John Boehner

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the dean of our Ohio delegation, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), for yielding me this time. Let me thank the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) and the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Regula) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for their efforts in bringing this bill to the floor today. We all know this is a difficult bill. There are a lot of competing interests in this bill, and it is never easy; but they have done a good job. There has been a lot of discussion here about the fact that this ought to be bigger. But not only did we, the Congress, support a tax cut for the American people, we also supported a $20 billion increase in discretionary spending. And the fact is, we are spending more. Our job as Members of Congress is to make decisions, decisions about where the resources that we get from our taxpayers, where those resources ought to go. For a while, in the late 1990s, revenues were flowing to the Federal Government at unprecedented rates, and we did not have to make as difficult choices as we do today, given the fact that we are in a recession and given the fact that we have been the subject of a serious terrorist attack. So we are making decisions. But when it comes to the education issues that we fund in this bill, we all know when we passed the No Child Left Behind Act that we were going to make a serious commitment to improve all of America's schools, especially the neediest of America's schools. We know the problems that are there; and in a bipartisan way, this House and this Congress and the President worked to put in place a reform effort. And for the first time in the 37 years that the Federal Government has been involved in our local schools, we have all States in compliance with the Federal law. This never happened before. All 50 States have set their accountability plans to Washington and all 50 States, and the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, have had their plans approved. This is a major accomplishment on the part of the Congress and the administration to start the accountability process in a serious way. We also said when we passed that bill that we would increase our funding to our local schools. Under the bill we have before us, title I gets $666 million in new money. Now, this is in addition to the money that we have given over the last 3 years. If we look at the last 3 years under President Bush, the increases in title I were greater than the increases in title I during 7 years of President Clinton. Now, we can argue about whether it is enough, whether it is too much; but the fact is that we stepped up to the plate to help the neediest of our students, because title I money goes to poor children and goes to poor schools. I think that we have done our job, and we need to stay at it. We need to keep working to increase these amounts. But we have to understand that this $666 million increase is on top of the $1.2 billion increase last year and a $1.3 billion increase the year before. Let us talk about special needs children, individuals with disabilities and education. Since 1995, the Congress has increased our grants to local schools by 300 percent. In this bill we add another $1 billion of funding to help meet our commitments. Now, we can have a partisan debate about who is doing the most for education, but when Republicans took control of Congress in 1995, the Federal commitment to IDEA was 5 percent of the cost, 5 percent. With the passage of this bill, we will be up to 18.7 percent of the cost of IDEA, and it is based on a much greater number of special ed children today than what we were talking about in 1995, a 300 percent increase. Also in the bill that we have before us, we move the reading grant for Reading First and Early Reading to $1.15 billion. Now, this is again a 300 percent increase over where we were just 3 years ago in terms of our commitment to help children in kindergarten through third grade and even younger in the earlier grant money to help them have a chance at being able to read by the end of the third grade. Charter schools in this bill will get an increase of $71.5 million, another significant increase, made up of $220 million of money for start-up and planning for new charter schools, and $75 million worth of facility money, which will be leveraged into over $200 million worth of money to help plan facilities. There is another $885 million in this bill, an increase, to do Pell grants. We all know, especially the speaker that spoke before, of the increasing challenge that this Congress has to meet our commitments under the Higher Education Act, to provide more access for the neediest of our students who are able and want to go to college. The more we work to increase access, the harder it becomes because the cost of tuition and fees at our colleges and universities continues to outstrip inflation by a rate of two to three times the inflation rate, causing us increasing problems. As we reauthorize the Higher Education Act, as we go through the balance of this year and next, we will continue to look at what we can do to ensure that the children have better access. Head Start gets an increase here of $148 million of new money. But overall, spending on discretionary education programs in this bill increases by $2.3 billion. Mr. Chairman, $2.3 billion, that is real money on top of the money we are spending, bringing the total to some $55.4 billion that we are committing in this bill to discretionary education programs. This does not include the cost of student loans and mandatory spending programs, but $55.4 billion worth of discretionary money. I just think that if we look at over the last 3 years since President Bush has taken office, that is an increase of $13.2 billion of real money, trying to help improve our schools and to ensure that every child in America gets a chance at a good education, because without one, they will have no chance at a shot at the American Dream. We need to support this bill.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, let me remind everyone, this is to protect the rights of workers and to clarify a labor law that has not been changed in 54 years, and under the amendment offered by my good friend from California (Mr. George Miller), remember, we would create a double standard for employees. Those who do the same job, but if you were hired the day before this bill takes effect, you are grandfathered. If you are hired the day after, you are not grandfathered, and so you would have two employees sitting side by side in a cubicle doing the same identical work being treated differently under the law. I do not think that is what this Congress wants.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), a former Member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the time that we have remaining. Mr. Chairman, the amendment that we have before us is not about providing additional resources for our schools; it is about providing excuses for those who do not want to be accountable for our children to learn. To call this a No Child Left Behind unfunded mandate strikes me as strange, because this year, this year we will spend $24.2 billion of taxpayer money to help needy students around the country. And what No Child Left Behind says is that if we are going to continue to invest these massive amounts of money to help needy students, we ought to expect some results. After all, do children not deserve to learn? As I said before, IDEA special ed funding has increased 300 percent over the last 7 years. Title I spending has increased 200 percent over the last 7 years. And if we look at the increases over the current fiscal year and the last 2 fiscal years, since President Bush took office, those increases in title I over the last 3 years were more than what we saw under 7 years of President Clinton's title I increases. So for people to suggest that we are not meeting our obligation to our local schools, I think is not being quite fair and honest with the facts. The fact is, since President Bush was elected, Congress has increased funding for elementary education, elementary and secondary education $13.2 billion. This is real money. So I would say to my colleagues, No Child Left Behind is the last really serious attempt that is ever going to be made to ensure that all kids get a chance at a decent education in America. We have blinked. We have blinked. We have blinked. We have had excuses. We have had excuses, and we have had more excuses why we cannot educate all of our kids. And I just want to remind my colleagues of one point: It is not the child's fault whose parents they were born to or that they lost the lucky lottery of life in terms of what community they have grown up in. And I believe that we, as a society, owe them a chance at a decent education. We know all kids can learn. The problem is that today not all kids have the opportunity to learn, and No Child Left Behind makes that commitment, and the necessary resources are there to implement the law, and we should stand up for the kids and vote against this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, we have known for years that the Fair Labor Standards Act regulations governing overtime are confusing and out of date. Moreover, millions of low-wage workers who should be earning overtime pay currently are not. Now, these regulations which have not been substantially changed in 54 years are complex, confusing, and make it next to impossible for workers to know whether they are entitled to overtime, for employers to know how to pay their employees, and for the Labor Department to enforce these workplace regulations. They simply do not meet the needs of today's 21st century workforce. The Department has undertaken an important effort to update these complex, decades-old regulations that define overtime exemptions for white-collar employees in the administrative, executive and professional employee classification. They should be commended for their efforts thus far. Let us be clear. The proposed DOL regulations will provide additional protections to low-income workers and ensure that they are entitled to overtime pay. It is unacceptable that today's outdated regulations require someone earning as little as $8,060 a year to qualify as a white-collar employee and, therefore, prevent them from receiving overtime pay. The proposed changes would raise that level from $8,060 to $22,100 annually, and ensure that anyone earning less than $22,100 a year would automatically be entitled to overtime. Lower-income workers deserve these protections, and the DOL suggestions would help provide them. These regulations would guarantee overtime to an additional 1.3 million low-wage workers, mostly women and minorities, and strengthen the protections for an additional 10.7 million workers. And for the first time in decades, 20 percent of the lowest-paid workers would be guaranteed to get overtime pay. Now, these are proposed regulations that are under review, and the Department has reviewed and received 80,000 comments about their proposal. Any efforts to highjack this process before the Department can consider and evaluate these comments, frankly, is very premature. Unfortunately, the amendment will only worsen the confusion of current wage and hour laws where employers, workers and even the Department of Labor simply cannot accurately determine which employees are exempt and which are not. The only winners under this amendment are the trial lawyers who have lined their pockets with their ``gotcha'' class action lawsuits. The biggest problem to the amendment might be that the Miller-Obey amendment creates a double standard for employees and leads to fundamental unfairness: Under the amendment, two workers who do the same job would be treated differently. The employee who gets hired yesterday gets paid one rate and for the same job. The worker who gets hired tomorrow gets classified under a different system. You cannot have two people working side by side being paid and treated differently under the law, and that is what would happen under the amendment that we have before us. Some have even attempted to paint these regulations as an attack on workers, falsely claiming that it will eliminate overtime pay, but nothing could be further from the truth. This in no way would affect the overtime rights of millions of Americans who do nonoffice emergency work. Mr. Chairman, I want to suggest to my colleagues that we should oppose this amendment.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Education Reform.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham).

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This amendment is a sad attempt to return to the days of spending billions and billions of dollars and getting nothing in return. Since 1965, the Federal Government has spent over $300 billion in K through 12 education programs, and what have the results been? Zero. Nothing. And we worked in a bipartisan way on both sides of the aisle to bring real accountability to our schools to ensure that no child was left behind, and the agreement we made was that we would provide sufficient funding to put this into effect and we have. We can look at the $1.2 billion increase in title I two years ago, the $1.3 billion increase last year, the $666 million increase this year.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, the amendment before us is unnecessary and potentially harmful. Simply put, it would restrict the Mine Safety and Health Administration's ability to protect miners from coal dust exposure until October 2004. The proposed amendment is unnecessary because the Agency has already moved to suspend regulatory action on these rules until testing of revolutionary coal dust monitoring technology is completed. As a result, this amendment is not only needless, but could work to delay improved coal dust rules for perhaps several years to come, and I think it must be rejected. To do otherwise would be a great disservice to the miners these rules are designed to protect without any logical purpose. Let us look at the facts. On June 24, 2003, the Agency suspended its proposed rule in this area. The reason for the delay is clear. The first field test of new coal dust monitoring technology, called personal dust monitors, showed genuine promise, so much so that the PDMs could represent a potential revolution in monitoring miners' exposure to coal dust, and MSHA concluded that additional tests should be conducted before moving forward on this proposed rule. This is more than lip service. This appropriations bill already provides $250,000 to purchase 25 additional PDMs for testing in underground mines, and this additional testing is supported by both the mining industry and the miners' union. Most importantly, I have been assured that until the testing provides sufficient, reliable information in this area, no further regulatory action is to be taken. The Agency's actions are reasonable and prudent because significant portions of the coal dust rules could be affected if PDMs prove to be as effective as early tests might indicate. This testing will take time, and that is why the Agency will not move forward with this testing until they have more reliable data. Unfortunately, the amendment would prevent MSHA from acting on this issue and could have the unintended consequence of delaying a new rule that would utilize PDMs to their fullest potential. So for these reasons I would hope Members would join me in rejecting this amendment. The Agency has suspended its proposed rule to implement further testing of PDMs, and this should be more than adequate to address any concern over the implementation of these new devices.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I know we do two things here: we do politics, and we do public policy. The fact is that MSHA has suspended and/or withdrawn the regulation, and the gentleman's amendment says that MSHA cannot promulgate a new regulation until October of 2004. The hope is that these new personal dust monitors, this new technology will in fact continue to show the successes that it has so that MSHA can continue with the regulatory efforts and to get their new technology into the workplace as soon as possible. But under the gentleman's amendment, MSHA would be prohibited until October, 2004, from proceeding. I do not think that is in the right light. I think what we are seeing here is some coal politics on the floor of the House. I think it is unfortunate. This is commonsense policy coming from MSHA. We ought to congratulate them for the wisdom in suspending what they were going to do to look at this new technology. But if it works, why would we want to wait until October of 2004 to implement it? I would urge my colleagues to reject the amendment.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. BOEHNER

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

Mr. BOEHNER

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

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

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 309, I call up the bill (H.R. 438) to increase the amount of student loans that may be forgiven for teachers in mathematics, science, and special education, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, let me congratulate my good friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), the ranking member of our committee, on our ability to put this amendment together and bring it to the floor. As we were looking at the loan forgiveness bill and the budget we were given to work with it, we realized in committee that we had a little more room, and so the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) and I had a discussion about these reading specialists. 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. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I just want to take a moment to thank the gentleman from Michigan and his colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt), before all of our colleagues, because these two scientists, who happen to both sit on our committee, have been relentless in their efforts to get Congress to fund math and science education; and whether it be in the bill that we have before us for title I schools or in broader programs that affect teachers in other schools, these two gentlemen have really, relentless does not even begin to describe their tenacity in ensuring that Congress steps up to what is needed to help math and science education in all of our schools. I just want to say thanks.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Another wonderful example of let us let the perfect become the enemy of the good. The President in his proposal, and Senator Graham when he was a former House Member, made it clear that the focus here was to look at high-poverty schools and look at the basics, math, science and special education. In committee, and I am sure on the floor today, we are going to hear calls 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. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the support of the ranking member of the subcommittee on the bill we have before us today, but once again we get into this other issue, and that is education funding. Now, we all know about 90 percent of the funds for primary and secondary education, K-12, come from State and local sources. Federal Government's role has been to go in and help high-poverty schools and students who come from high-poverty neighborhoods. And if you look at the funding levels from fiscal year 2001, we spent $28 billion in K-12 funding. If you are look at fiscal year 2003, some 2 years later, you will see that we are spending $35.7 billion. Now, that is a great example of letting the perfect become the enemy of the good. I think most Members on both sides of the aisle believe that we have done more than anyone could ever have expected the Federal Government to do in terms of increasing our funding for K-12 education programs so that we can meet our commitment to leave no child behind. We are doing our share. Unfortunately, the States are having great difficulty with their budgets, and some are having to cut education programs that they would rather not. But we cannot make up for the shortfalls and the problems that the States are having. We are doing our share. I am sure they will find a way to do theirs. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon), the subcommittee chairman, the Subcommittee on 21st Century Competitiveness.

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

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that in the engrossment of the bill, H.R. 2211, the Clerk be authorized to make technical corrections and conforming changes to the bill.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, let me thank my good friend from North Carolina for yielding me time. I rise today in support of the rule for H.R. 2211, the Ready to Teach Act. I believe this is a fair rule that allows for the thorough consideration of a measure that I believe will make a real difference in the lives of teachers and students alike. I first would like to applaud the efforts of my colleague from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey), a new member on our committee, who has been a real leader in the effort to strengthen the programs that are training the teachers of tomorrow. His leadership on this bill is providing us with an opportunity to help teachers become highly qualified and ready to teach when they enter the classroom. H.R. 2211, the Ready to Teach Act, seeks to meet the call of the bipartisan No Child Left Behind Act to place a highly qualified teacher in every classroom by the 2005-2006 school year. Congress has embraced that goal, realizing the critical role that highly qualified teachers play in the successful education of our Nation's children. That is why under No Child Left Behind we have provided significant new resources to help teachers become highly qualified. In fact, in the first year of No Child Left Behind alone, we increased grants for teacher-quality funding by 35 percent. And the funding increases keep oncoming. We have provided the resources, and the bill before us today will build upon that commitment by providing real reforms. There is a good reason why we are moving forward with this bill and why it has received broad bipartisan support. The fact is teacher training programs are suffering from a serious lack of accountability that is posing a real threat as we seek to place highly qualified teachers in classrooms across the Nation. The No Child Left Behind Act is about supporting the Nation's schoolteachers, and to do that we need to ensure that the programs preparing them for the classroom are fulfilling their obligation to give them the skills to meet the highly qualified standards in No Child Left Behind. That is what this bill will do; it will ensure that teacher training programs are meeting the obligation that they have to teachers to ensure that they are ready to teach. The Ready to Teach Act will strengthen teacher-training programs, making improvements to ensure that the teachers of tomorrow are highly qualified and prepared to meet the needs of American students. The bill is designed to align teacher-training programs with the high standards of accountability and results provided for in No Child Left Behind. The No Child Left Behind Act focuses on three key objectives, accountability, flexibility and effectiveness, to improve the quality of these programs. The first objective, accountability, is essential if we are to gauge the effectiveness of the programs training our teachers. While current higher-education law contains some annual reporting requirements, these reporting measures have 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 these reporting requirements and hold teacher preparation programs accountable for providing accurate, useful information about the effectiveness of their programs. I am particularly pleased that the bill before us recognizes that flexibility should exist in methods used for training highly qualified teachers, and, for that reason, would allow funds to be used for innovative methods in teacher-preparation programs such as charter colleges of education, which can provide an alternative gateway for teachers to become highly qualified. The bill takes the important step of recognizing that individuals seeking to enter the teaching profession often have varied backgrounds; and by creating flexible approaches that step outside the box, these individuals can become highly qualified teachers through training programs as unique as their own individual experiences. H.R. 2211 ensures that program effectiveness can accurately be measured and places a strong focus on the effectiveness of teacher preparation and a renewed emphasis on the skills needed to meet the highly qualified standard found in No Child Left Behind. The use of advanced technology in the classroom, rigorous academic content standards, scientifically-based research, and challenging student academic standards are all principles that this bill will follow. I would like to thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. The gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), the ranking member; the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon), the chairman of the Subcommittee on 21st Century Competitiveness; and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee), the ranking member of the subcommittee, are all to be commended for their bipartisan effort in moving this legislation forward. They have put together a bipartisan bill that makes common- sense changes to Title II of the Higher Education Act to help improve our Nation's teachers. With that, I urge my colleagues to support the rule and to support the underlying bill today.