Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 438) to increase the amount of student loans that may be forgiven for teachers in mathematics, science, and special education.

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.

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.

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. 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

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. 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?

I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

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. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah).

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.

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. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

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. 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.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 309 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

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. 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. 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

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. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

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. 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.

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts to engage me.

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.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.

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.

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.

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

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.

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. 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. 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

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. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

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.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take the time in opposition, even though I am not opposed to the amendment.

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.

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. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

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. 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.

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.