we know that there is critical need 
for these teachers, and we should concentrate on helping fill that 
need, and there is no debate on the critical shortages facing schools 
across the country in these specific subject areas. We need to do all 
we can to encourage highly qualified professionals to enter the 
teaching field and for those now in the field to stay.
  Teaching can be a difficult, but always rewarding career. Teaching in 
high-needs schools often brings additional challenges. Despite the 
challenges, we also know how vital these teachers are to the future of 
these poor children.
  H.R. 438 provides for the right incentive for motivated, talented and 
qualified students to not only enter the teaching field, but to also 
provide them with a long-term commitment to these high-needs schools in 
which they are teaching and, more importantly, to the students that 
they are teaching.
  The rule also provides for an amendment offered by my good friend and 
colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), and 
myself, which we will support. The amendment will assist in improving 
the very foundation of a child's education by supporting highly 
qualified, State-certified reading specialists, and while staying 
within the budget parameters set forth in this bill. The other 
important part of the amendment is that it does not reduce the number 
of schools in which a teacher may teach and be eligible for loan 
forgiveness. And I support this amendment, and I want to urge my 
colleagues to do so as well.
  What I would ask my colleagues not to do is this: We are all going to 
do what we can to support our teachers, particularly teachers in 
subjects facing the greatest shortages. The bill before us today gives 
us an opportunity to do that. But I have friends on both sides of the 
aisle who want to extend this limited loan forgiveness to many other 
categories of teachers. However, to do so while remaining within the 
constraints of the funds that we have available, they propose to 
dramatically diminish the number of schools eligible for participation 
by increasing the required poverty level of the eligible schools. So in 
other words, what would happen is we would cover more teachers, but we 
would cover much, much fewer numbers of high-poverty schools. The 
poverty levels in these proposals were increased in some cases to 45, 
50 and even 65 percent, and by doing this, the number of eligible 
schools does, in fact, dramatically decline.
  We have addressed these proposals both during the subcommittee and 
during the full committee consideration of this bill. And I said in the 
committee and I will say now, we are here to make difficult decisions, 
and this is one of them. All teachers are very important, but we cannot 
at this time address the needs of every teacher. We have critical and 
documented shortages in the subject matters addressed by this bill, and 
those must be the priorities.
  We have heard these numbers before. Let me refer to this chart here: 
67 percent vacancies in special education, 70 percent vacancies in 
math, 61 percent vacancies in biology and life sciences, 51 percent 
vacancies in physical science teachers; and according to the Center for 
the Study of Teaching Policy, almost 57 percent of public school 
teachers are teaching physical science without a major or minor in the 
fields in which they are teaching.
  This bill addresses the dramatic needs for highly qualified teachers 
facing our Nation's schools today, a need that should not be lost in 
trying to be helpful to a broader array of teachers. We should be 
reminded that this loan forgiveness that we have before us today, 
increasing it to $17,500, is for math, science and special education 
teachers. This does not change the current program that for all 
teachers, new teachers going to Title I schools, they already receive a 
$5,000 loan forgiveness if they committed to the 5 years in a Title I 
school. But for math, science and special education where we have the 
real need, we are trying to move the loan forgiveness to $17,500 to 
attract much more highly qualified teachers to these schools and to get 
a commitment that they be there for 5 years.
  Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues to support the rule today and 
to support the underlying bill.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I say to the distinguished chairman of the Committee on 
Education and the Workforce, who I know worked very hard on this bill, 
and we are all going to support this bill

[[Page H6359]]

when we vote on it later today, but he cautioned Members not to expand 
the number of teachers who would be eligible for this loan forgiveness. 
He need not worry because the Committee on Rules last night dictated a 
process that shuts everybody out. There were 11 amendments offered last 
night in the Committee on Rules. Only one was made in order. Ten were 
shut out.
  We do not have the opportunity to extend these benefits to Head Start 
teachers or Early Head Start teachers. We do not have the opportunity 
to be able to help librarians or more rural teachers. We have been shut 
out. There is not the opportunity. So the gentleman need not worry that 
this bill will be expanded because the Committee on Rules last night 
made sure that democracy will not have a chance to work its will on the 
House floor today.
  I would simply again say that if my colleagues on the other side of 
the aisle do not want to help Head Start teachers or Early Head Start 
teachers, then they should have the guts to come to the floor and vote 
no on such an amendment. It is a little bit frustrating to some of us 
that they never have a problem when it comes to providing a tax break 
for a millionaire, they always have the money for that, but when it 
comes to helping teachers in low-income neighborhoods, somehow we do 
not have the money. We cannot find the money. And just to make sure 
that we do not find the money, you bring a bill like this to the floor 
under a very restrictive rule which does not allow the Members of this 
Congress to work its will.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. Tierney), who had a great amendment last night, along with the 
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), but was shut out of the 
process.
  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. McGovern) for yielding me time.
  I want to join him in thanking the chairman for the work on this 
bill, as well as the ranking member, and it is a bill that will be 
supported for those good things that are in it. But as the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) mentioned, there are other good 
things that could have and should have been in this bill that 
unfortunately have been set aside because of the self-inflicted 
situation where the majority in this House has chosen to take money and 
throw it out the door to people who are already wealthy and decide not 
to invest in the children of this country.
  If we want to talk about future productivity, if we want to talk 
about a way of improving our education system in this country, then we 
would try to make sure that our early childhood programs and Head Start 
in particular would have every opportunity for success. Instead, the 
Committee on Education and the Workforce get a budget that is so small 
that they have to then work within those constraints and come back and 
tell us, gee, we do not have enough money to do all the right things 
that we need to do. So we can look at math teachers and science 
teachers and special education teachers, all of which have a serious 
need for loan forgiveness, but we cannot go to those other areas that 
also evidence a strong need for loan forgiveness so we can attract in 
good people and keep good people in those fields and improve our 
education system. And we cannot do that because the Republicans, the 
majority in this House, decided to take that money that could be made 
in that investment, and instead of, because of ideology, give it to 
people who already have a significant amount of money in their lives.
  I think that is short-sighted. We should be encouraging people to 
enter and stay in these fields where it is going to make a difference. 
There has been a national review of some 36 studies dealing with early 
childhood programs, and what they found is that children who 
participate in these early childhood programs are less likely to be 
held back in school, less likely to be placed in special education, 
more likely to succeed in school, more likely to graduate, more likely 
to behave well, and better able to adjust to the educational process as 
they go through it in school.

                              {time}  1115

  For all of those reasons, we need to make sure that we concentrate on 
getting them the best teachers because those are the children that will 
benefit tremendously from having that right kind of guidance.
  The median debt right now for somebody with a bachelor's degree from 
a public institution, not a private institution, but a public 
institution, is $15,375. That is more than double what it was 10 years 
ago.
  We deserve to have those qualified teachers. In fact, right now we 
require that all teachers have a child development credential and half 
have to have an associate's degree, and we have met that by the end of 
2002; but this bill rightfully raises the bar to say that by 2008 at 
least half have to have a bachelor's degree. Where are the people going 
to get the money to do that?
  We have well-deserving people who have that $15,000-plus debt as they 
come out. They are making half of what a kindergarten teacher makes if 
they get a job in early childhood education, and the fear here is that 
they are going to be attracted into other areas, not because they do 
not want to teach and not because they will not make sacrifices, but 
because they have that burden that is so substantial that they have to 
go seek employment somewhere else where they can then afford to pay 
back that loan.
  This is a disturbing feature on this. We have a bill that is a 
significantly good bill that comes up short because of this ideology, 
because we are so focused on the Republican side on tax cuts for the 
already wealthy. We could have had tax cuts. We could have distributed 
them fairly amongst a lot of people, and we could have taken some of 
money that was in that phenomenal surplus that we had at the beginning 
of this administration's term of $5.6 trillion over 10 years. We could 
have taken some small part of that to invest in America, to invest in 
our children; and, yes, we would have invested in science teachers and 
mathematics teachers and special education teachers, but I suggest to 
my colleagues we also would have invested in reading teachers and 
children teachers for 3- and 4-year-olds in early education.
  That is critical, Mr. Speaker, and I think that we have fallen short 
as a Congress here by putting those self-inflicted constraints on the 
House, and I think we have to start looking at that. The American 
people should know that this is an area where the Republicans do not 
want to vote on this issue because they know in their hearts this is 
something we should be doing.
  So rather than be forced to take a tough vote because I doubt that 
this amendment, if it had been allowed to come for a vote, would have 
failed, I think clearly it would have passed. I think far and wide the 
majority of people, the Members of this House, know that we have to 
attract early childhood teachers, that loan forgiveness expansion has 
to be a part of that.
  Rather than face the embarrassment of having the majority of this 
House, including their own Republican Members, tell them that they are 
at fault when we have that self-inflicted limitation, they chose to use 
the rules process to once again say that we are going to have a very 
restricted rule, that all of these amendments that Members should have 
an opportunity to raise their voices on will not even get the chance to 
be heard and debated and deliberated upon and voted upon.
  That is the great disgrace of this 108th Congress, is manipulation 
through the Committee on Rules and the shutting down of debate so that 
the American people's voices cannot be heard so that their concerns 
cannot be reach and so that this country does not have the opportunity 
to have their Members who represent them stand up and say we want to 
invest in America, we want to invest in our children, we want to set 
the right ideological tone, and that is, inclusiveness for everyone; 
and the Committee on Rules has failed us here, and this rule has failed 
us.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The debate last night in the Committee on Rules did allow testimony 
from the gentleman and others who were with him, and they made a lot of 
good points. They made a lot of good points about how important Head 
Start is, not only to students as they come through the process and to 
parents, but to our educational quality; and there

[[Page H6360]]

was a great debate on that, an opportunity for feedback, and it simply 
was not included in this package.
  What is included in this package is the gentleman from South Carolina 
(Mr. Wilson), who I believe is the main author of this bill, I think, 
accepted the challenge from our President, as I think many Members of 
Congress have, to go back to our local schools, to go to our school 
districts and to go listen to teachers, to listen to parents, listen to 
students, to listen to administrators, to listen to people who serve on 
the local boards of education and to hear from them about the state of 
education and things that we need.
  I am just pleased that one of those good ideas, even though the 
gentleman from Massachusetts had also a good idea, but that we were 
able to bring one of these good ideas, gather a consensus about it, 
make it bipartisan, get through the process, go to the Committee on 
Rules, sustain the things that we believe about this bill that are 
fabulous, fabulous for schools, to go attract and help relieve the debt 
from these teachers who are in math, who are in science, who are in 
special education, because those are the hardest teachers to get.
  I believe we are doing the right thing. I believe that what this 
entire opportunity is about today is to say that paying attention to 
students and teachers, school administrators, our whole process is what 
our President has asked us to do. I think we are bringing back bits and 
pieces of those things that we have learned that will make a real 
difference, make a real difference in the lives of not only each of the 
teachers and our school systems, but for the parents and students who 
are part of that.
  I support what we are doing. This is a great rule. This is a great 
opportunity for us to pay attention to people who pay attention to our 
students and people who pay attention to us in our educational setting, 
and I am proud of what we are doing.
  Mr. Speaker, I would notify the gentleman from Massachusetts that I 
do not have any further speakers at this time, and I will let him 
determine what he would like to do, and I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  My good friend, the gentleman from Texas, said that last night in the 
Committee on Rules Democratic Members were allowed to come before the 
Committee on Rules and testify, as if to suggest that that is some 
great privilege. Every Member of this House has the right to be able to 
go before the Committee on Rules and make their case on behalf of 
amendments.
  He then proceeded to say, in reference to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts' (Mr. Tierney) amendment, that it raised some good points 
and good ideas and was a worthy amendment, but then said that we just 
decided not to make it in order. I guess my question to the gentleman 
from Texas is, If it was such a good idea, what was the harm? What was 
the problem with making it in order so that the full House could decide 
whether or not to extend these benefits to Head Start teachers and 
early Head Start teachers?
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  The bottom line is we are trying to aim this money, these loan 
forgiveness opportunities, at the teachers who we need most.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would also remind 
the gentleman that even though he said it was a good idea, he did vote 
against this in committee, as did all the Republican Members; and 
again, the frustrating thing for those of us on this side who want to 
help our teachers, who want to make sure that we live up to our promise 
to leave no child behind is to make sure that we provide the resources, 
that we just do not get up and talk about how important our children 
are; that we actually provide the resources; that we make sure that we 
have teachers in Head Start and early Head Start.
  Again, for the life of me, if my colleagues do not want to vote for 
this, then they do not have to vote for it, but there are a lot of us 
who think this is important enough that we should have a debate on the 
House floor and we should be able to vote up or down on it. I think it 
is really a disgrace, but not only this issue but on all number of 
issues that we get constantly shut out of the process.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
California (Mr. Becerra), who had three very thoughtful amendments that 
were shut out. None of his amendments were made in order.
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time, and I appreciate the dialogue that has occurred between the two 
gentlemen from the Committee on Rules.
  I want to begin by thanking the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), 
the chairman, and the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), 
the ranking member, for the work that they have done in putting before 
this House this legislation which all of us understand and know that we 
need for our schools in America. Too many of our schools today do not 
have teachers with credentials teaching our kids. Too many of our 
schools just cannot find the teachers they need.
  So this is a good first step. I think everyone will agree with that. 
I believe this will receive a resounding vote when it is before us for 
final passage. I just believe that many of us are very disappointed 
that the bill we will be voting on today is so limited. It is so 
curtailed, when there is much need out there, and there is so much 
opportunity for us to try to really help our kids throughout our 
schools.
  My kids are in public school right now, and we are very fortunate 
that it is a good public school; but I have got to tell my colleagues 
that there are a whole bunch of kids in my district that cannot say 
quite the same thing. It is not that people are not trying hard. It is 
just that they do not have the resources.
  In my State of California, and I suspect in many of my colleagues' 
States right now, we are hearing about our public schools having to 
either close down certain classrooms, having to curtail their 
activities, reduce the size of the school year, any number of things, 
including sending teachers layoff notices at a time when we have to try 
to provide them with a good education.
  This is a good bill, but it could have been even a better bill had we 
allowed a few amendments to go forward, and I understand that there are 
certain constraints, and I appreciate that the Committee on Rules 
considered my particular amendment.
  My amendment was very simple. It said we have got a good first start 
in this legislation to try to help recruit more teachers in our math 
and science programs, but let us not stop there. Let us not leave any 
children behind. Why shortchange our schools, especially today when 
they are suffering through very difficult financing and budget 
problems?
  My amendment simply says, let us include librarians in our schools 
and in our public libraries because if the shortages are bad as the 
chairman from the Committee on Education and the Workforce pointed out 
just a second ago, if they are bad in the areas of math and if they are 
bad in the areas of sciences, they are even worse when it comes to our 
school libraries and our public libraries.
  How many of us know of libraries, not just our school libraries but 
our public libraries, that are closed on certain days in the week 
because they just do not have the funding to stay open? The difficulty 
that they face is that they are not finding the librarians that they 
need to staff these libraries. One in every three libraries in this 
country is staffed by one librarian, one librarian.
  Today, we face a shortage of librarians that will be so difficult to 
surmount into the future if we do not act now. Within 5 years, fully 
one in every four of our librarians will retire. In the next 12 years 
after that, more than 50, close to 60 percent of all the librarians 
will have retired, and we are not doing anything to backfill, to bring 
in the librarians we need to fill those gaps.
  Mr. Speaker, this legislation is good. It could have been better had 
we included a number of amendments at a time when we so desperately 
need to help our schools. I believe that is why First Lady Laura Bush 
has taken such

[[Page H6361]]

a prominent role in promoting our libraries because she understands 
what is going on. I wish that this Congress and this House would do the 
same thing.
  Mr. Speaker, that is why today I will introduce legislation to try to 
do exactly what my amendment would have done, and that is, to permit 
librarians to partake of the loan forgiveness program that is currently 
allowed to certain teachers and to make sure that we are promoting 
school librarians in our various public libraries and in our school 
libraries. It is the right thing to do.
  If we take a look at the cost of this legislation we have before us, 
it is about $340 million over 10 years, about $60 million for this 
current year. If we will all remember that we just passed legislation 
in this House no more than a month or so ago that cut taxes, 
principally for the wealthiest Americans in this country, to the tune 
of $500 billion over the next 10 years, $340 million, less than one-
half of 1 percent or 5 percent of what we spent on that tax bill could 
have funded this entire bill, and the cost of adding librarians is 
probably somewhere between $2 million to maybe, if every individual and 
college decided to take advantage of this program, maybe about $10 
million for the year. That seems a very clear choice to me.
  We have opportunities, but we all have to make choices on this floor. 
While this amendment will not have an opportunity to be heard today or 
incorporated in the legislation today, I hope in the future, working 
with both sides of the aisle, we are able to get good amendments 
through that will help all of our country's school children and make it 
clear that our libraries, both in our schools and in the public 
setting, are importance to us.
  I hope we move forward. We can, and I will vote for this legislation; 
but I have to vote against this particular rule.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah).
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Speaker, let me just say I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me a few minutes.
  I am concerned about the process that has brought this rule to the 
floor and the previous rule. I had offered an amendment that would have 
had the effect of gathering more data on what is a national crisis, one 
that the President of the United States himself in the State of the 
Union 2 years ago addressed when he said that he wanted to work towards 
a country in which every child had a qualified teacher in their 
classroom.
  We have seen study after study across this land in which African 
American, Latino, poor white youngsters in Appalachia and other 
communities are being put in a circumstance where every day they are in 
classrooms in which they are being taught by teachers who did not major 
or minor in the subjects that they are teaching.

                              {time}  1130

  In fact, as a young, poor student in an inner city or in a poor rural 
area in Ohio, in Pennsylvania, you could go through your entire middle 
and high school years and never have a qualified math teacher or 
science teacher in your classroom.
  My amendment would have sought to gather more data to add to the 
already fairly convincing set of statistics on this matter. For some 
reason, without explanation, the Committee on Rules of this House has 
decided that that amendment should not be made in order; that this body 
should not even have an opportunity to vote to pursue one of President 
Bush's number one priorities, and a priority that should be, I think, 
first and foremost in all of our efforts if we want to improve 
education, because we cannot possibly expect a child to learn from 
someone who is teaching them a subject that they do not know.
  It is implausible to think that we would continue this dilemma across 
our country; that we would close our eyes to it, not want to have that 
information. And why this Committee on Rules would deny an opportunity 
for this amendment to be debated is without explanation. I think that 
it does a disservice to the House, to our democratic process. Moreover, 
and much more importantly, it does a disservice to future generations. 
We need that information so that as policymakers we can help shape 
education reform in a way that really is meaningful and makes sense.
  I am going to work, notwithstanding what the Committee on Rules has 
decided, to have this amendment considered in some other format, in 
some other way, so that at the end of the day, as a United States 
Congress, the most important lawmaking body in the country, we can 
begin to address this issue to make sure that there are, in fact, 
qualified teachers. Why would we have a child take a standardized test 
in every State in the Union and not have any concern about the 
standards that their teachers who have been instructing them have had 
to meet; or whether or not they have had a decent textbook, a 
reasonable opportunity to learn?
  I think this is not a partisan issue. There is no reason this 
amendment should have been ruled out of order. And I hope that the 
Committee on Rules in the future would give respect to the ideals that 
this is a democratic process and that all views should be heard, and 
then let the body work its will.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
to close for our side.
  Again, we have no problem with the underlying bill, but we do have a 
problem with this process. Let me review for my colleagues what 
amendments were offered last night in the Committee on Rules.
  We heard about the Tierney-DeLauro amendment. This amendment would 
extend the $17,500 loan forgiveness in the bill to Head Start teachers, 
Early Head Start teachers, and prekindergarten teachers in programs 
that serve children of which at least 60 percent of whom are eligible 
to participate in a Head Start or Early Start program. Only new 
borrowers as of fiscal year 2003 would be eligible for this loan 
forgiveness.
  Mr. Speaker, let me just remind my colleagues that our Nation's Head 
Start and prekindergarten classrooms are desperately in need of highly 
qualified teachers. During the 2001-2002 program year, nearly 8,000 
teachers, or 15 percent of all teachers, left the Head Start programs. 
Over half of those who left did so due to low salaries or desired to 
change job fields. These statistics highlight the inability of Head 
Start programs to retain their teachers, especially their most 
experienced and qualified. This is hugely important. This is hugely 
important. And that amendment was shut out last night in the Committee 
on Rules, so Members will not have an opportunity to vote up or down on 
it here on the floor.

  We heard from the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra), who had 
one amendment that would provide loan forgiveness for Perkins loans to 
highly qualified librarians working in eligible schools. He had another 
amendment that would provide loan forgiveness for Stafford and Perkins 
loans to highly qualified librarians working in eligible schools. And 
he had a third amendment that would provide loan forgiveness for 
Stafford loans to highly qualified librarians working in eligible 
schools.
  Again, one of the things that the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Becerra) pointed out is that we are having a problem in this country 
and in our school libraries in retaining librarians. It is a huge 
issue. And yet despite all of the sympathy that members of the majority 
party in the Committee on Rules expressed toward some of these 
amendments, they voted to make not in order all three of those 
amendments. All three Becerra amendments were shut out, made not in 
order.
  The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) had an amendment that 
would ensure that any loan or portion of a loan discharged under the 
bill would not count as gross income for that individual's income tax 
purposes. That was shut out. He had another amendment that would 
establish a new program for teacher loan forgiveness under the 
guaranteed loan program and direct loan program. That was shut out. The 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) also had an amendment that would 
extend eligibility for an increased amount of loan forgiveness to all 
teachers in Title I schools and those schools that had high levels of 
low-income families. He was shut out on that as well.

[[Page H6362]]

  The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) had an amendment that would 
increase the level of loan forgiveness for teachers in rural schools to 
$17,500. The offset would be for new borrowers beginning October 2003. 
That was not made in order.
  The gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) had an amendment that 
would add to the list of qualification criteria for FFEL loan 
forgiveness teachers who have attended historically black colleges and 
universities, and those serving large portions of Hispanic, Native 
American, Asian Pacific Americans, or other underrepresented 
populations to pursue continuous teaching careers. She was shut out.
  The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne) had an amendment that would 
expand teacher eligibility for $17,500 of loan forgiveness for all 
Title I teachers and increase the poverty percentage of a school to 65 
percent at which a teacher who was receiving loan forgiveness must 
teach.
  Mr. Speaker, all these amendments are only for Title I schools and 
schools with high levels of poverty. They are all very, very important 
amendments, and they all deserved to be discussed here on the House 
floor. If my colleagues on the majority side do not want to expand this 
bill, then they could vote ``no'' on all these amendments. They could 
come to the floor and cast their vote ``no.'' But the Members of this 
House, both Republicans and Democrats, should have had an opportunity 
to be able to debate these amendments up or down.
  Now, my colleague from Texas may say, well, some of these amendments 
may have needed waivers. Well, it is amazing that they can say that 
with a straight face, given the fact that routinely in the Committee on 
Rules we provide waivers all the time for Republican initiatives. It is 
just a matter of practice. We do it all the time. So that is not an 
excuse why these important amendments could not be brought to the floor 
and debated up or down.
  Again, Mr. Speaker, we do not have any problem with the underlying 
bill. We have a problem with this process, and we are sick and tired of 
being repeatedly shut out of this process. And it is not just 
Democrats, there are Republicans who come before the committee with 
good ideas who are shut out. Now, I do not know who makes all these 
decisions, but we certainly have the time to be able to debate all 
these things fully, Democratic and Republican amendments. We have the 
time on the floor to do it. But for whatever reason, the Committee on 
Rules consistently shuts out debate, and I think it is a disservice to 
Members of both parties in this Chamber.
  Mr. Speaker, this is supposed to be the people's House. Every Member 
counts in this House. We all represent the same number of constituents. 
We all have the right to be able to come to this floor and be able to 
voice the concerns of our constituents, and yet we are denied that 
right repeatedly. I think it is not only a disservice to the Members of 
this House, it is a disservice to our constituents, and I think it 
prevents legislation like the one we are talking about right now from 
becoming even better.
  So I would urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this restrictive 
rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I do understand the frustrations that the gentleman is talking about, 
Mr. Speaker. I also understand that the Committee on Rules has a job to 
do. Its job is to follow the rules of this House. The bottom line is 
that the gentleman from Los Angeles, who did have three very well-
thought-through amendments that he chose to bring before the Committee 
on Rules were not germane. They were not germane because, despite what 
the gentleman from Massachusetts has claimed about it being for 
teachers, the amendments are very clearly written to say a librarian 
working full time in a public library. A librarian working full time in 
a public library, number five. Amendment number six in a public 
library. That is not germane to this bill where we are talking about 
teachers. That is not a part of what we are talking about, so it was 
not germane.
  Lastly, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney) took time to 
come before the Committee on Rules. We appreciate that. The bottom line 
is that there was a vote already, through regular order in the 
committee of jurisdiction, and the gentleman did not win in the 
committee of jurisdiction.
  And so the process in this House is being followed, the process where 
people have an opportunity to bring forth amendments, bring forth ideas 
that they have. For us to challenge ourselves on this education 
opportunity that is in front of us is important, and that process is 
something that we followed today.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SESSIONS. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts to engage 
me.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I would simply say to the gentleman that 
the Committee on Rules waives the rules all the time for amendments, 
and they have waived the rules for amendments that are in this bill 
already. So that is what we do. So to hide behind that somehow this 
does not fit into this bill I think flies in the face of what we do all 
the time.
  The issue is whether or not we think this is a priority. And if it is 
a priority, and it should be, then we make it fit. And that is what we 
do all the time. That is what my colleagues do for all Republican 
amendments that they want to make in order. We are just asking that you 
do the same; that you treat us the same way that you treat your 
Members. That is all we are asking.
  We have the power to do this. To say this does not fit in this bill 
because it requires a waiver of any kind I do not think passes muster. 
I just would say to the gentleman that the Committee on Rules had the 
power to make these amendments in order, and the Committee on Rules 
chose not to, and I think that is unfortunate
  Mr. SESSIONS. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
  The gentleman, when he spoke earlier, talked about how the Committee 
on Rules did not make Republican Members' amendments in order, and now 
he is coming and asking us to treat them the same way. The bottom line 
is it is a fair process for Republican or Democrat. It is a fair 
process for people who go through the regular order, who have an 
opportunity to present germane amendments. It is very fair.
  The gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the great chairman of the 
Committee on Rules, spends an extensive amount of time attempting to 
work with Members to make sure their amendments are germane, to make 
sure their amendments are well understood, to make sure their 
amendments have time to come forth before the committee.
  Mr. Speaker, I would at this time close by saying that we believe 
this rule that is before this great body today deserves not only the 
attention of the American public, but also a vote today.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank in particular two professional 
members of the Committee on Rules, Adam Jarvis and Eileen Harley, for 
their fabulous work on this, and Committee on Rules associate Josh 
Saltzman from my staff, for their great work on bringing this wonderful 
bill forward.
  Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I oppose this rule for the 
simple reason that I believe in the process of representative 
government. The public quite rightly believes that, as their 
representatives, we take part in the process of legislation by offering 
meaningful amendments to the bills before us and that all of the 
representatives of this body will have an opportunity to consider and 
vote those amendments up or down. This is simply not the case.
  As a member of the Education and the Workforce Committee, I had the 
opportunity to speak and vote in support of extending the loan 
forgiveness provisions contained in this bill to Head Start Teachers. 
While that amendment failed in the committee on partisan lines, I 
believe it is such an important companion provision that all of the 
members of this Congress should have had the opportunity to vote on 
this issue.
  In the Head Start reauthorization bill, which may be on the floor 
next week, the committee has included a requirement that 50 percent of 
Head Start teachers have a Bachelor's Degree and all of them to have an 
Associates Degree or equivalent certificate. Many of these teachers 
will need additional coursework. Historically, many Head Start 
personnel have been recruited from the parent body, who are, by 
definition, low income. Because pay for personnel in Head Start is so 
low, it is imperative that we support this mandate financially.

[[Page H6363]]

  A loan forgiveness provision for Head Start personnel would match 
that for other critically needed teachers. It is the right place to 
begin.
  I regret that not all of my colleagues will have the opportunity to 
consider this proposal because the amendment to do so was not ruled in 
order.
  Mr. SESSIONS. 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. 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, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 15-minute vote on adopting 
House Resolution 309 will be followed by a 5-minute vote on adopting 
House Resolution 310.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 230, 
nays 192, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 337]

                               YEAS--230

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burr
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole
     Collins
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     Marshall
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schrock
     Scott (GA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--192

     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Ballance
     Becerra
     Bell
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Case
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley (CA)
     Doyle
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lynch
     Majette
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner (TX)
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Cox
     Cramer
     Edwards
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Goss
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Janklow
     Millender-McDonald
     Owens
     Smith (WA)


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson) (during the vote). Members are 
advised that 2 minutes remain in this vote.

                              {time}  1205

  Messrs. GEORGE MILLER of California, LANGEVIN, HINOJOSA, MATSUI, 
PRICE of North Carolina, SPRATT, and HONDA changed their vote from 
``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. POMEROY changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________