[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.
____________________