Congressional Record, Volume 149 Issue 100 (Wednesday, July 9, 2003)

[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 100 (Wednesday, July 9, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H6383-H6393]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

TEACHER RECRUITMENT AND RETENTION ACT OF 2003

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 309, I call up
the bill (H.R. 438) to increase the amount of student loans that may be
forgiven for teachers in mathematics, science, and special education,
and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 309, the bill
is considered read for amendment.
The text of H.R. 438 is as follows:

H.R. 438

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Teacher Recruitment and
Retention Act of 2003''.

SEC. 2. ADDITIONAL QUALIFIED LOAN AMOUNTS.

(a) FFEL Loans.--Section 428J(c) of the Higher Education
Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1078-10(c)) is amended by adding at
the end the following new paragraph:
``(3) Additional amounts for teachers in mathematics,
science, or special education.--Notwithstanding the amount
specified in paragraph (1), the aggregate amount that the
Secretary shall repay under this section shall not be more
than $17,500 in the case of--
``(A) a secondary school teacher--
``(i) who meets the requirements of subsection (b); and
``(ii) whose qualifying employment for purposes of such
subsection is teaching mathematics or science; and
``(B) an elementary or secondary school teacher--
``(i) who meets the requirements of subsection (b), other
than paragraphs (1)(B) and (C);
``(ii) whose qualifying employment for purposes of such
subsection is teaching special education; and
``(iii) who, as certified by the chief administrative
officer of the public or nonprofit private elementary or
secondary school in which the borrower is employed, is
teaching children with disabilities that correspond with the
borrower's training and has demonstrated knowledge and
teaching skills in the content areas of the elementary or
secondary school curriculum that the borrower is teaching.''.
(b) Direct Loans.--Section 460(c) of the Higher Education
Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1087j(c)) is amended by adding at the
end the following new paragraph:
``(3) Additional amounts for teachers in mathematics,
science, or special education.--Notwithstanding the amount
specified in paragraph (1), the aggregate amount that the
Secretary shall repay under this section shall not be more
than $17,500 in the case of--
``(A) a secondary school teacher--
``(i) who meets the requirements of subsection (b)(1); and
``(ii) whose qualifying employment for purposes of such
subsection is teaching mathematics or science; and
``(B) an elementary or secondary school teacher--
``(i) who meets the requirements of subsection (b)(1),
other than subparagraphs (A)(ii) and (iii);
``(ii) whose qualifying employment for purposes of such
subsection is teaching special education; and
``(iii) who, as certified by the chief administrative
officer of the public or nonprofit private elementary or
secondary school in which the borrower is employed, is
teaching children with disabilities that correspond with the
borrower's training and has demonstrated knowledge and
teaching skills in the content areas of the elementary or
secondary school curriculum that the borrower is teaching.''.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The amendment in the nature of a substitute
printed in the bill is adopted.
The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as
follows:

H.R. 438

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Teacher Recruitment and
Retention Act of 2003''.

SEC. 2. INCREASED QUALIFIED LOAN AMOUNTS.

(a) FFEL Loans.--Section 428J(c) of the Higher Education
Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1078-10(c)) is amended by adding at
the end the following new paragraph:
``(3) Increased amounts for teachers in mathematics,
science, or special education.--
``(A) Service qualifying for increased amounts.--
Notwithstanding the amount specified in paragraph (1), the
aggregate amount that the Secretary shall repay under this
section shall not be more than $17,500 in the case of--
``(i) a secondary school teacher--

``(I) who meets the requirements of subsection (b), subject
to subparagraph (D) of this paragraph; and
``(II) whose qualifying employment for purposes of such
subsection has been teaching mathematics or science on a
full-time basis; and

``(ii) an elementary or secondary school teacher--

``(I) who meets the requirements of subsection (b), subject
to subparagraph (D) of this paragraph;
``(II) whose qualifying employment for purposes of such
subsection has been as a special education teacher whose
primary responsibility is to provide special education to
children with

[[Page H6384]]

disabilities (as those terms are defined in section 602 of
the Individuals with Disabilities Act); and
``(III) who, as certified by the chief administrative
officer of the public or nonprofit private elementary or
secondary school in which the borrower is employed, is
teaching children with disabilities that correspond with the
borrower's special education training and has demonstrated
knowledge and teaching skills in the content areas of the
elementary or secondary school curriculum that the borrower
is teaching.

``(B) Accelerated payment.--Notwithstanding the
requirements of subsection (b)(1) and paragraph (1) of this
subsection that 5 consecutive complete years of service have
been completed prior to the receipt of loan forgiveness, in
the case of service described in subparagraph (A) of this
paragraph, the Secretary shall repay a portion of a
borrower's loan obligation outstanding at the commencement of
the qualifying service under this subsection, not to exceed a
total of $17,500, in the following increments:
``(i) up to $1,750, or 10 percent of such outstanding loan
obligation, whichever is less, at the completion of the
second year of such service;
``(ii) up to $2,625, or 15 percent of such outstanding loan
obligation, whichever is less, at the completion of the third
year of such service;
``(iii) up to $4,375, or 25 percent of such outstanding
loan obligation, whichever is less, at the completion of the
fourth year of such service; and
``(iv) up to $8,750, or 50 percent of such outstanding loan
obligation, whichever is less, at the completion of the fifth
year of such service.
``(C) Promise to complete service required for accelerated
payment.--Any borrower who receives accelerated payment under
this paragraph shall enter into an agreement to continue in
the qualifying service for not less than 5 consecutive
complete school years, or, upon a failure to complete such 5
years, to repay the United States, in accordance with
regulations prescribed by the Secretary, the amount of the
loans repaid by the Secretary under this paragraph, together
with interest thereon and, to the extent required in such
regulations, the reasonable costs of collection. Such
regulations may provide for waiver by the Secretary of such
repayment obligations upon proof of economic hardship as
specified in such regulations.
``(D) Higher poverty enrollment required.--In order to
qualify for an increased repayment amount under this
paragraph, section 465(a)(2)(A) shall, for purposes of
subsection (b)(1)(A) of this section, be applied by
substituting `40 percent of the total enrollment' for `30
percent of the total enrollment'.''.
(b) Direct Loans.--Section 460(c) of the Higher Education
Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1087j(c)) is amended by adding at the
end the following new paragraph:
``(3) Increased amounts for teachers in mathematics,
science, or special education.--
``(A) Service qualifying for increased amounts.--
Notwithstanding the amount specified in paragraph (1), the
aggregate amount that the Secretary shall repay under this
section shall not be more than $17,500 in the case of--
``(i) a secondary school teacher--

``(ii) an elementray or secondary school teacher--

``(I) who meets the requirements of subsection (b)(1),
subject to subparagraph (D) of this paragraph; and
``(II) whose qualifying employment for purposes of such
subsection has been as a special education teacher whose
primary responsibility is to provide special education to
children with disabilities (as those terms are defined in
section 602 of the Individuals with Disabilities Act); and

``(III) who, as certified by the chief administrative
officer of the public or nonprofit private elementary or
secondary school in which the borrower is employed, is
teaching children with disabilities that correspond with the
borrower's special education training and has demonstrated
knowledge and teaching skills in the content areas of the
elementary or secondary school curriculum that the borrower
is teaching.

``(B) Accelerated payment.--Notwithstanding the
requirements of subsection (b)(1)(A) and paragraph (1) of
this subsection that 5 consecutive complete years of service
have been completed prior to the receipt of loan forgiveness,
in the case of service described in subparagraph (A) of this
paragraph, the Secretary shall repay a portion of a
borrower's loan obligation outstanding at the commencement of
the qualifying service under this subsection, not to exceed a
total of $17,500, in the following increments:
``(i) up to $1,750, or 10 percent of such outstanding loan
obligation, whichever is less, at the completion of the
second year of such service;
``(ii) up to $2,625, or 15 percent of such outstanding loan
obligation, whichever is less, at the completion of the third
year of such service;
``(iii) up to $4,375, or 25 percent of such outstanding
loan obligation, whichever is less, at the completion of the
fourth year of such service; and
``(iv) up to $8,750, or 50 percent of such outstanding loan
obligation, whichever is less, at the completion of the fifth
year of such service.
``(C) Promise to complete service required for accelerated
payment.--Any borrower who receives accelerated payment under
this paragraph shall enter into an agreement to continue in
the qualifying service for not less than 5 consecutive
complete school years, or, upon a failure to complete such 5
years, to repay the United States, in accordance with
regulations prescribed by the Secretary, the amount of the
loans repaid by the Secretary under this paragraph, together
with interest thereon and, to the extent required in such
regulations, the reasonable costs of collection. Such
regulations may provide for waiver by the Secretary of such
repayment obligations upon proof of economic hardship as
specified in such regulations.
``(D) Higher poverty enrollment required.--In order to
qualify for an increased repayment amount under this
paragraph, section 465(a)(2)(A) shall, for purposes of
subsection (b)(1)(A)(i) of this section, be applied by
substituting `40 percent of the total enrollment' for `30
percent of the total enrollment'.''.

SEC. 3. IMPLEMENTING HIGHLY QUALIFIED TEACHER REQUIREMENTS.

(a) Amendments.--
(1) FFEL loans.--Section 428J(b)(1) of the Higher Education
Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1078-10(b)(1)) is amended--
(A) by inserting ``and'' after the semicolon at the end of
subparagraph (A); and
(B) by striking subparagraphs (B) and (C) and inserting the
following:
``(B) if employed as an elementary or secondary school
teacher, is highly qualified as defined in section 9101(23)
of the Elementary Secondary Education Act of 1965; and''.
(2) Direct loans.--Section 460(b)(1)(A) of such Act (20
U.S.C. 1087j(b)(1)(A)) is amended--
(A) by inserting ``and'' after the semicolon at the end of
clause (i); and
(B) by striking clauses (ii) and (iii) and inserting the
following:
``(ii) if employed as an elementary or secondary school
teacher, is highly qualified as defined in section 9101(23)
of the Elementary Secondary Education Act of 1965; and''.
(b) Transition Rule.--
(1) Rule.--The amendments made by subsection (a) of this
section to sections 428J(b)(1) and 460(b)(1)(A) of the Higher
Education Act of 1965 shall not be applied to disqualify any
individual who, before the date of enactment of this Act,
commenced service that met and continues to meet the
requirements of such sections as in effect before such date
of enactment.
(2) Rule not applicable to increased qualified loan
amounts.--Paragraph (1) of this subsection shall not apply
for purposes of obtaining increased qualified loan amounts
under sections 428J(b)(3) and 460(b)(3) of the Higher
Education Act of 1965 as added by section 2 of this Act.

SEC. 4. INFORMATION ON BENEFITS TO RURAL SCHOOL DISTRICTS.

The Secretary shall--
(1) notify local educational agencies eligible to
participate in the Small Rural Achievement Program authorized
under subpart 1 of part B of title VI of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965 of the benefits available
under the amendments made by this Act; and
(2) encourage such agencies to notify their teachers of
such benefits.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. After 1 hour of debate on the bill, it shall
be in order to consider the further amendment printed in House report
108-189 if offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. George
Miller), or his designee, which shall be considered read, shall not be
subject to a demand for a division of the question, and shall be
debatable for 10 minutes, equally divided and controlled by the
proponent and an opponent.
The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) and the gentleman from Michigan
(Mr. Kildee) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner).

General Leave

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their
remarks on H.R. 438.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Ohio?
There was no objection.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 438, the Teacher
Recruitment and Retention Act of 2003. I congratulate my friend and
colleague, the gentleman from Columbia, South Carolina (Mr. Wilson),
for introducing this bipartisan legislation and shepherding it through
the committee process.
H.R. 438 is simple in its purpose and structure, but monumental in
its potential to improve the lives of our Nation's students. The bill
before us provides for increased loan forgiveness for highly qualified
math, science, and special education teachers teaching in high-need
schools. These teachers must agree to teach for 5 consecutive years in
schools that many of our disadvantaged students attend.
In January of 2002, President Bush signed into law the No Child Left
Behind Act, the bipartisan kindergarten through 12th grade education
reform package that, for the first time, demands accountability and
results in exchange for the billions of Federal dollars invested in the
education of our

[[Page H6385]]

Nation's students. In No Child Left Behind, we call for a highly
qualified teacher in every public school by the 2005-2006 school year.
We have been providing resources to meet that goal and, in fact, a 35
percent increase in funding for teacher quality grants in the first
year of No Child Left Behind, and the funding increases continue to
come.
Now, with the bill before us today, we are building on that
unequivocal financial commitment by increasing the loan forgiveness for
teachers we need the most: in our high-needs schools. It is just one
more way that this Congress is showing unwavering support for the
Nation's schoolteachers.
Mr. Speaker, I think we can all agree that there are few more
important issues in this country than education of our Nation's
children. More importantly, we want our children to be taught by
caring, committed, and educated professionals. This bill will enable
high-need elementary and secondary schools to attract highly qualified
teachers and get the best and brightest into our classrooms.
H.R. 438 will provide up to $17,500 in loan forgiveness for math,
science, and special education teachers. These particular subject areas
are facing extreme shortages, and our children are the ones who are
suffering because of it. We must address this crisis in our classrooms.
We recognize that teachers often face the greatest financial hardships
in their early years of their career, and, for that reason, these
teachers will begin to receive this assistance after the second year of
teaching service is completed, which will continue annually through the
completion of the required 5 years. This is yet one more way we are
trying to assist teachers by reducing the financial burdens and in
providing a more effective incentive for these much-needed teachers to
remain in our poorer schools.
Mr. Speaker, a lack of highly qualified math, science, and special
education teachers leaves our schools with large vacancies and
shortchanges our children, and the success of our Nation depends on
being able to compete in a global economy, and by providing a quality
education to all of our children is where this must begin.

{time} 1430

The National Science Foundation Director, Rita Colwell, said, ``The
lack of competitiveness of U.S. K-12 students has much larger
ramifications than simply providing enough mathematicians and
scientists for laboratories.'' And I will continue, ``In these
technological times, general scientific and mathematical literacy is
crucial to the entire workforce and has implications for our economy
into the future.''
We must continue our efforts to recruit and retain the best and
brightest into the field, and, more importantly, in high-need subject
areas. H.R. 438 provides the right incentive for students to enter
teaching and for those who are currently teaching to stay.
I am particularly pleased that my colleagues on both sides of the
aisle have worked closely with us to craft an amendment that recognizes
a fundamental role that reading plays in a child's education. As the
President has said, reading is the new civil right, and for that reason
I am happy to support the amendment offered by our ranking member, the
gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) that will include highly
qualified State-certified reading specialists among those eligible for
the increase in loan forgiveness. By recognizing that reading is the
foundation of all other learning, this amendment will strengthen our
efforts to improve results for students.
In addition, I strongly support this amendment because, despite the
increased costs, it remains within our budget parameters without
reducing the number of schools eligible that are eligible to receive
this incentive. This is the key. It expands this vital resource without
reducing opportunities for schools, which I think is the biggest
downfall to other amendments that could have been offered to this bill
today.
I want to urge my colleagues to support H.R. 438. A vote for this
bill is a vote to support our Nation's students and our teachers, and
H.R. 438 tells each and every one of them that their education, their
future and the future of our country are vitally important, and that
this Congress stands behind them.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 438. This legislation does
provide much needed loan forgiveness for math, science and special
education teachers in high need schools. It is critical that we provide
school districts with the resources they need to recruit and retain the
best teachers for our children, especially in these vital subject
areas. In addition, legislation that we are debating today was improved
over the introduced version through the adoption of an amendment by our
colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt). This amendment
provides for incremental loan forgiveness over the 5-year period of
service as a teacher, rather than at the end of such service. This
critical improvement will make loan forgiveness an attractive means to
recruit and retain high-quality teachers in our most disadvantaged
schools.
While H.R. 438 is a good start, we should be doing more. The scope of
this bill is limited to math, science and special education teachers.
These are critical areas in which we do have shortages of highly
qualified teachers. However, we should also be extending loan
forgiveness to other vital teaching areas such as Head Start teachers
and all teachers who teach in our schools with extreme poverty. The
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney) filed an amendment with the
Committee on Rules to expand loan forgiveness to Head Start teachers.
During the latest year I have data for, nearly 8,000 teachers left Head
Start programs. Over half the teachers who left Head Start programs did
so due to low salaries. Clearly, the need for loan forgiveness in Head
Start is evident. However, the Committee on Rules blocked consideration
of this amendment.
The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne) also filed an amendment
with the Committee on Rules to expand loan forgiveness to all teachers
in extremely poor schools. Title I schools, especially the most
disadvantaged of these schools, have enormous problems recruiting and
retaining teachers of all subjects. These schools are the least likely
to have certified teachers or teachers who know the subject matter that
they are teaching. These schools are also the most likely to have high
teacher turnover rates. Unfortunately, the Committee on Rules blocked
consideration of this amendment as well.
The unwillingness to even debate these amendments here on the floor
comes at the same time we are tragically underfunding our Federal
education programs. Whether it is the No Child Left Behind Act, IDEA or
Pell grant, the administration has failed to meet their education
funding commitments.
President Bush and the House and the Senate Committee on
Appropriations proposed funding Title I at $12.35 billion. That is $6
billion short of the $18.5 billion promised in No Child Left Behind.
Repetition is the mother of study, so let me state again what I
stated in the earlier bill, let me use this analogy again: An
authorization bill, and this is a good authorization bill, is like that
get well card which I will send to my friend who may be ill, and it
does express my sentiments, and it expresses the value I have for my
friend. But what my friend really needs is the Blue Cross card, and
that is the appropriations bill. There is a real lag between
authorization and appropriations. Just in Title I alone we are 30
percent below the bill that the President signed in Ohio, No Child Left
Behind, and I think that we have to address that. We cannot address
that here in the authorization bill. We did a good job in the
authorization bill, a job that I think we enjoyed doing. But I think we
as a Congress have to make sure that our appropriations come closer, if
not match entirely, the authorization level.
The Republican budget resolution promised $2.2 billion for new IDEA
funding. The House and Senate Committee on Appropriations have proposed
less than half that amount. In addition, Pell grants have been frozen
by the House and Senate Committee on Appropriations despite increasing
college costs.
While I again want to reiterate that I will support this legislation,
the administration and the Republican Congress are missing an
opportunity to

[[Page H6386]]

meet our education funding commitments.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the support of the ranking member of the
subcommittee on the bill we have before us today, but once again we get
into this other issue, and that is education funding.
Now, we all know about 90 percent of the funds for primary and
secondary education, K-12, come from State and local sources. Federal
Government's role has been to go in and help high-poverty schools and
students who come from high-poverty neighborhoods. And if you look at
the funding levels from fiscal year 2001, we spent $28 billion in K-12
funding. If you are look at fiscal year 2003, some 2 years later, you
will see that we are spending $35.7 billion. Now, that is a great
example of letting the perfect become the enemy of the good.
I think most Members on both sides of the aisle believe that we have
done more than anyone could ever have expected the Federal Government
to do in terms of increasing our funding for K-12 education programs so
that we can meet our commitment to leave no child behind. We are doing
our share. Unfortunately, the States are having great difficulty with
their budgets, and some are having to cut education programs that they
would rather not. But we cannot make up for the shortfalls and the
problems that the States are having. We are doing our share. I am sure
they will find a way to do theirs.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from California (Mr. McKeon), the subcommittee chairman, the
Subcommittee on 21st Century Competitiveness.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my colleague, the gentleman from South
Carolina (Mr. Wilson), a valuable member of subcommittee, for his work
and leadership on bringing this important piece of legislation to the
floor.
I rise in strong support of H.R. 438, the Teacher Recruitment and
Retention Act of 2003, which provides increased student loan
forgiveness to those elementary and secondary public and private school
teachers who teach math, science and special education in high-needs
schools.
The bill is simple and straightforward. Under H.R. 438, teachers may
receive up to $17,500 in loan forgiveness if they agree to teach for 5
consecutive years in Title I schools with a poverty rate that exceeds
40 percent. This legislation simply expands upon what is in current law
for all teachers in an effort to meet the dramatic shortage of teachers
in these critical areas.
There is no question that we face a critical shortage of qualified
math, science and special education teachers across the country. The
National Center for Education Statistics reported that in the 1999/2000
school year, 67 percent of public elementary and middle schools had
vacancies in special education; 70 percent had vacancies in
mathematics; 61 percent had vacancies in biology, and 51 percent had
vacancies in the physical sciences.
Further, in a report called The Urban Teacher Challenge, virtually
all of the Nation's largest urban school districts responding to a
national survey reported to an immediate need for teachers in these
high-need subjects; 95 percent reported an immediate need for math
teachers; 98 percent report the need for science teachers; and 98
percent reported an immediate need for special education teachers.
With this kind of shortage, we must act quickly to do what we can to
help fill this void. The Committee on Economic Development said in its
recent report entitled Learning for the Future, Changing the Culture of
Math and Science Education to Ensure a Competitive Workforce,
``Improving the math and science skills of our young people is an
important step toward innovative-led economic growth in the coming
decades. While producing a more scientifically proficient citizenry,
widespread math and science achievement will also widen the pipeline of
scientists and engineers who drive innovation.''
Mr. Speaker, the Teacher Recruitment and Retention Act takes a big
step in moving toward filling the gap in these vital areas. It is clear
that we believe that all teachers are vital to our children and to the
future of this country. That is why we have maintained the current law
which allows for all teachers who teach in high-need schools to receive
up to $5,000 in loan forgiveness after 5 years of service. With limited
Federal resources, we need to make difficult choices and set
priorities. There is no question there is a critical need for math,
science and special education teachers. There is no question that our
children deserve the best education we can provide, and there is no
question that this legislation will assist in meeting this goal.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote yes on H.R. 438 and stand
firm in a commitment to our Nation's children and teachers.
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Woolsey).
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
I thank the chairman of the committee and the ranking member of the
committee for a good bill.
H.R. 438 is a good bill as far as it goes, but it does not go far
enough. One thing it does not do is provide loan forgiveness for Head
Start teachers, and this is a big mistake. As the ranking member of the
Subcommittee on Education Reform, which is the committee working on the
Head Start reauthorization, our committee has heard witness after
witness, and both Republican and Democrat agree on the importance of
having teachers with 4-year degrees in the Head Start programs. In
fact, one of the provisions in the Head Start reauthorization bill that
has strong bipartisan support is a goal to have 50 percent of Head
Start teachers with a BA degree by the year 2008.

{time} 1445

This is another of the Republicans' classic case of not putting their
money where their mouth is. We can talk all we want about a good goal
and how much this goal will help our kids, but if the teachers cannot
get their BA degrees and at the same time afford to teach in Head
Start, then what does that goal mean?
Salaries for Head Start teachers are much lower than the salaries for
other similar teaching positions. Currently, the average salary for
teaching in a public school prekindergarten program is close to double
the average salary of a Head Start teacher with the exact same
education. I think that anyone who becomes a preschool teacher is a
pretty selfless, devoted person, but let us get real. Very few people,
no matter how devoted they are, can afford to choose a job that pays
half of what another job pays for almost the exact same work.
If we would offer Head Start teachers help with paying their Federal
student loans, that could make up for some of the salary difference.
Student loan forgiveness would allow more teachers with 4-year degrees
to teach in a Head Start program, and current Head Start teachers at
the same time could go on and get their BA degrees while continuing to
work at Head Start.
I worry that 5 years from now, unless we invest in these teachers,
when we are again reviewing Head Start, Members are going to say, see,
it does not do any good to try to get teachers with BA degrees into
Head Start and use that as a mark against a Head Start program.
Democrats offered amendments to include Head Start teachers in H.R.
438 every step along the way when we were considering the Head Start
bill; but regretfully, the majority defeated these inclusions on a
party line vote over and over again. Including Head Start teachers in
H.R. 438 would make it a much better bill.
Mr. Speaker, including Head Start teachers in the bill would help
millions of low-income children get the head start that they need in
life.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Another wonderful example of let us let the perfect become the enemy
of the good. The President in his proposal, and Senator Graham when he
was a former House Member, made it clear that the focus here was to
look at high-poverty schools and look at the basics, math, science and
special education.
In committee, and I am sure on the floor today, we are going to hear
calls

[[Page H6387]]

for, well, this is a good bill but: but we need loan forgiveness for
Head Start teachers; we need loan forgiveness for librarians; we need
loan forgiveness for reading teachers, and the list went on and on and
on. If we were to have done all of those, one, we would have not the
budget to do it or, secondly, so few schools would qualify that maybe
one out of 10 schools under this bill would actually get some help.
Our job is to make decisions, and what we are trying to do here is to
focus in on the highest needs in our poorest schools.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina
(Mr. Wilson), our good friend and a member of the committee and the
author of this bill.
Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to sponsor
this important bill that is a product of the President's leadership and
dedication to educate all of our country's children. I would like to
thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) and the gentleman from
California (Mr. McKeon), working with the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Kildee) and the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), for
their leadership and guidance on this issue.
H.R. 438, the Teacher Recruitment and Retention Act, is a
straightforward bill which increases the amount of loan forgiveness for
secondary math and science teachers and K through 12 special education
teachers to a maximum of $17,500 from the $5,000 currently provided in
the Higher Education Act for all teachers in qualified schools.
The purpose of this bill is to ensure our future workforce is
scientifically literate and competent, skills that the Committee for
Economic Development and the American Society of Mechanical Engineers
have identified as keys to our country's ability to compete in the
global marketplace. Unfortunately, our high school students
consistently test toward the bottom in math and science compared to the
rest of the world.
Teachers working in the schools that face the greatest difficulty in
recruiting math, science and special ed teachers will be eligible for
the increased amount of loan forgiveness. Teachers will begin to
receive loan forgiveness after their second year of teaching, with
annual payments thereafter. To further assist children in low-income
schools, eligible teachers must be highly qualified as required by the
No Child Left Behind Act.
I look forward to the day when a cohort of math, science and special
ed teachers begins teaching in our neediest schools inspired by the
incentives of this bill. Those teachers will clearly know they are part
of a national program designed to ensure all American children are
equipped with the life skills necessary to contribute and succeed in a
technologically driven world economy.
This bill is a first step to help students teach. It would be great
if no teacher had student loans; but those who do have debt, we need to
make sure every student loan borrower has a real opportunity to
consolidate their loans. Later, during the reauthorization of a
different part of the Higher Education Act, we will need to make sure
we repeal the single holder rule. It will be part of my commitment to
teachers everywhere that they can have the benefit of competition from
the more than 1,000 lenders in the program when they consolidate their
loans and thus allow them to further reduce their debt burden by taking
advantage of historically low, fixed-interest rates.
My goal with this bill is to ensure our Nation remains a competitive
force in the world. I hope a secondary effect will be to send a strong
signal that America honors and respects those who accept the calling to
teach.
I want to thank the professionals of the Committee on Education and
the Workforce for its hard work to make this bill professional and
possible, especially Kathleen Smith, Rick Stombres, Holli Traud, Alison
Ream, Jo Marie St. Martin, Kris Ann Pearce and Sally Loverjoy, along
with Rachel Post of the gentleman from Michigan's (Mr. Ehlers) office
and Laurin Groover, Dino Teppara and Trane McCloud of my office.
I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 438, the Teacher Recruitment and
Retention Act.
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I, first of all, would like to commend the
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson), from Columbia, the
principal author of this bill for his fine work on the bill; and I
yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Michigan for
yielding me the time.
I also would like to congratulate the gentleman from South Carolina
(Mr. Wilson) on his outstanding work on this bill. I thank the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the gentleman from California (Mr.
McKeon), the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), and the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) for their great work in bringing
this forward.
We are very much in favor of saying to teachers who teach math and
science and special education in schools that are plagued with
difficult challenges that they should get increased loan forgiveness.
That is a great idea, and we are happy to support it.
We believe that that loan forgiveness should be extended further.
Democrats offered amendments that would have extended that loan
forgiveness to Head Start and other preschool teachers. It would have
extended it to teachers in rural schools and some other areas.
The chairman of the full committee was on the floor a few minutes ago
and said that we are here to make decisions and that the perfect should
not be the enemy of the good. Implicit in his remarks, of course, are
that there are trade-offs for decisions that we make. Let me explore
the trade-off that I think the majority's unwisely making by excluding
our amendments from this bill.
If we were to adopt the Democratic amendments that would provide this
same loan forgiveness for teachers who teach in our preschool programs,
who teach in our rural schools and in other areas that we raise as
amendments, we could make the choice of reducing the tax cut that the
majority passed in this House last month. If we were to do so, how much
of a reduction in tax cut would we have to make? The answer is to fund
additional loan forgiveness for Head Start teachers, for rural
teachers, for these other teachers it makes reference to, for every
$100 of the tax cut the majority passed, we would have to take away 30
cents. So for every $100 worth of tax cuts people would get, they would
still get $99.70 of reduced taxes if we extended this benefit to those
who teach our 3- and 4-year-olds prereading and premath, if those who
go to rural districts worked especially hard to recruit teachers.
We commend the majority for bringing forth this bill, and we support
it; but we must say, the benefits of extended loan forgiveness should
not stop with this bill. What should stop is the raid on the Federal
Treasury, as I said, the worshipping at the altar of fiscal
irresponsibility. We support the bill, but we know that we could do
more.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Ehlers), my good friend, one of the few scientists we
have serving in the House.
Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
I am very pleased to rise in support of this bill. It is something
which is very badly needed, and the reason it is needed is very simple.
The good jobs of the future are going to require a basic understanding
of math and science. I will address specifically the math and science
portion of the bill, although I recognize full well that special
education also is in great need of teachers. This bill will address
these issues through the loan forgiveness program.
Let me give some of the facts on why it is important that we improve
our K-12 education in math and science. First of all, we have had a
decline in undergraduate enrollments and graduation rates for the past
17 years in engineering. Currently, our graduation rates in all the
physical sciences, which includes engineering, computer science, space
science, physics and chemistry, are well below what they were 10 years
ago. The only field that has higher enrollments is the life sciences.
If my colleagues ask why we are graduating fewer people, it is
because the sciences are not being taught properly in the K-12 system,
and the reason

[[Page H6388]]

is that many teachers, good hearted as they are and try as they may,
have not had the proper training and they cannot do the job. So it is
very important that we reward and attract better-trained teachers to
these positions and also give them the tools to work with.
The teacher shortage in math and science is real. According to the
latest figures, 70 percent of our schools have vacancies in mathematics
teachers; 61 percent have vacancies in biology or life sciences; and 51
percent have vacancies in physical science.
Even when teachers are available, a high percentage are not
adequately prepared to teach the math and science courses. At the
current time, for junior and high schools combined, 57 percent of those
who teach the physical sciences do not have either an undergraduate
major or a minor in the subject they are teaching. So how can they be
expected to inspire students to a career in science and engineering?
Inadequately trained teachers leads to students who are unprepared.
According to the ``Third International Math and Science Study,'' 12th
grade U.S. students' test scores rank at or near the bottom of all
developed countries in math, science and physics achievement.
Teachers want to do the job right. They want to teach well. They want
to be in the schools; but if they have not been properly trained and if
they are feeling the lure of higher pay in industry for the skills that
they do have, it puts the schools in an impossible situation. This is
not true, incidentally, of all schools. This bill only addresses the
problem in title I schools, but that is extremely important because
these are the students who really need an opportunity in life; and if
we want to give them a real opportunity in life, we have to train them
properly, and that means training in the jobs of the future, training
in math and science.
In conclusion, this is a good bill. I support it. I hope it passes.
Above all, I hope it has the effect we anticipate.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. EHLERS. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I just want to take a moment to thank the
gentleman from Michigan and his colleague, the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Holt), before all of our colleagues, because these two
scientists, who happen to both sit on our committee, have been
relentless in their efforts to get Congress to fund math and science
education; and whether it be in the bill that we have before us for
title I schools or in broader programs that affect teachers in other
schools, these two gentlemen have really, relentless does not even
begin to describe their tenacity in ensuring that Congress steps up to
what is needed to help math and science education in all of our
schools. I just want to say thanks.

{time} 1500

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, if I had known the
gentleman was going to be so complimentary, I could have yielded more
time.
I want to also finally compliment the sponsor of the bill, the
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson), who has done yeoman work in
preparing a good bill, one that will really meet the needs of the
children and provide jobs for them in the future.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Holt), and let me just say that it is interesting, as a
Latin teacher, to stand here with a physicist on each side of me, the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) and the gentleman from New Jersey
(Mr. Holt).
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend and colleague from Michigan
for yielding me this time, and I am pleased to follow my other friend,
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers). I want thank the chairman for
his kind words, and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) and I, I
am sure, will continue to persist in seeing that science and math
education are well represented in our legislative activities.
Over the next 10 years, as you have heard, Mr. Speaker, we will have
to hire nationally more than 2.2 million teachers just to stay even, to
make up for the number of people leaving the teaching force, even
without making efforts to bring down the class sizes. The problem is
especially acute in special education, where there is a chronic annual
shortage of tens of thousands of teachers nationwide.
This bill will create incentives to help ensure that we have enough
teachers, especially in the areas of math, science, and special
education. Loan forgiveness is one of the most effective incentives
available to us. In the subcommittee I offered an amendment to provide
loan forgiveness incrementally over 5 years of teaching service, as
opposed to the original bill that provided loan forgiveness only after
a full 5 years. I am pleased that the committee included this
incremental loan forgiveness in the final version of the bill. I think
it will help with teacher recruitment and retention.
Many teachers, especially in the math and sciences field, leave in
the first few years. By spreading this incentive, this loan
forgiveness, over 5 years, I think it will provide an incentive for
teachers to stay instead of leaving the profession or moving to school
districts that can afford to pay more. And while I would have liked the
bill to cover teachers working in more districts and teaching in other
subjects beyond math and science and special education, I still support
this legislation.
Now, I must say to the chairman, who said that to cover other
districts or other subjects or to help with Head Start teachers, the
money just was not available, please, I never want to hear that
argument again this year. We have just been told by the majority over
the last 2 years that there are several trillion dollars that they
found, that are more than we know what to do with, and they have to be
given back. It has to go back in the form of tax cuts. Well, that is
several trillion dollars, with a T, that we are talking about.
Now, perhaps the majority thinks that the people who receive these
tax cuts will pay to recruit teachers and will pay for their
professional development, will pay for Head Start competitive salaries,
will pay for special education, because, as the majority says, it is
their money, they know how to use it better. And if I sound a little
sarcastic, it is because I get very impatient with this argument. Trust
me, we will not see these tax cuts end up in the hands of the Head
Start teachers, we will not see these tax cuts coming back to provide
for the training and professional development of teachers or for the
recruitment of teachers.
This bill will, however, help, and, Mr. Speaker, I do support it.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Delaware (Mr. Castle), my good friend, the chairman of the Subcommittee
on Education Reform.
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time, and I congratulate all those who were involved with this,
particularly the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson), the
gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon), the chairman, the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the gentleman from California (Mr. George
Miller), and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee).
Things have changed in education, and they have changed a lot because
of what we have done right here, and a lot of people, frankly, do not
like it. The No Child Left Behind is a tough piece of legislation. For
those who do not believe it, just go talk to your school
superintendents and hear some of the complaints they have about it. It
is tough because we have standards and assessments, we are doing
testing, we are making demands, and if you do not make the mark, then
you will be penalized for that. And indeed, it has taken a lot of steps
to educate kids better than we ever have before, and that is very
commendable.
One thing that has been missing in all of this has been identified in
this legislation which we have before us is the fact that we need to
have teachers, particularly in specialized areas, who will fill the
niches of being able to teach in those areas and who are themselves
prepared in those particular areas. This loan forgiveness in this
excellent piece of legislation which we have before us which is going
to give us, we hope, more science teachers, more math teachers, and
more special education teachers and, perhaps, more reading specialists
is of extraordinary importance to make sure that we are meeting the
concerns and problems we

[[Page H6389]]

have with educating all of our young people. And for that reason, I
think we should all support it in every way we can.
It adds to all that we have done in recent years in education. It is
going to bring the best and the brightest to teaching. But by giving
them loan forgiveness over a period of 5 years, first of all, they will
be there for 5 years; and, secondly, it is my judgment that when they
have taught for 5 years, they will look around and say, this is a good
profession, and they will want to continue to teach after that.
This does cost money, and quite frankly, we on this side should be
very proud of the increases which we have had in education that we have
pushed for in the last 6 or 7 years. A lot of mention has been made
that we are not doing enough about the funding of education. We have
done a lot about the funding of education, increases of 16 percent a
year for the last 6 or 7 years in the Congress of the United States.
The time has come to educate better. This legislation helps with
that. Let us all support it.
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I have spent 27 years in the Congress and 27 years on
the Committee on Education and the Workforce, formerly called the
Committee on Education and Labor. And in those 27 years, I always felt
and discovered that we do our best work especially in the area of
education, sometimes we have some differences in areas of labor, but in
areas of education we do our best work when we work together in a
bipartisan way.
I think the last few months have demonstrated that we are able to
bring to the floor a bipartisan bill. It was an exercise of civility
and, as I mentioned earlier, actually enjoyable writing this bill. I
think, again, we can demonstrate that bipartisanship does work, and it
has worked here again today.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Graves).
Mr. GRAVES. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address the Chamber about
the critical need to attract qualified teachers to the education
profession.
Over the next decade, a large percentage of teachers will retire,
depriving our schools and our children of the knowledge and leadership
gained through years of experience. This problem affects both urban and
rural schools, but especially high-needs schools with large numbers of
children below the poverty level.
Teachers are saddled with the responsibility of educating our
children in their classroom studies, teaching morals and values, and
making them productive members of society. Our teachers are
instrumental in influencing our children's development, and yet there
is little acknowledgment or reward for this responsibility they carry.
As the husband of a kindergarten teacher and the father of three, I
understand that a teacher who remains in the classroom and has a
passion for teaching is a great benefit to our children. We need to
find ways to attract young professionals to teaching careers by
offering incentives to keep them in the teaching profession and develop
them into talented educators. H.R. 438 encourages those going into the
teaching profession to stay in a career they are passionate about while
affording them the financial ability to do so.
Teachers are the foundation of our children's education and
development, and, therefore, it is necessary to invest in the well-
being of their careers. Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of H.R. 438.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee)
also. I have enjoyed working together with him. I want to thank the
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson) for the great work he has
done as a new member of the committee for bringing this bill to the
floor. And I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. George
Miller) and the chairman, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner).
This is just the start of what we are doing on reauthorizing the
Higher Education Act. These are the two teacher bills that we are doing
today. We will also be doing three more bills, hopefully get them
wrapped up this fall, and then, when the other body does their work, we
will be able to early next spring, hopefully, complete the higher
education reauthorization.
With that, I would like to thank all those who have participated and
ask that our colleagues all join us in support of this bill.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of
H.R. 438, which aims to bring highly qualified teachers to low-income
areas. I rise in support of the bill but I am disappointed that this
may become yet another unfunded mandate by the other party. It is my
hope that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will not simply
vote in favor of this bill now only to deprive the underlying programs
of the financial support they need.
I support this bill, because the classrooms in our country are in
great jeopardy and we must act to rescue them. All of our children
deserve a good education that prepares them for the future as
productive members of their society and of the global economic
community. A proper education is needed in order to mold our children
into future leaders. There is a lack of highly qualified teachers in
math, science, and special education, which is leaving our children
unprepared in going onto higher education and the workforce. This
shortage of qualified teachers is mainly in rural and urban areas where
many of the families are low-income. Many of these teachers are
unqualified to teach these subjects and the new teachers that come to
these schools, do lack expertise in science, math, and special
education.
According to the National Center for Education Statistics in 1999-
2000, 67 percent of public middle school and high schools had vacancies
in special education, 70 percent had vacancies in mathematics, and 61
percent had vacancies in biology. This means that the vast majority of
our public schools need teachers to teach these vital courses. The
Committee for Economic Development also reported that almost a third of
high school math classes are taught by teachers who did not major or
minor in mathematics, and 45 percent of biology classes are taught by
instructors who did not major or minor in biology. These statistics
show that these courses are not taught by the teachers with the most
experience and can help our children reach their full potential.
Given these overwhelming statistics, I would like to extend my
support to the ``Teacher Recruitment and Retention Act''. This program
will give qualified teachers loan forgiveness when thy commit to
teaching in a low-income school for five years. A qualified teacher can
receive loan forgiveness of up to $5,000 of the outstanding loan
obligation after the fifth complete school year of teaching. Teachers
must also meet the ``highly qualified'' criteria before receiving any
loan forgiveness.
If we do not bring highly qualified teachers to these schools, we do
a great disservice to our nation and children. We hurt our Nation by
not adequately preparing our future leaders and our children by not
giving them the best public education possible, which they truly
deserve. Our economy is becoming very competitive and higher education
is necessary to become successful in our society. It is our
responsibility to fully educate our children in math, science, and
special educations so they can help reach their full potential
academically.
In addition, I offered an amendment in the Rules Committee yesterday,
which unfortunately, was thwarted by the import of the Rule as debated
this morning that also kept other very viable and important amendment
proposals from consideration. The amendment proposed to add to the list
of qualification criteria of FFEL loan forgiveness teachers who have
attended Historically Black Colleges and Universities and those serving
large portions of Hispanics, Native Americans, Asian-Pacific Americans,
or other underrepresented populations to pursue continuous teaching
careers. I offered this amendment for the purpose of creating an
incentive for former students of Historically Black Colleges and
Universities and those serving large portions of Hispanics, Native
Americans, Asian-Pacific Americans, or other underrepresented
populations to pursue continuous teaching careers. The increase in
teachers from these backgrounds increase the diversity and cultural
background of the pool of recruited and/or retained high quality
teachers of applied subjects.
Therefore I stand in strong support of H.R. 438 and hope that my
Congressional colleagues will also offer support for this legislation.
Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the
Teacher Recruitment and Retention Act and the principles behind it. I
am pleased to see the House working to align the Higher Education Act
with the goals of the No Child Left Behind Act, and I hope to see
continued efforts to this end. By increasing the amount of student
loans that may be forgiven for teachers in mathematics, science and
special education that agree to teach in Title I schools for at least 5
years, we send a strong message of support to those teachers

[[Page H6390]]

who accept the challenges of teaching in some of our most disadvantaged
schools--schools that do not have the resouces to attract and reward
high quality teachers.
Supporting these teachers in every possible way is critical to the
vision of No Child Left Behind. While H.R. 438 provides some relief to
math, science and special education teachers in Title I school
districts, more should and must be done. Ensuring that every child,
regardless of his or her income or background, has highly qualified
teachers--whether they are in elementary or secondary schools, head
start or other pre-kindergarten programs--is essential to ensuring
their achievement. I applaud the message and the meaning behind the
Teacher Recruitment and Retention Act and I hope we will continue to
show support for teachers that take on the challenge of service in
underprivileged areas as we take up appropriations, Head Start
reauthorization and other related legislation. I urge all my colleagues
to support H.R. 438.
Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Teacher Recruitment
and Retention Act (H.R. 438), which will help improve the education of
children attending public schools in high poverty areas.
Research has demonstrated that highly qualified teachers and high
retention rates improve the performance of our schools. This will
require additional incentives for our nation's college students to
enter the teaching profession.
The Teacher Recruitment and Retention Act will increase the amount of
student loans that can be forgiven from $5,000 to $17,000 for ``highly
qualified'' math, science or special education teachers serving in
schools with special needs.
For the past two years, Congress has been working to ensure that no
child is left behind. We must also ensure that we do not leave minority
teachers behind.
Currently minority students account for 33 percent of American public
school enrollment. But minorities only account for 13 percent of
America's public school teachers. It is estimated that more than 40
percent of the nation's public schools have no minority teachers at
all.
This gap between the percentage of minority students and teachers
will not close on its own. In fact, it will grow wider every day.
By the year 2025, minority students will account for half of American
public school enrollment. But one bleak estimate has minority teachers
representing just 5 percent of the future teaching force.
If attracting and retaining high quality teachers is necessary for
our children to have a high quality education, and we continue to value
equal opportunity and diversity in our public workplace, then more must
be done to correct this disparity.
That is why I have worked to secure funding for innovative programs
on Long Island.
In 2002, I secured $800,000 for a new Institute for Minority Teacher
Training, based at St. Johns University, to attract a new cadre of
minority math and science teachers.
Last year, I secured $400,000 in funding for Dowling College to
continue the development of an innovative program to attract minority
students from economically disadvantaged neighborhoods, help the
students obtain an undergraduate degree, and return them to the same
neighborhoods to teach in underserved public schools.
I am hopeful that this legislation will work in concert with my
efforts on Long Island to ensure that our teachers become as diverse as
the student body they mentor.
We cannot make the mistake of leaving minority teachers behind.
I urge my colleagues to join me in this effort by creating similar
programs in their districts and by expanding incentives for people to
teach in previously neglected schools.
Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 438, the ``Teacher
Recruitment and Retention Act of 2003.'' The bill increases from $5,000
to $17,500 the maximum amount in which student loans can be forgiven
for math, science and special education teachers in Title I schools.
While the bill is clearly a step in the right direction, the Republican
majority has failed once again to fully fund key education programs.
Prior to the enactment of the ``No Child Left Behind Act'' (NCLB)
President Bush and the Republican leadership promised to provide
funding to place a ``highly qualified'' teacher in every classroom.
Tomorrow the House will vote on the Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations
bill which freezes funding for the Teacher Quality State Grant programs
for FY04.
Several weeks ago the Republican leadership forced through a
monstrous tax cut with the promise that vital domestic programs would
not be cut. However, the bill which was reported out of the
Appropriations Committee freezes funding for Teacher Quality State
Grants at $2.9 billion in FY04, the bill falls far short of the $3.175
billion promised in the ``No Child Left Behind Act'' funding schedule.
Overall, the Republican leadership is more than $8 billion below the
amount authorized for the ``No Child Left Behind Act'' for FY04. The
$24.3 billion authorized for FY04 is consistent with the Republican
leadership's attack on domestic programs. The 1.6 percent increase over
FY03 continues a downward trend for key education programs. Instead of
rewarding ``corporate fat cats'' the Republican party should rescind
the tax cut and support increased funding for key education programs.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 438, a
bill to increase the amount of student loans that may be forgiven for
teachers in mathematics, science, and special education. The Higher
Education Act of 1965 currently provides that teachers at schools
designated as ``low-income'' may cancel up to $5,000 of his/her student
loans. H.R. 438 would increase this amount to $17,500 for mathematics,
science, and special education teachers.
American Samoa currently has 37 schools designated as ``low-income''
and I have encouraged our teachers to take advantage of the opportunity
to have portions of their student loans forgiven. A good education is
crucial to our children's development as individuals and as members of
this community, and we need to begin with providing our children with
quality teachers who are well educated and committed to teaching.
H.R. 438 will allow us to continue to recruit and attract qualified
teachers committed to educating our children. I only hope that in the
future we will be able to extend this increased amount to all teachers.
I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 438.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Teacher
Recruitment and Retention Act, which would provide math, science, and
special education teachers with up to $17,500 in Federal student loan
forgiveness if they teach for 5 consecutive years in a Title I school.
Classrooms in poor areas are facing a crisis. A lack of qualified
teachers in math, science, and special education is leaving schools
without options and students without the educational opportunities they
deserve. The shortage affects children both in urban and rural schools,
and while the demand for teachers remains very high, the number of them
entering classrooms remains low, particularly in depressed areas. There
is an obvious need to provide incentives for educators to teach these
subjects in lower-income neighborhoods.
If signed into law, the legislation before us will benefit children
in nearly every part of my congressional district. The Bakersfield City
School District, for example, has 41 eligible schools, the fifth-most
of any district in California. Sixteen of the eighteen schools in the
Lancaster Unified School District are eligible. The bill will also
benefit schools in Atascadero, Mojave, California City, Taft, San Luis
Obispo, and Ridgecrest, CA.
Our President said that, ``when it comes to educating our children,
failure is not an option.'' As such, the goal of the Federal Government
with regard to education should be to help bring good teachers to
schools that desperately need them, and that is why I am a cosponsor of
and look forward to voting for this legislation.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, each one of us has had a special teacher that
touched our lives as children--a teacher who managed to capture our
minds and create in us a hunger for more information.
Mr. Speaker, I rise here today in support of H.R. 438, the Teacher
Recruitment and Retention Act of 2003, which will create incentives for
our nation's best and brightest teachers to educate students in our
poorest and most disadvantaged school districts.
It will also ensure that our children with special needs are taught
by educators who are trained to work with their unique disabilities, so
that they can succeed along with their peers in the classroom.
This legislation more than triples the maximum amount of Federal
student loan forgiveness available for math, science and special
education teachers who commit to teaching math, science, and special
education in a low-income community school for 5 years.
This dramatic increase in loan forgiveness--from $5,000 in current
law to $17,500--will provide schools with an effective tool to recruit
and retain high quality teachers in areas of critical need.
Student loan forgiveness for high-need teachers, such as math,
science, and special education, provides an effective incentive and can
be a critical link in increasing the supply of these essential
educators.
At a time when our States are facing a growing fiscal crisis with
fewer resources available in their own budgets for recruiting teachers,
this legislation will provide an additional recruitment tool for
schools serving low-income students in inner cities and rural areas.
It is my hope that this legislation will also attract intelligent
young men and women, including those from minority communities, to
enter the teaching profession and to specialize in math, science, or
special education.

[[Page H6391]]

Helping our States and local communities recruit excellent teachers
can have dramatic results. Students in these schools are generally
those that would benefit most from having a highly qualified teacher,
and these schools often face the most difficulty in attracting quality
educators.
Studies show that teachers with advanced degrees are less prevalent
in high-poverty schools. Other studies also demonstrate that a
knowledgeable and qualified teacher is a critical determinant in
closing the achievement gap for students.
H.R. 438, the Teacher Recruitment and Retention Act provides a
meaningful incentive to attract teachers in key subjects to Title I
schools in our nation's inner cities and rural areas, where they are
desperately needed.
The two bills that the House has considered today make critical
reforms to help States and school districts ensure that every child has
the chance to learn from a highly qualified school teacher.
H.R. 438, the Teacher Recruitment and Retention Act and H.R. 2211,
the Ready to Teach Act demonstrate the commitment of the House to offer
new tools to schools and communities by strengthening teacher training
programs and creating significant new incentives for math, science, and
special education teachers to educate students in disadvantaged school
districts.
Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Speaker, as a mother of a teacher, and the
granddaughter of one of my disrict's most noteworthy educators, I rise
today in support of H.R. 438, the Teacher Recruitment and Retention
Act.
Our teachers lay the foundation for our future, and must be
adequately compensated in whatever field they teach.
However, math, science, and special education are subjects in which
many rural and urban school districts, including my own, are facing
shortages. In fact the entire Nation faces such shortages.
According to the Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy, 31
percent of math teachers, 33 percent of life sciences teachers, and 57
percent of physical science teachers currently teaching grades 7-12 do
not have a major or minor in the field they are teaching.
The U.S. demand for scientists and engineers is expected to increase
at more than double the rate for all other occupations during the next
decade. The need for a scientifically literate population is essential
to boost our economy and strengthen our national security. Technology
and the innovation it creates drive productivity and economic growth.
If the U.S. is to retain its competitive edge and maintain its
leadership role in the world, we must do a better job teaching our
children science and mathematics, as well as providing every child who
has special needs the opportunity to develop and learn to his or her
fullest potential.
To do this effectively a concerted effort must be made to recruit,
train, reinvigorate, and retain teachers in these fields.
H.R. 438 provides an important step in meeting these challenges by
expanding loan forgiveness provisions in the Higher Education Act to
$17,500 for math, science, and special education teachers teaching in
Title I schools.
I introduced similar legislation last Congress. H.R. 789 which would
expand the eligibility of individuals to qualify for loan forgiveness
for teachers in order to provide additional incentives for teachers
currently employed or seeking employment in economically depressed
rural areas, territories, and Indian reservations.
H.R. 438 does a part of that, and I am pleased to support it. I also
look forward to joining Mr. Thompson on his Rural Teacher Recruitment
and Retention Act and taking even further steps to better compensate
teachers and to ensuring that all of our children are prepared to meet
the challenges of this century.
Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that we are making teacher
preparation the first order of business for the reauthorization of the
Higher Education Act. Teachers are the common thread running through
all of our education efforts.
Quality teaching is essential if we are to fulfill our promise to
leave no child behind. Head Start, IDEA, bilingual education, adult
education, and higher education, all depend on high quality instruction
by well-prepared teachers.
I support loan forgiveness of up to $17,500 for math, science, and
special education teachers. However, I believe the scope of this bill
is too narrow.
It does not address other equally pressing priorities, such as early
childhood education or the growing need for teachers for an expanding
population of limited English proficient children.
During committee consideration, my colleagues and I attempted to
expand the loan forgiveness programs, but we lost every amendment on a
party-line vote.
We were told by the other side that increasing loan forgiveness for
bilingual teachers and Head Start teachers was a worthwhile Federal
investment, but they said because we have limited resources, we have to
make choices.
I'm all for making choices; that's what we're here to do. Making
choices means setting priorities. The Hispanic community, and the low-
income community are asking us: When are our children going to be
considered a priority?
Through the No Child Left Behind Act, we require that schools across
the country close the achievement gap between limited English
proficient children and their peers. This is absolutely the right thing
to do. Unfortunately, there are not enough teachers to do the job.
According to the National Center for Education Statistics, there are
approximately 4.5 million limited English proficient children in our
schools, and the number is growing. Sadly, only 12.5 percent of the
teachers who have these LEP students in their classrooms have had 8 or
more hours of preparation in the last 3 years on how to teach students
who are limited English proficient.
It is unfortunate that the majority has insisted on a budget and a
series of tax cuts that have drained the treasury and knocked Hispanic
and LEP children from the priority list.
My hope is that we will put resources behind all the good intentions
of this legislation.
Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Education and Workforce
Committee, I supported H.R. 438, the Teacher Recruitment and Retention
Act of 2003 and I am pleased to have the opportunity to support it on
the House Floor today.
The 1998 Reauthorization of the Higher Education Act established a
loan forgiveness program for teachers in title I schools. Borrowers
with no outstanding loan balance as of 1998 could receive up to $5,000
in loan forgiveness after teaching for 5 years in a title I school with
at least 30 percent poverty.
This legislation would increase the amount of loan forgiveness for
math, science and special education teachers from $5,000 to $17,500. It
is critical that we ensure all classrooms have highly qualified
teachers, especially in schools with high populations of students
disadvantaged by poverty. This bill, however, could be significantly
improved by expanding loan forgiveness to teachers of all disciplines
in high poverty schools, to Head Start teachers, and to teachers in
rural schools.
Rural schools across America are struggling as they attempt to
provide a strong and sound educational experience for their students.
Their remoteness, limited resources and small faculties present
numerous challenges for school administrators and school boards. In
addition, rural teachers in Wisconsin earn 11 percent less than
teachers in urban school districts. School loan forgiveness for
teachers in rural schools would allow new teachers to view careers in
small rural school districts as positive professional options.
During committee consideration of H.R. 438, and again during Rules
Committee yesterday evening, I offered an amendment that would have
helped small rural school districts increase their competitiveness for
recruitment of teachers. This amendment would have expanded the
eligibility of the loan forgiveness provision to teachers in rural
schools. Moreover, because this amendment did not increase the cost of
the bill, I am disappointed that it was prevented from being considered
on the House Floor.
Ensuring that all of our children have highly qualified teachers is
critical to ensuring their achievement. In the 1999-2000 school year,
over a fifth of secondary students took at least one class from a
teacher who neither majored nor minored in that subject in college;
over a third received instruction in at least one class from a teacher
who was not certified in the subject nor had academic training in that
subject.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 438 will help put qualified math, science, and
special education teachers in the classroom and although I am concerned
that H.R. 438 does not go far enough in assisting our local schools and
teachers, it is a step forward. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to
support this bill and I hope we can continue to work to ensure that all
our students have highly qualified teachers.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ose). All time for debate on the bill
has expired.

Amendment Offered by Mr. George Miller of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. George Miller of California:
Page 2, line 24, strike ``and''; on page 3, line 24, strike
the period and insert ``; and'' and after such line insert
the following:
``(iii) an elementary or secondary school teacher who
primarily teaches reading and--

[[Page H6392]]

``(I) who meets the requirements of subsection (b), subject
to subparagraph (D) of this paragraph;
``(II) who has obtained a separate reading instruction
credential from the State in which the teacher is employed;
and
``(III) who is certified by the chief administrative
officer of the public or nonprofit private elementary or
secondary school in which the borrower is employed to teach
reading--

``(aa) as being proficient in teaching the essential
components of reading instruction as defined in section 1208
of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965; and
``(bb) as having such credential.
Page 6, line 18, strike ``and''; on page 7, line 17, strike
the period and insert ``; and'' and after such line insert
the following:
``(iii) an elementary or secondary school teacher who
primarily teaches reading and--

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 309, the
gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) and a Member opposed each
will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. George
Miller).
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such
time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I offer this amendment, along with the chairman of the
committee, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner). This is to provide
loan forgiveness for those teachers who specialize in teaching reading.
Just last week we saw the scores on the National Assessment of
Education Progress that were released by the Department of Education,
and the scores obviously show that we have a long way to go. While the
scores of fourth-graders were up slightly, the scores of eighth-graders
were stagnant, and the scores for high school students were actually
down. This is not acceptable, but I think it does demonstrate that in
some areas we are making progress.
I think we also understand that one of the basic tenets of the Leave
No Child Behind was that good, qualified teachers in areas of
specialties were an absolute cornerstone to the success of this
legislation. All of the data suggests to us that where a child is
exposed in succeeding years to well-qualified teachers, those children
do much better than the children who receive teachers who may or may
not be qualified to teach the subject matters.
This legislation to provide loan forgiveness goes a long way in
helping us to provide the incentives not only to attract individuals to
teaching, but also to make sure that we have a chance to retain those
teachers for a period of 5 years. As many Members have said, after 5
years, if the school districts are doing the other things they should
be doing in terms of supporting these teachers and providing other
efforts at retention, and providing professional development, making
sure that teachers are not isolated throughout the school year, that
they have a chance to talk with their peers and learn the skills of
teaching and learn what they are doing right and what they are doing
wrong, then those individuals will tend to stay.
It is not just about money, but, clearly, these teachers also have to
make a rational decision about their futures and their careers. This
effort to give loan forgiveness to teachers who specialize in math and
science and reading, to provide over $17,000 of loan forgiveness over 5
years, I believe, can be very helpful to the retention of those
teachers and to the attraction of those individuals to the teaching
profession.
I believe this amendment is consistent with the idea that we are
trying to do these in the areas of high need, where extra
specialization is necessary, and to make sure that we start to develop
a corps of individuals who are properly qualified to teaching.
Obviously, reading, whether you are going to be studying math or
science or social studies, or whatever else you are going to be doing
throughout your educational career, the ability to read is going to
determine how successful you navigate your education as an elementary
school student, as a high school student, and later, perhaps, as a
college student. The ability to read is also identified by employers as
a concern as to whether or not employees are flexible enough to learn
additional skills as they move through a career and as jobs change so
that they are able to adapt.
So this investment in these reading specialists, I think, goes a long
way toward improving this legislation, and I believe will be very
helpful to school districts who are trying to focus on the requirements
and the incentives in the Leave No Child Behind on trying to improve
reading at the earliest grade levels. One of the objectives of
everybody on the committee is to improve the ability of young people to
read so that they can learn to read, and then, as Secretary Reilly used
to say, read to learn. We want to accomplish that.
It is also clearly the goal of the President in this bill with the
sections that he pushed very hard for on reading and reading readiness
in this legislation. And so I would urge my colleagues to support this
amendment.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take the time in
opposition, even though I am not opposed to the amendment.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Ohio?
There was no objection.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, let me congratulate my good friend, the gentleman from
California (Mr. George Miller), the ranking member of our committee, on
our ability to put this amendment together and bring it to the floor.
As we were looking at the loan forgiveness bill and the budget we were
given to work with it, we realized in committee that we had a little
more room, and so the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) and
I had a discussion about these reading specialists.

{time} 1515

They do provide a very important service in many of our poorer
schools in terms of helping students to read, helping to train those
others who teach reading, and I do think it is an important addition to
the bill.
As the President said the other day and has said on a number of
occasions, reading is the new civil right, a quote given to him by a
lady on the campaign trail at one time. We all know if you cannot read,
trying to learn any subject, trying to function in our society is not
going to happen.
When we look at the test scores that the gentleman from California
(Mr. George Miller) referred to several minutes ago, they are basically
flat. We have a real serious problem in many of our schools because
kids are not being taught to read. Now this is somewhat
incomprehensible to many of us; but we are engaged with our kids, or in
the case of the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), his
grandchildren. We are working with our kids, exposing them to books and
exposing them to reading. Unfortunately, many kids in America are not
being exposed. Their parents have two jobs, or a single parent having
to work. The extra focus that we put into No Child Left Behind on
increasing the amount of funds available to target kindergarten through
third graders is critical if we are serious about leaving no child
behind. I congratulate the gentleman from California (Mr. George
Miller) on his amendment, and urge my colleagues to adopt it.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Georgia (Mr. Isakson), a former chairman of the school board of
the State of Georgia.
Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Speaker, I commend the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Boehner), the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon), the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Kildee), and the gentleman from California (Mr.
George Miller) for their hard work on this legislation.
I came to the floor, though, because of some comments I heard in
other speeches. I think there is unanimity that this is a great bill.
There are some people who talk of its inadequacies and how it could do
more, and there have been some who say we are not doing

[[Page H6393]]

enough because we have given tax breaks to rich people and we have not
prioritized education, and I have to address that briefly.
Public education in America is paid for in my State and in most
States, about 67 percent of the property tax bill that is paid in my
State goes to education. About two-thirds of every dime that taxpayers
pay goes to public education. Our State's budget for public education
is $6 billion. The Federal Government in IDEA and title I puts about 7
percent in, and all those monies come from these taxpayers.
The fact that we gave a tax break to create jobs, growth and
opportunity in this country inures itself to the benefit of education
as much or more than what we are doing in this legislation because
those taxpayers are school teachers. The tax break for a family of two
or four making $44,000 a year, which ends up being $11,000 a year, can
go to help pay that student loan off rather than send it to the
government.
The corporation that takes benefits for expenses or takes benefits
for advanced depreciation that is a partner in education is also
somebody that is employing someone else who can buy a home and pay
taxes to finance the schools. So I understand the argument, but to me
it hurts that we take a bill that is quality and that is good and that
everybody here would like to make a little better, and all of a sudden
blame the very people who are funding education, who are paying for our
teachers, who make it possible for us to have a nationwide public
education system, end up being criticized that we cannot broaden the
scope of the benefit we are offering in the forgiveness of the first
$17,500 of those who go into 40 percent title I schools and teach math
or science or special education.
Mr. Speaker, I wanted to come to the floor to say the American
taxpayer is the reason we have quality public schools. America's school
teachers are taxpayers, and the fact that our tax policy is for them to
keep more of their money is just as much of an incentive to help them
in the job that they perform to pay the taxes they pay as the
forgiveness of a loan might have been. I enjoy working with every
member of our committee, and I am proud to join with the other Members
here today to see that we focus on our title I schools, we focus on
quality teachers, and we focus on leaving no child behind.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the
balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) for
managing both of these bills on the floor today and for his
contributions to this legislation. I want to thank the gentleman from
California (Mr. McKeon), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson), and the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Isakson) for all their cooperation on this legislation. I
think these bills are consistent with what we have been saying about
the importance of teachers in the classroom. I think they finally put
some resources in place to help those individuals who want to become
teachers and who want to remain teachers, and I would urge passage of
this amendment.
Finally, I would say when we see a young child who can read and
master these strokes, it is a wonderful feeling. I was very happy when
I saw that my granddaughter was actually excited because Harry Potter
was almost 800 pages. She was worried that it might be only 300 to 400
pages, but she was excited that the latest book was almost 800 pages so
she could rip through it and read it. To see that kind of excitement on
a child's face who is comfortable with reading is something that we
hope for all of our Nation's children. Hopefully, this amendment will
provide a little bit of help to do that.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ose). Pursuant to House Resolution 309,
the previous question is ordered on the bill and on the amendment by
the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
California (Mr. George Miller).
The amendment was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question are postponed.

____________________