Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), a distinguished member of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff), who had a very important amendment last night that was not made in order.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire about how much time remains on each side.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I want to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz- Balart) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Rules is a place of great creativity. At times, rules reported by the committee bend, stretch, and outright waive the rules of the House in order to ensure passage of legislation. Many times, substantive amendments that deserve to be debated are denied a vote. Late last night, the Committee on Rules met to report the rule for H.R. 1950, the Foreign Relations Authorization Act. This is a complex, omnibus bill that brings together no less than seven important pieces of legislation. Specifically, the Foreign Relations Authorization Act includes the State Department Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 2004 and 2005, the Global Internet Freedom Act of 2003, the Missile Threat Reduction Act of 2003, the International Free Media Act of 2003, the United States International Leadership Act of 2003, the Defense Trade and Security Assistance Reform Act of 2003, and the Foreign Relations Authorization Act of Fiscal Years 2004 and 2005. H.R. 1950, as reported by the Committee on International Relations, is a bipartisan bill that authorizes funding for foreign military aid and training programs, programs that reduce the threat of missile proliferation, international broadcasting activities, U.S. contributions to international organizations and multilateral financial institution, and for economic development and humanitarian foreign assistance programs. Like most other major bills, there are serious points of contention. Several controversial provisions have been included; others have been deleted. This rule has made consideration of H.R. 1950 more complex and more contentious than it needs to be. The Republican leadership, as it has done in the past, ordered the Committee on Rules to deny consideration of many of these contentious issues in order to protect their members from having to take a tough vote; but before I explain the problems with the rule, let me say that I am pleased that the Hyde-Lantos amendment creating the Millennium Challenge Account and reauthorizing the Peace Corps was made in order. With the adoption of the Hyde-Lantos amendment, this bill will contain one of the most important and ambitious foreign policy initiatives undertaken by the United States to help lift countries out of poverty. The Millennium Challenge Account is intended to reward poor countries that demonstrate a commitment to ruling justly, investing in people, and promoting economic freedom. It is supported by the administration and by the many nongovernmental development and humanitarian organizations engaged in antipoverty programs around the world. The Millennium Challenge Account focuses on assistance to low-income countries, has a strong emphasis on the role of women in the design and implementation of these programs, and gives careful attention to coordinating MCA programs with our existing development priorities. Mr. Speaker, I was relieved to hear from the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the chairman, and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), the ranking member, that the funding for the Millennium Challenge Account programs will come from additional foreign aid funding and that it will not rob funds from existing economic development, humanitarian, and food assistance accounts. I want to commend the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the chairman, and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), the ranking member, for their leadership on establishing the Millennium Challenge Corporation and its programs. I believe the Committee on International Relations improved the President's initial proposal. Economic growth and prosperity lift people out of poverty and help prevent the chaos created from conflict, misery, and hopelessness. It is in the national security interests of the United States to see these new programs fully funded and implemented once they are established by the passage of H.R. 1950. Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to watch the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the chairman, and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), the ranking member, work together. They truly understand the meaning of the word bipartisanship, and their commitment to this ideal should be a model for this Congress. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the Republican leadership does not share the same view as the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the chairman, and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), the ranking member. Mr. Speaker, there are real policy differences that are part of this bill. For example, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) offered an amendment in the Committee on International Relations increasing funding for the United Nations Population Fund, or UNFPA. Many anti- choice Members in this body opposed this provision. Instead of using the rule to unfairly strike this provision from the bill, the Committee on Rules made the Smith amendment in order. Mr. Speaker, this is democracy. This is how the legislative process is designed to work. Every Member will be able to vote their conscience and vote up or down on whether or not to strike the Crowley amendment from the bill; and while I will oppose this amendment very strongly and very passionately to strike the Crowley amendment, every Member deserves the option to vote their conscience. Unfortunately, this is a rare break from the way the Republicans traditionally run this body; but rest assured that they have returned to form with the rest of this bill. Seventy-five amendments were submitted to the Committee on Rules and 42 amendments were made in order, but numbers do not tell the whole truth. This rule must also be judged by the amendments that are not in the rule, by the important issues we have prohibited from debating. More than 20 very important Democratic amendments were denied the opportunity to be debated and voted on by this body. In one case, an amendment adopted by one committee and stripped from the bill by another was denied the opportunity to be considered. The Republican majority refused to make in order the following amendments. I am just going to name a few of them: An amendment by the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) that would have provided assistance to Afghan women; An amendment by the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum) to promote environmental sustainability by requiring environmental impact assessments for millennium challenge projects; An amendment by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) that urges U.S. leadership by participating in negotiations on climate change to reduce greenhouse gases; An amendment by the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff) requesting an IG investigation into the Niger uranium intelligence documents that led to the President's use of this misinformation in making the case for war in Iraq; An amendment by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) that would have provided funding for removal of land mines and agriculture redevelopment of former mine fields; An amendment by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel) to designate Poland as a participant in the visa waiver program; An amendment by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) urging the administration to conclude a comprehensive migration agreement with Mexico; and An amendment by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley), the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), distinguished member of the Committee on Rules, and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Ackerman) urging the President to engage in an open dialogue with the Government of Poland to achieve a final settlement for those Jews, homosexuals, European Roma, and other individuals and groups who had their private property seized by the Nazis during World War II. Mr. Speaker, these amendments were all offered in good faith, and they deserve the right to be debated and voted by the Members of this body. It is unfortunate, Mr. Speaker, that the Republican leadership would deny us the chance to vote on these amendments and instead hide behind arithmetic to argue that they are being fair. Mr. Speaker, I will urge a ``no'' vote on this rule. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I will close single-handedly for our side, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would urge my colleagues to vote no on this rule. It seems to be a radical thought in this House for us to actually spend whatever time it takes to debate the issues. I cannot understand why in the People's House the Republican leadership seems to be working overtime to try to deny us the right to debate the issues that people care about. Seventy- seven amendments were offered in the Committee on Rules last night. Forty-two were made in order, of which only twelve are Democratic amendments. We can do much better. And there are some very important issues. We heard about the Schiff amendment which deals with the African uranium issue. I know there are some people in the White House and some people in the leadership here in this House who do not want to discuss this issue, but it is important because it gets to the issue of credibility. It is about whether the American people can have confidence in what their government tells them. It is about whether what the United States says is respected around the world. So if some of my colleagues do not want to ask the tough questions or get to the truth, then fine. They can vote no on the Schiff amendment. But at least give us the opportunity to vote up or down on some of these very important issues. The American people deserve an open process. They deserve a process much better than what we are getting right now. This rule, unfortunately, does not allow us to debate a lot of very important issues; and I would urge my colleagues in the strongest possible terms to vote no. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, may I ask the gentleman from California whether he has any additional speakers?

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman). (Mr. SHERMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/4\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, hunger is a terrible problem in the United States and around the world. It's a problem that affects over 20 million adults and 13 million children right here in this country. They're our seniors, our veterans, our neighbors, working parents and their children. And around the world, 800 million people--300 million of them children--go hungry every day. I believe that hunger is a political condition. The fact is that we have the resources to commit to ending hunger both at home and abroad. We have the technology, the expertise, the funding. What we lack is the political will to put an end to this scourge. Currently, the unemployment rate is at 6.4% and growing. The demands on our community food banks and soup kitchens are becoming more than they can handle. Government is about choices. This Congress and this Administration have chosen over and over again to support tax cuts for the wealthy over prudent policies to help lift Americans out of poverty and to end hunger among the 33 million Americans who need our help. Today, we are considering a Fiscal Year 2004 Agriculture Appropriations bill that dramatically underfunds programs that combat hunger here and abroad. This Temporary Emergency Food Assistance Program, a key source of funding for food banks, is underfunded by $10 million. The Women, Infants and Children program that provides assistance to infants, young children and pregnant, postpartum, and nursing women who are at-risk because of inadequate nutrition and income is $108 million below the Fiscal Year 2003 level. Although the Committee acknowledged that food prices were lower than expected, many of us have real concerns that a reduction in WIC funding--coupled with a continuing rise in unemployment--is a formula for tragedy. The Senior Farmers Market Nutrition program is flat funded, even though the number of applications continues to outpace the availability of funds for this critical effort. And if that weren't enough, Mr. Chairman, the funding levels in this bill for international food aid are completely inadequate. P.L. 480, Title II funding--money that goes for humanitarian food aid--is more than $620 million below the Fiscal Year 2003 level. And a program that I have been championing since its inception--the McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition--is funded at $57 million. This is a $43 million decrease from last year and a $243 million drop from the funding provided to the initial pilot program. The American economy, once vibrant, is struggling. Millions of Americans have lost their jobs, and incomes for many others are falling as they are forced to take lower-paying jobs to avoid unemployment. One in five children in this country is threatened by hunger. Every day, Mr. Chairman, 33 million Americans do not know whether there will be food on their tables. Overseas, people are starving to death because of famine, drought, war and poverty. Mr. Chairman, I understand the difficulties the Chairman of the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee faced in drafting this bill. I'm sure that, given more resources, he would provide better funding levels for these important programs. But the fact remains that the numbers in this bill are too low to meet the challenges of hunger. The last thing we should be doing is cutting funding for programs that serve the most vulnerable. We can and we must do better.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, over the past few days and weeks, an increasing number of my constituents have contacted me to express serious questions and growing concerns about U.S. policy in Iraq. I, too, have questions, and I share their concerns. For example, in the months since U.S. forces invaded Iraq, overthrew Saddam Hussein and his government, and gained control of the country, no weapons of mass destruction have been found, despite repeated assertions by the Bush administration before the war that Iraq possessed large stockpiles of these weapons; not weapons programs, which is the terminology the administration now chooses to use, but weapons themselves. On August 26, 2002, Vice President Cheney said, ``Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.'' Have we made any progress at all in finding those weapons? Have the dozens of Iraqi scientists interviewed by American intelligence officials provided any useful information? Is the administration still confident that weapons stockpiles will be found? It is not enough to say, well, other people thought Iraq had weapons, too, because neither the Clinton administration nor the United Nations launched a war based on their suspicions. The Bush administration did, and the burden of proof rests on their shoulders. The White House has recently admitted that a piece of evidence used in the State of the Union no less as proof of Iraq's nuclear weapons program is not credible. I am referring to the assertion that Iraq had attempted to purchase yellow cake uranium from Africa. The administration now says that the proof of that claim was not strong enough to merit inclusion in a Presidential speech. But, Mr. Speaker, the intelligence community knew at the time of the State of the Union that the Africa uranium story was not credible, which leaves us with two possibilities: either the administration knew the claim was bogus and chose to make it anyway, or critical intelligence information did not make it into the hands of the President or the dozens of people who wrote, reviewed, edited, or commented on the State of the Union. Both of these possibilities are deeply disturbing. This is not some small matter, as some would have us believe. The majority leader of this House the other day dismissed questions about the uranium issue, saying it is ``very easy to pick one little flaw here and one little flaw there.'' One little flaw? I could not disagree more. The specter of an Iraqi nuclear attack was cited as an important and compelling reason the United States launched a preemptive, nearly unilateral invasion that has led to the deaths of over 200 American soldiers. On the path on war, the Congress and the American people deserve fact, not selective spin. We may have honest disagreements about how to respond to the threats posed by other countries, but we must have a credible assessment of what those threats really are. More and more, it looks like we did not get that credible assessment. And if the buildup to the war was flawed, its aftermath looks even worse. Mr. Speaker, U.S. soldiers are being constantly attacked; dozens have been killed since the President was flown onto the USS Abraham Lincoln and declared the war to be over. It is becoming disturbingly clear that the administration did not have a coherent, workable plan in place to deal with the realities of post-war Iraq. Basic infrastructure, the economy, political and civil society, are all in bad shape. Worse, attacks against American soldiers appear to be growing in both intensity and coordination. And President Bush's response to these attacks? ``Bring 'em on.'' Well, I must say that I was deeply, deeply disturbed by such a cavalier comment. It does not take any courage for a President or a Member of Congress to say such a thing. We are not out there on the front lines, standing nervous guard in the searing heat, unable to distinguish friend from foe, with lousy food and no idea of when a reunion with loved ones will come. These are some of the concerns that I share with a growing number of Americans. One of my constituents from Worcester, Massachusetts, wrote, ``Americans were made to feel that their lives were in immediate danger; yet months later, no weapons have been found. Americans do care. I did not take to the streets in protest during the war, because I wanted to believe that our government had substantial proof that it was vital for our security. I love my country, because I am allowed to ask these questions. Silence and apathy can also be dangerous to national security.'' I believe it is time to get the United Nations and the international community more fully involved in the reconstruction process. We cannot do this by ourselves or with a small hand-picked group of others. Mr. Speaker there is a lot at stake here. We need to get this right. We need to know the truth, and all of us, Democrats, Republicans, and Independents have a responsibility to pursue that truth. We have a responsibility to continue to ask tough questions and demand straight answers. Thorough, bipartisan, and public investigations are in order. And I strongly support the creation of a select bipartisan commission to conduct those investigations and make the results known to the American people. One final thing, Mr. Speaker. Never, ever again should we rush to war. This House had 1 day of debate on Iraq in October. One day. Congress did not ask the right questions. Congress did not demand the right proof. Our lack of thoughtful debate reflected very poorly on this institution; and today, Mr. Speaker, sadly, we are paying that price.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I would simply say to the gentleman that the Committee on Rules waives the rules all the time for amendments, and they have waived the rules for amendments that are in this bill already. So that is what we do. So to hide behind that somehow this does not fit into this bill I think flies in the face of what we do all the time. The issue is whether or not we think this is a priority. And if it is a priority, and it should be, then we make it fit. And that is what we do all the time. That is what my colleagues do for all Republican amendments that they want to make in order. We are just asking that you do the same; that you treat us the same way that you treat your Members. That is all we are asking. We have the power to do this. To say this does not fit in this bill because it requires a waiver of any kind I do not think passes muster. I just would say to the gentleman that the Committee on Rules had the power to make these amendments in order, and the Committee on Rules chose not to, and I think that is unfortunate

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself 4 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), and the ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) for bringing this bipartisan bill to the floor of the House for consideration. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 438, the Teacher Recruitment and Retention Act, increases the total amount of student loans that can be forgiven for elementary and secondary schoolteachers of math, science, and special education in Title I schools. Specifically, the measure increases the amount of student loans that can be forgiven for these teachers from the current level of $5,000 to a maximum possible total of $17,500. 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. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. My good friend, the gentleman from Texas, said that last night in the Committee on Rules Democratic Members were allowed to come before the Committee on Rules and testify, as if to suggest that that is some great privilege. Every Member of this House has the right to be able to go before the Committee on Rules and make their case on behalf of amendments. He then proceeded to say, in reference to the gentleman from Massachusetts' (Mr. Tierney) amendment, that it raised some good points and good ideas and was a worthy amendment, but then said that we just decided not to make it in order. I guess my question to the gentleman from Texas is, If it was such a good idea, what was the harm? What was the problem with making it in order so that the full House could decide whether or not to extend these benefits to Head Start teachers and early Head Start teachers?

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I say to the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, who I know worked very hard on this bill, and we are all going to support this bill 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. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would also remind the gentleman that even though he said it was a good idea, he did vote against this in committee, as did all the Republican Members; and again, the frustrating thing for those of us on this side who want to help our teachers, who want to make sure that we live up to our promise to leave no child behind is to make sure that we provide the resources, that we just do not get up and talk about how important our children are; that we actually provide the resources; that we make sure that we have teachers in Head Start and early Head Start. Again, for the life of me, if my colleagues do not want to vote for this, then they do not have to vote for it, but there are a lot of us who think this is important enough that we should have a debate on the House floor and we should be able to vote up or down on it. I think it is really a disgrace, but not only this issue but on all number of issues that we get constantly shut out of the process. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra), who had three very thoughtful amendments that were shut out. None of his amendments were made in order.

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to close for our side. Again, we have no problem with the underlying bill, but we do have a problem with this process. Let me review for my colleagues what amendments were offered last night in the Committee on Rules. We heard about the Tierney-DeLauro amendment. This amendment would extend the $17,500 loan forgiveness in the bill to Head Start teachers, Early Head Start teachers, and prekindergarten teachers in programs that serve children of which at least 60 percent of whom are eligible to participate in a Head Start or Early Start program. Only new borrowers as of fiscal year 2003 would be eligible for this loan forgiveness. Mr. Speaker, let me just remind my colleagues that our Nation's Head Start and prekindergarten classrooms are desperately in need of highly qualified teachers. During the 2001-2002 program year, nearly 8,000 teachers, or 15 percent of all teachers, left the Head Start programs. Over half of those who left did so due to low salaries or desired to change job fields. These statistics highlight the inability of Head Start programs to retain their teachers, especially their most experienced and qualified. This is hugely important. This is hugely important. And that amendment was shut out last night in the Committee on Rules, so Members will not have an opportunity to vote up or down on it here on the floor. We heard from the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra), who had one amendment that would provide loan forgiveness for Perkins loans to highly qualified librarians working in eligible schools. He had another amendment that would provide loan forgiveness for Stafford and Perkins loans to highly qualified librarians working in eligible schools. And he had a third amendment that would provide loan forgiveness for Stafford loans to highly qualified librarians working in eligible schools. Again, one of the things that the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra) pointed out is that we are having a problem in this country and in our school libraries in retaining librarians. It is a huge issue. And yet despite all of the sympathy that members of the majority party in the Committee on Rules expressed toward some of these amendments, they voted to make not in order all three of those amendments. All three Becerra amendments were shut out, made not in order. The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) had an amendment that would ensure that any loan or portion of a loan discharged under the bill would not count as gross income for that individual's income tax purposes. That was shut out. He had another amendment that would establish a new program for teacher loan forgiveness under the guaranteed loan program and direct loan program. That was shut out. The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) also had an amendment that would extend eligibility for an increased amount of loan forgiveness to all teachers in Title I schools and those schools that had high levels of low-income families. He was shut out on that as well. 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. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule and in opposition to the Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bill. This bill shortchanges the American people in so many ways it is difficult to keep track of them all: the No Child Left Behind Act, $8 billion short; the Individuals With Disabilities Act, $1.2 billion short. It cuts LIHEAP funding below $200 million this year. It freezes the Maternal and Child Health Block Grant and the Childhood Immunization Program. It cuts health professions funding, money used to train doctors and nurses, by $30 million. When our States are being forced to cut their education budgets, this bill freezes the maximum Pell grant and all other forms of Federal student financial aid. What are we doing here, Mr. Speaker? I will tell my colleagues what this bill is going to do to Massachusetts. The children of Massachusetts will lose over $130 million in title I grants for what was promised in the No Child Left Behind Act. Children with disabilities in Massachusetts will lose over $29 million in IDEA grants below what was promised. Massachusetts will lose $6.3 million in teacher quality grants. UMass Memorial Healthcare will lose millions of dollars that the hospital uses to train doctors who serve in low-income areas, and the children of military personnel based in Massachusetts will lose $4.8 million in Impact Aid. But the majority seems to have little concern for the children of Massachusetts or their hardworking parents or for the children and families of our country, and children around the world are not treated much better. This bill will cut the International Labor Affairs funding from $147 million to $12 million. The only purpose of that office is to help end the abuse of child labor around the world. It is too bad that the children in my district and the children across the country and the children around the world do not make millions of dollars in dividend income. If they did, the Republicans would find the money to take care of them. Mr. Speaker, this appropriations bill is a scandal, and our children deserve much more than a list of broken promises. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question, to give the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) the opportunity to fix this mess. If that fails, I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule and a ``no'' vote on the bill.

Mr. McGOVERN

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

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

Mr. McGOVERN. 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.