Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2211) to reauthorize title II of the Higher Education Act of 1965.

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. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

H.R. 2211, the Ready to Teach Act of 2003, which was reported by the Committee on Education and the Workforce on June 10 by a bipartisan voice vote, complements the No Child Left Behind Act and will help improve the quality and accountability of our Nation's teacher preparation programs.

No Child Left Behind set a lofty, but achievable, goal of placing a highly qualified teacher in every public school classroom by the 2005- 2006 school year. We can all agree that a highly qualified teacher plays a pivotal role in the successful education of our Nation's children, and those children deserve nothing less. Congress has kept our word to increase funding to help ensure teachers can become highly qualified. In fact, we increased funding for teacher quality grants by 35 percent in the first year of No Child Left Behind alone, and the increases are continuing. We are providing the resources, and this bill will build on that effort by supporting our teachers with real reforms.

There is a serious problem when the programs charged with training the teachers of tomorrow are not meeting that goal, and that is exactly what we are facing today. Everyone here will agree that highly qualified teachers prepared to meet the challenges of the classroom and fulfill the needs of our students are essential if we are going to succeed with education reform in America. Yet the Nation's teacher- training programs suffer from serious lack of accountability, and this time it is the teachers who are being left behind.

The bill before us today takes important steps to ensure that teacher-training programs are in fact giving perspective teachers the skills and knowledge they need to meet the highly qualified standard in No Child Left Behind. Let us be clear on this point: this bill is about supporting our teachers. We are expecting a lot from them, and they deserve to have access to high quality training programs that ensure that when they step into the classroom they are truly ready to teach.

This legislation makes several improvements to title II of the Higher Education Act to ensure that teacher-training programs are providing perspective teachers with the skills they need to be highly qualified and ready to teach when they enter the classroom. This bill is about helping teachers, pure and simple, giving them the tools and training they need to meet the needs of our Nation's students.

H.R. 2211 authorizes competitively awarded grants under the Higher Education Act to increase the quality of our teaching force by improving the preparation of perspective teachers and enhancing teacher professional development activities. We want to hold teacher- preparation programs accountable for preparing highly qualified teachers and recruit highly qualified individuals, including minorities and individuals from other occupations, into the teaching force.

The Ready to Teach Act ensures that program effectiveness can accurately be measured and places a renewed emphasis on the skills needed to meet the ``highly qualified'' standard found in No Child Left Behind, such as the use of advanced technology in the classroom, vigorous academic content knowledge, scientifically based research and challenging State student academic standards.

Under this legislation, funds can also be used to recruit individuals, and specifically minorities, into the teaching profession. The committee adopted a bipartisan amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Burns), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens), and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa) to authorize grants for the creation of Centers of Excellence at high quality, minority-serving institutions.

In general, those Centers of Excellence will help increase teacher recruitment and make institutional improvements to teacher-preparation programs at minority-serving institutions. Grants under this program will be competitively awarded to high quality teacher preparation programs at eligible institutions, which include historically black colleges and universities,

Hispanic-serving institutions, tribally controlled colleges or universities, Alaska native-serving institutions, or native Hawaiian- serving institutions.

Mr. Chairman, as we work to place highly qualified teachers in classrooms across the Nation, I am particularly pleased that the Ready to Teach Act allows for innovative programs that provide alternative options to traditional teacher-training programs. Proposals outlined in this bill, such as charter colleges of education, provide a much-needed alternative route to training highly qualified and effective teachers.

H.R. 2211 authorizes States to use funds to set up charter colleges of education that function in a manner similar to elementary and secondary charter schools, except that they would prepare highly qualified teachers in a higher-education setting. Charter colleges of education would exchange flexibility in meeting State requirements for institutional commitments to produce results-based outcomes for teacher-education graduates, measured based on increased student academic achievement.

This bill takes the important step of recognizing that individuals seeking to enter the teaching profession often have varied backgrounds; and by creating a more flexible approach that steps outside the box, these individuals can become highly qualified teachers through training programs as unique as their own individual experiences.

H.R. 2211 will also hold teacher-preparation programs accountable for preparing highly qualified teachers. While current higher-education law contains annual reporting requirements, these reporting measures have often proven ineffective in measuring the true quality of teacher- preparation programs. In fact, the current requirements have often been manipulated, leaving data skewed and often irrelevant. The Ready to Teach Act includes accountability provisions that will strengthen the reporting measures and hold teacher-preparation programs accountable for providing accurate and useful information.

I would like to thank a new member of our committee, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey), the author of this bill, for his work on the Ready to Teach Act. I would also like to commend my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), the ranking member; the gentleman from California (Chairman McKeon) of the subcommittee; and his ranking member, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee), for their bipartisan effort on this bill. They have put together a bipartisan bill that makes commonsense changes to title II of the Higher Education Act to help improve the quality of our Nation's teachers.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the underlying bill.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, let me again congratulate my friend from Michigan. This is a bipartisan bill that has been worked on with Members on both sides of the aisle to try to address the serious needs that we have in our teacher preparation programs as outlined in title II of the Higher Education Act. But as a side note, I need to respond to my colleague from Michigan when it comes to the issue of funding the Federal Government's role in education.

We can look at this as a glass half empty, or we can look at it as a glass half full. Federal education spending over the last 3 fiscal years has gone from $28 billion for elementary and secondary programs to $35.7 billion for these same programs, including almost $400 million to pay for the development and implementation of the testing requirements under No Child Left Behind.

We can look at title I. It has been increased almost 200 percent over the last 6 years. We can look at the last 6 years of special education funding having risen 300 percent.

So when Members come to the floor of the House and suggest that we are not meeting our commitments, I have no choice but to stand up and say, let us be honest. We are doing our share.

Could we do more? Of course, we could do more.

But as I told my colleagues one day, I was elected to come to Congress and make decisions; I was not elected to be Santa Claus, and today is not Christmas. As we get through the appropriations process, we are going to continue to work at the appropriate funding levels for these education programs. But, today, we have a bipartisan bill that will help improve the quality of our Nation's teachers and those who seek to be teachers, and we have to continue to work together to meet this important goal.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey), the author of this bill, who spent an awful lot of time as a school board member, a State legislator, and now as a Member of Congress, developing teacher-training programs to help meet the needs of our Nation's teachers.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Ballenger), a senior member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Burns), a former college professor.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Select Education.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, let me thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee), the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), and Members on both sides of the aisle for their work. I especially want to thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey), a new member of our committee and new Member of Congress, for his authorship of the underlying bill.

We all know that one of the real keys to ensuring every child in America gets a chance at a good education is to ensure that every child has a highly qualified teacher in their classroom. There has been much effort around the country at improving the quality of teacher preparation programs. What we try to do in the bill we have before us today is to strengthen those programs and to bring greater accountability for those programs that need a little more oversight than they are getting today.

The goal here is to take young people and others outside of the profession and put them through rigorous programs that will benefit them and their students when they are in the classroom. There are just too many programs today around the country that are doing not as well as they could in terms of preparing teachers for tomorrow.

There has been a lot of discussion here about funding, because later on today the House is expected to take up the Labor-HHS appropriation bill, which includes the funding for education. As I said earlier, 2 to 3 years ago we were spending $28 billion a year on elementary and secondary education programs. Today we are spending $35.7 billion per year. Most of the money to fund primary and secondary education comes from State governments, local governments, and property taxes. The Federal Government's role is focused on helping needier students have a better chance at the same kind of education than our children received.

We are doing our share. Could we be doing more? Absolutely, we could be doing more. But we are here, as I said before, to make decisions, and I do think that we are meeting our commitments under No Child Left Behind. I do again suggest to all of our Members that this is a good underlying bipartisan bill, so let us support it.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I consume.

I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick), my friend, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, this rule provides for the consideration of H.R. 2211, the Ready to Teach Act of 2003. It is a relatively noncontroversial bill that reauthorizes programs under Title II of the Higher Education Act. The Committee on Education and the Workforce, Democrats and Republicans, worked together to produce a good bipartisan bill, but their hard work, Mr. Speaker, is being cheapened by the Republican leadership in the process by which we are considering this bill today.

The Ready to Teach Act seeks to ensure that teacher training programs produce well-trained and well-prepared teachers who can fully address the educational needs of our children as mandated by the No Child Left Behind Act. It is supported by Members on both sides of the aisle, and I have no doubt that it will be approved later today.

But for some reason, Mr. Speaker, we are considering this bill under a restrictive rule.

Last night, eight amendments were offered in the Committee on Rules. Of those, seven amendments were offered by Democrats and one was offered by a Republican. If asked, the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules and his fellow committee Republicans will say that this is fair, that the Committee on Rules made in order four of the seven Democratic amendments and we should all be grateful and happy with their generosity.

But, Mr. Speaker, that is not the point; and the Members of this body know it. Critical amendments were not made in order, amendments that people feel very strongly about. With only a handful of amendments offered in the committee, for the life of me, I cannot figure out why the Republican leadership wants to shut down debate on this bipartisan bill, unless, of course, they are continuing their practice of disallowing amendments that might actually win, unless they are afraid they will not like the outcome if the House is allowed to work its will.

This is wrong, and I want all of my colleagues to know that, that with this rule, the Republican leadership has tainted the good work introduced by the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Do not get me wrong: it is not the bill I have strong problems with, but rather it is the process. I commend the committee chairman, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner); the ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller); the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon); and the subcommittee ranking member, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee), along with the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey), for their bipartisan cooperation on this bill.

Although this is a good bill, I would like to voice a couple of concerns. The reauthorization of the Higher Education Act of 1965 that this House approved in 1998 authorized the Teacher Quality Enhancement Grants for States and Partnerships at $300 million annually. H.R. 2211 will authorize these critical grant programs at $300 million for fiscal year 2004 and for such sums as necessary through FY 2008.

However, when compared to the fiscal year 2004 Labor, Health and Human Services and Education Appropriations Act, I find that the teacher quality enhancement grants are basically flat-funded at $90 million. That is $210 million less than what the Ready to Teach Act requires for the preparation of quality teachers.

Mr. Speaker, this is the same old song and dance. Once again, we are authorizing an education bill for critical education programs; and after we vote, we will all put out our press releases telling our constituents that we are strong supporters of education, and we will go home and say that education is our number one priority. But the reality, however, is that this Congress starves those programs in the appropriations process, starves them of the funds they need in order to successfully prepare our children for the future.

The numbers do not lie. For fiscal year 2004, the Republican leadership will provide less than one-third of what this bill would authorize for these programs. Do you know what that is, Mr. Speaker? It is deliberately deceptive. It is hypocritical. It is cynical. It is forcing unfunded mandates on our States and our teachers and our local school districts at a time when they are struggling with terrible budget problems. It is a lousy way to run education policy.

It is exactly what this House has done on the No Child Left Behind Act and the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act. You all remember the No Child Left Behind Act, Mr. Speaker. It was passed by the Congress and signed by the President with great fanfare and hundreds of press conferences and press releases. The President and the Republican leadership claimed that this bill proved that they cared deeply about our children and were dedicated to ensuring that every child in America got a quality education.

Well, Mr. Speaker, it was all smoke and mirrors, a big public relations scam. If you do not believe me, just look at the bill we are going to take up tomorrow. The No Child Left Behind Act is underfunded by $8 billion in the Labor-HHS-Education bill, $8 billion. The majority of the programs to strengthen or improve teacher preparation, teacher quality, teacher professional development and teacher training in the FY 2004 Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bill received funding levels well under the requirements set by the No Child Left Behind Act. Some are even level-funded or face reduced funding.

For example, in the FY 2004 appropriations bill, the funding for the Teacher Quality State Grants is $244 million short of the funding level required 2 years ago under the No Child Left Behind Act, but each of our States and each of our school districts is still mandated to ensure that every single teacher of every academic subject be highly qualified by 2005, with or without the money to carry out that mandate.

This, Mr. Speaker, is the Congress that makes sure that these States do not have the money. The Republican leadership would rather make sure the

lives of millionaires are made even more comfortable than making sure there is a qualified teacher in every classroom and every school in this country.

So, here we are, authorizing another education bill, knowing, Mr. Speaker, that the Republican leadership has absolutely no intention of actually providing the funding that is promised. Our families and our schools deserve a heck of a lot better than a long list of broken promises. The money is there if we want it to be there. It is simply a matter of choice, a matter of priorities. I hope that as the appropriations process continues that this Congress begins to keep its word.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Let me just close by again reiterating my support for the underlying bill, but also expressing my great concern that what we are doing here is authorizing a program with no intention of funding the program. I find that somewhat deceptive. I personally believe that this Congress and this leadership needs to put its money where its press releases are, and rather than leave no millionaire behind, I think we should keep our promise and leave no child behind. We are not doing that when we authorize educational programs and then we do not follow up with the appropriations.

I am going to urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule because while I support the underlying bill, I think this process stinks. I mean, once again, Members who have serious amendments, who have legitimate issues that they want to debate on this floor are being shut out. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah) had an amendment that would direct the States to reduce the gap between higher-income districts and lower-income districts by increasing the number of highly qualified teachers. He was shut out. The gentleman from California (Mr. Baca) had an amendment that allows for a bonus award to teachers who achieve technology certification according to the Computer and Technology Industry Association and the Information Technology Association. He was shut out. The gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson- Lee) had an amendment that would require the Secretary to collect all repayments and redirect the funds to low-income and historically low- achieving school districts. She was shut out.

Now, if my colleagues on the other side of the aisle think these are amendments that are not worth their support, then they can make that argument on the House Floor, and they can vote ``no.'' But some of us think that these amendments are good, and that we should have the opportunity to not only debate them, but vote up or down on them. So these Members were shut out of the process, and this has become, unfortunately, a trend in this Congress.

So I would urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), for yielding me this time. I would like to thank the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon), as well as the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee). We have worked very closely, very good together, as the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) pointed out, in a very bipartisan fashion. And, as the chairman just mentioned, it is not all about funding; it is certainly also about accountability. That is what we are trying to do in the reauthorization of the Title II part of the Higher Education Act: We want to bring additional accountability so that we make sure that no child is left behind by assuring that a qualified teacher is, indeed, in every classroom.

H.R. 2211, the Ready to Teach Act of 2003, is a bill that I introduced to help ensure that teacher training programs are producing well-prepared teachers to meet the needs of American students. H.R. 2211 updates the teacher provisions of the Higher Education Act. Specifically, this legislation amends Part A, Teacher Quality Enhancement Grants for States and Partnerships, and also Part B, Preparing Tomorrow's Teachers to Use Technology of Title II of the Higher Education Act. In addition, H.R. 2211 authorizes teacher preparation Centers of Excellence for minority-serving institutions.

The purposes of the Ready to Teach Act are to increase student academic achievement, elevate the quality of the current and future teaching force by improving the preparation of prospective teachers and enhancing professional development activities; hold teacher preparation programs accountable for preparing highly qualified teachers; and to recruit highly qualified individuals, including minorities and individuals from other occupations, into the teaching force.

As in current law, H.R. 2211 authorizes three types of competitive grant programs: State grants, partnership grants, and teacher recruitment grants.

State grant funds must be used to reform teacher preparation requirements, coordinate with activities under Title II of No Child Left Behind Act, and ensure that current and future teachers are highly qualified. Programs administered through State grants will focus on effective teacher preparation, placing a renewed emphasis on the skills needed to meet the ``highly qualified'' standard.

The partnership grants allow effective partners to join together, combining their strengths and resources to train highly qualified teachers and achieve success in the classroom. The eligible partnerships must include four partners: a high-quality teacher preparation program at an institution of higher education; a college of arts and sciences, presumably at that same institution; a high-need, local educational agency; and a public or private educational organization. It can include additional partners, but it must include those four. These partnerships will require the faculty of the teacher preparation programs to serve with a highly qualified teacher in the classroom, allowing effective in-class experience to ensure that teachers are truly prepared to teach. Among other things, partnership activities will help to ensure that teachers are able to use advanced technology effectively in the classroom, address the needs of students with different learning styles, including students with disabilities, and receive training in methods of improving student behavior in the classroom.

As America holds teacher preparation programs accountable for preparing teachers who will ensure that no child is left behind, the need to recruit individuals into the teaching profession will only expand. Teacher recruitment grants will help bring high-quality individuals into teacher programs and ultimately put more highly qualified teachers into the classrooms. H.R. 2211 recognizes the need to ensure that high-need, local educational agencies are able to effectively recruit highly qualified teachers, and will help answer that need by increasing the number of teachers being trained.

H.R. 2211 also includes a new program which is based on provisions submitted to the committee by the United Negro College Fund and the Hispanic Education Coalition to authorize teacher preparation Centers of Excellence at minority-serving institutions. In general, the purpose of this program and this amendment brought to us by my colleague and good friend, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Burns), are to increase teacher recruitment and to make institutional improvements to teacher preparation programs at minority-serving institutions.

While current higher education law contains annual reporting and accountability requirements for institutions of higher education, these measures, as the chairman indicated, have proven ineffective in determining the true quality of teacher preparation programs. H.R. 2211 in this reauthorization adds accountability provisions to the Higher Education Act that will strengthen these current law provisions and hold teacher preparation programs accountable for providing accurate and useful information about the quality of their programs.

Mr. Chairman, in summary, H.R. 2211 is specifically designed to align teacher preparation programs with the high standards of accountability and results provided for in No Child Left Behind Act. This Ready to Teach Act will help to ensure that program effectiveness can accurately be measured and places a strong focus on the quality of teacher preparation and a renewed emphasis on the skills needed to meet the ``highly qualified'' standard found in the No Child Left Behind Act.

In conclusion, I want to thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for their assistance in moving this bill through the process. It is a bipartisan product, Mr. Chairman, of which we can all be proud. I urge each and every one of my colleagues to support H.R. 2211, the Ready to Teach Act of 2003.

Mr. Chairman, pursuant to the rule, I offer amendment No. 1.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The manager's amendment to H.R. 2211, the Ready to Teach Act of 2003, makes refinements to the bill as reported by the Committee on Education and the Workforce on June 10, 2003. This has been a bipartisan bill every step of the way, and I believe it will enjoy broad support among my colleagues in the House. I will not take a great deal of time to describe the amendment in detail since it was drafted in consultation with our Democratic Member, and it contains mostly technical and clarifying changes as recommended by the Department of Education.

However, Mr. Chairman, I would like to take a moment to point out a few of the changes of this proposed amendment. As currently drafted, H.R. 2211 authorizes grants to design or redesign teacher preparation programs that are based on rigorous academic content, scientifically based research, and challenging State student academic content standards. This amendment adds language to ensure that teachers in these programs are able to understand the scientifically based research and how to apply that in their classrooms.

Under H.R. 2211, each partnership that applies for a grant must include at least a high-quality teacher preparation program at an institution of higher education; second, a school of arts and sciences; third, a high-need local education agency; and, finally, a public or private educational organization. In addition, this legislation requires that at least 50 percent of partnership grant funds be used to ``directly benefit'' partner local education agencies. This provision in the amendment is designed to ensure that each partner local education agency has the ability to influence grant activities, and guarantees that partnership activities focus on the needs of teachers and students in the classroom.

My amendment adds a provision to the bill to require that partnership grant applications contain a certification from the partner local educational agencies stating that they will ``directly benefit'' from the proposed grant activities. This amendment ensures that the partnership grant funds are used only to supplement, not to supplant, other Federal, State, and local funds that would otherwise be used for teacher preparation activities.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, my amendment ensures that teacher preparation program average raw score data that is reported to the State is also included in the State report card on quality of teacher preparation.

This amendment makes common-sense, noncontroversial changes to the legislation, and I ask for my colleagues' support. Support it because it improves the quality of the programs authorized under Title II of the Higher Education Act.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and, pending that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.