Emergency DNA Backlog Elimination and Self Defense from Serial Killers Act of 2003

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished minority whip.

(Mr. HOYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to

the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens), a member of the committee.

(Mr. OWENS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa), a member of the committee.

(Mr. HINOJOSA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).

(Mr. LANGEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, it is rather remarkable that the other side has discovered that the poorest children in the Nation do not do as well as the average children in the Nation, but what they ought to tell you is, these children do better than their peers that do not have an opportunity, and by the time they finish kindergarten, they are in the 50th percentile.

That was the job, to try to get them ready for school, and they are accelerating as they go through kindergarten; but they somehow seem astonished that they cannot compete with the average child the first year in Head Start, when they are the most impoverished children in the Nation.

Yes, we are dedicated to all of the changes in title I of this legislation. We are just not dedicated to the eradication of the Head Start program in title II.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Mr. Chairman, I yield a minute and a half to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt), a member of the committee.

(Mr. HOLT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis), a member of the committee.

(Mrs. DAVIS of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum).

Mr. Chairman, I yield the remaining time to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).

(Mr. DAVIS of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, there has been a lot of discussion tonight about those who do not want to see change or are somehow suggesting that those who oppose the block grants are against change. This amendment is an amendment to strike the block grant and to retain title I of the legislation as it has been reported from committee. Many Members on this side of the aisle worked with our colleagues on the other side of the aisle in committee on title I.

We had numerous discussions, and we all believe, as I said, that there can be continuous improvement, and this is the purpose of the reauthorization of Head Start, to provide for that continuous improvement, to take the evaluations, to take the studies, to take the things that we have learned and apply them to make this an even better program for America's poorest children so that, in fact, they will have a better opportunity at achieving an education

that will allow them to fully participate in American society and the American economic system.

The fly in the ointment to that continuous improvement is the block grant, because as many times as my colleagues will say it, that the block grant requires the adherence with the quality standards and performance standards in Head Start, the very quality standards and performance standards that have made this the best program in the Nation with room for improvement, that the States need not adhere to that. There is no requirement that they do so. They can generally meet or exceed those standards.

That is the beginning of the end. That is the reason we have so carefully evaluated this program, because you are not going to find those standards in the States. They do not exist. They do not have the achievement standards that we have in this program, and they do not have the success that we have in this program.

What they really do is, they say if the States put up some additional money and the States have a pre-K program somewhere in the State, they can make application and that application is deemed to be accepted. Then the State is on its way. It can serve a different population of children. It can serve more children. It just cannot have more money. So by the end of the third year, we see that for the first time children who were otherwise eligible to be served will be cut back from this program.

They talk about how they are going to meet or exceed the commitment to comprehensive services, but when we read the legislation, we find out that that is not true. Again, they must generally meet or exceed, but in this case, they can provide the services or they can provide a referral to services.

Well, it will not take the governor long, unlike the State of Delaware, it will not take a lot of other governors long to figure out that they do not have to provide those services or all of those services or the comprehensive nature of those services, and they can then serve more children; and we start to see the dilution of the program, the dilution of the quality of the program, and that is the concern.

A great effort has been made by this Nation to maintain the integrity and the quality of the Head Start program, and that is what is threatened by the block grant. This is not a question of whether one is for improving or against improving Head Start. This is not a question of whether or not you think we can do it better or not. This is a question of setting in motion a process that, just as sure as rain, will bring about a diminution in the integrity and the high quality of this program.

This amendment provides for striking that block grant program. They can say, well, it is just a demonstration, it is just an experiment. It conceivably could be as high as 30 to 40 percent of the children in the Head Start program.

I appreciate that they say, we are going to fund the program for 5- years and they ran around and told their moderates and others, this program will be funded for 5 years; but there is a huge loophole. If that program does not comply with the State plan in any fashion, there is no guarantee of that funding taking place. What you read and what you they say turn out to be two different things.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar).

(Mr. OBERSTAR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.

The gentleman from Georgia is right, we should look it up, because when it says at least as extensive, what it does is it exempts you from the regulation. So you offer health care services because health care is provided under the law. But what you are exempt from is the legislation that requires screening for all the children in 45 days.

So what happens in my district? Some 150 Head Start children are diagnosed with speech and language impairments, and with this knowledge we can immediately provide the services because those are the regulations and that is the screening that is required. But it is not required under the block grant.

My colleagues can use euphemisms, they can play with the language; but the fact of the matter is there is a huge credibility gap between what they say the bill does and what the bill does. That is what we all have to understand.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva), a member of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. Majette).

(Ms. MAJETTE asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen), a member of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop), a member of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez).

Announcement by the Chairman pro tempore

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the distinguished minority leader.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).

(Mr. GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes), a long awaited appearance.

(Mr. REYES asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Honda).

(Mr. HONDA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen).

Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Baca).

(Mr. BACA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez).

(Ms. VELAZQUEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

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

Mr. Chairman, tonight we have a choice. We have a choice about whether or not we can build upon the continued and improving success of the Head Start program, and whether or not we can provide the kind of quality assurance and performance standards that this generation of children, of impoverished children, of many children who have not had opportunity up until the

day they walked through the door of a Head Start center, whether we can provide that kind of quality program and performance standards to assure that they will, in fact, have the opportunity to exercise the education that they will be given.

The gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) pointed out the chart that showed these children were improving a few percentiles during their time in Head Start; then he suggested in his earlier remarks, not in these remarks but in the earlier remarks, that these children were performing so poorly that for all intents and purposes, they are done educationally. Well, that obviously does not jive with some of our colleagues who talked about their own success as Head Start students and our own experiences in our congressional districts; nor does it jive with the rest of the study which the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) cited, which is, by the end of kindergarten, these children are performing at about average.

What does that suggest to us? It suggests to the researchers that Head Start, in fact, did lay down the foundation, did lay down the basis by which these children, compared to other children in kindergarten, are able to achieve in that 1 year the average of those children. That is against all children in that kindergarten.

How does Head Start work against their peers, other poor children who do not have the opportunity? We see that these children have substantial gains, IQ gains over the children who did not get to participate in Head Start. Their reading, writing, and math skills are superior to those children who did not get to participate; a much higher level of high school graduation. They are not doomed because they are not doing as well as we would like in Head Start; they are doing better than their peers. Special education, many fewer held back in school, and fewer put into special education and, of course, a lower incidence of participation in crime.

So it is working against their peers, and it is providing them an educational opportunity against the average children.

We have already agreed, and we have said on both sides of the aisle, that there is much improvement in this legislation. But again we go back to the fundamental principle that the improvements that we make in title I, the improvements in the performance standards and in the law, are then undermined by the block grant.

It is interesting that the gentleman from Delaware, and I can understand his experience, because his State has basically adopted the Head Start performance standards for State pre-K programs, as has Ohio, the chairman; and I guess, apparently, of Oregon.

But in this block grant, the very things that strengthen and provide for the success that the gentleman from Delaware talks about are not included, because when you say it is extensive, you do not have to take the body of regulations that have provided the quality and the continuous improvement of this program over 35 years. The States do not have to take that, and that is the big difference. And that is what we see when we talk about the erosion that the block grant leads to.

We can take the block grant and we can reduce program hours. We can exclude 3-year-olds. We can increase child-teacher ratios. We can provide unproven curricula. We have spent a fortune trying to get Head Start doing something with the massive amounts of research that we have been involved in, and yet we can cast that aside and go out to some vendor who promises us something for these children. We can run half- year programs and we can serve more children by running the half-year program.

These are the core elements that have separated Head Start from so many other State-run programs where they do not have the quality and they do not get the results. That is why there is such a strong adherence by our communities to the Head Start program. That is why there is such strong adherence by the Members of Congress to the Head Start program, because we understand that they are being measured by their compliance, by their compliance to those standards.

Yes, many of them are out of compliance in one fashion or another, but we also know that many of those are just minuscule, tiny, tiny factors that they are out of compliance with. Because in that same study, again, 85 percent of them were high quality.

And then it comes to the question of the comprehensive services and the direct access, and the body that we have built up, services that are not provided in many of the State programs. That is why we ask our colleagues to accept this bill and all of the hard work that has gone into title I and to reject title II.

Finally, let me say that all of this improvement and all of these children that are supposed to be served are all essentially going to be served with less money in a few years because of the capped authorization in this legislation. For the first time, this Congress will reauthorize a bill that will not allow for the expansion over the period of that reauthorization of this program. That is the first time any Congress has done that, and that is the first time any administration, Republican or Democrat, has suggested that that is the right way to go.

We know it is not the right way to go. We are only serving 60 percent of the children, and yet we are going to knock out in the next few years some 5,000 to 10,000 of those children because the authorization does not provide sufficient funding.

Mr. Chairman, I urge the adoption of this amendment, and rejection of the block grant and the undermining of the Head Start program.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murphy).

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, as we progress through the conference, I do intend to explore this issue further. Quality research relies on valid and reliable data, and I believe that we must have quality research to drive the real improvements that are necessary in Head Start. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murphy) is a leader on these issues, and I appreciate his interest and his advice on this matter.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman for his commitment to these quality programs and look forward to continuing to work with him as we move this bill through the conference.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Musgrave), a member of our committee.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton), a member of our committee and a real leader on this issue.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), the author of the bill and the chairman of the Subcommittee on Education Reform.

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

Mr. Chairman, if we look at the proposal that we have before us, in title I, the main part of the program, there is quite a bit of unanimity about the changes that need to be made to help improve Head Start if, in fact, we are going to improve the futures for many poor children in America. I think there is a recognition that more of an education component to Head Start is absolutely necessary.

And so if we look at title I of the bill, there is no amount of disagreement over it. The real disagreement is over title II which would set up an eight-State demonstration program, only for the States who have made big commitments to early childhood development, only States that would agree to meet or exceed Federal standards, only for States that are willing to make a big commitment and are already doing it, and they will have to add more money. And if that is not enough, we guarantee that the local grantees that are there today in those eight States will continue to receive their money for 5 years.

How anybody could ever refer to this as a block grant is beyond me.

Why are we doing this? Very simply this: Some States are making big commitments to help poor kids, and if they are able to take their pre- kindergarten programs, their early childhood development programs, their child care programs, they can work with poor children in their States and their families to create a more seamless system to help prepare children for school.

Why should we not see if it works? Why should we not take the chance to help these children? Because I do believe that some States will be better able to prepare these children to be ready for school.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment and any attempt to deny organizations their long-standing civil rights protections. The amendment before us is a direct attack on faith-based service providers seeking to participate in the Head Start program, where they can make a valuable difference in the lives of disadvantaged children.

Make no mistake, the amendment before us would not only be stripping faith-based organizations of their rights, but worse, will eliminate an entire category of potential Head Start

service providers simply because they choose to maintain their legally protected right to make staffing decisions consistent with their organizational character and with the protections provided them under title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

This debate must be understood in real terms. Let us take the Catholic church, for example. Often these churches have strong roots in the community and a vast network of volunteers and employees who work together to make a difference for those who need a helping hand. They participate in many activities that are not about religion, but simply about making a difference in the lives of those in need. These organizations are a natural choice to participate in the Head Start program. After all, the infrastructure is in place, the members of the community already consider church a resource for social services, and workers are ready and willing to take in these needy children and give them the comprehensive support they need to get ready to enter school.

So what is the catch? Catholic churches have a tendency to hire Catholics. The Supreme Court does not see a problem with this. In fact, the Supreme Court has unanimously upheld the right of religious organizations to be religious and make staffing decisions based on that decision. There is no debate about that right. Until today, that is, when we consider this amendment that would make it illegal for these churches to continue to hire Catholics if they choose to participate in the Head Start program.

That is what we are talking about here, a double standard applying only to faith-based organizations, which tells them that they cannot serve disadvantaged children in Head Start unless they relinquish their identity, especially when it comes to hiring.

Faith-based organizations are a priceless national resource, providing help and hope to communities across America. And by their very nature, faith-based organizations often reach out to those in need when others may turn a blind eye. Improving lives is all in a day's work for faith-based organizations. That is why the President has called on Congress to level the playing field when these compassionate service providers are seeking to play a role in Federal initiatives like the Head Start program, to serve those who need our help.

Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat this amendment. We should not ask religious groups to forfeit their religious character and identity as a condition of participating in Head Start. If we have discourage faith-based organizations from participating, we will be giving Head Start children less than we are capable of giving them. I think we must stand firm to protected the civil rights exemption for faith-based organizations so they can do their good works and community all across the Nation.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn), a member of our committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Carter), a new member of our committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder), a former member of our committee.

(Mr. SOUDER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

I think there are is some misunderstanding. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act says that religious organizations can discriminate in their hiring based on religion. That is what it says.

Look at Federal laws that provide grants to community-based organizations. Some of those require these organizations to give up their title VII protections, like the Head Start program we have before us. We have other programs, dozens of them, where they can maintain their title VII protections, and as I have told the Members on the other side over the last several months, as we bring these reauthorizations through our committee, like the Workforce Investment Act, like Head Start, I am going to provide some consistency.

President Clinton signed five programs into law that allowed faith- based organizations to have their title VII exemption with Federal funds, and all we want to do is to say if you take Federal funds and you provide Head Start services, you do not have to give up your title VII protections that are granted to you, plain and simple.

I urge my colleagues to defeat the gentlewoman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Musgrave).

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne), a member of our committee.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), the author of the bill, and the chairman of the Subcommittee on Education Reform.

(Mr. CASTLE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the author of this bill, the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), the subcommittee chairman, for the brilliant job that he did with the subcommittee to bring this bill together and to bring it to this point.

Also, I want to thank the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne) for all of his efforts, and all of the members of our committee who have worked hard and come together from the right wing to the more moderate wing to help craft a bill that will help poor children get a better start in life.

I also want to thank the staff of the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), including Sara Rittling and Paul Leonard. I want to thank the committee staff: Kate Houston, Amanda Farris, Melanie Looney, Julian Baer, Parker Hamilton, Krisann Pearce, Dave Schnittger, Jo-Marie St. Martin, and Sally Lovejoy and others who were so helpful in putting this bill together.

Head Start has done a lot for a lot of children all across the country. There is not one Member in this room, not one, who does not believe that Head Start cannot be improved.

Now, the question is, how do we improve it? In title I of the bill, there is basic agreement on the changes that will bring a more academic component to Head Start.

The big issue was over title II, the eight-State pilot project. We have heard it called a block grant, we have heard it described as the dismantling of Head Start. Please. There are some States out there who are doing magnificent things, and to give them the opportunity to better coordinate Head Start with their own pre-kindergarten programs, their own early childhood development programs, their own child care programs, States can, in fact, provide a comprehensive package that we believe could be of great help to poor children and their parents in terms of helping improve this program.

And to just say ``no,'' we are not going to try it, we are never going to go there, frankly, is not fair. It is not fair to the 3- and 4-year-olds in America who need our help.

So we have in this bill this eight-state demonstration project, but only for those States who would hold themselves to high standards, only those States who will make a big commitment to early childhood development, and only States who really want to take this project on.

I believe that we have got a good bill before us. I want to ask my colleagues to reject the Miller substitute and to vote ``yes'' on final passage.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers), the gentleman who has led our efforts with Members on both sides of the aisle to help seasonal migrant workers.

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

Mr. Chairman, sometimes when we evaluate, we need to look at the depths from which one comes as opposed to only the heights to which they have not excelled.

I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 2210. I am pleased that my amendments in committee to restore reference to the importance of delivering culturally appropriate services and to increase opportunities for fathers to more actively participate in Head Start were agreed to. And while I am pleased with the acceptance of these amendments and others introduced by my colleagues, I am greatly disappointed by the fact that other amendments will not be discussed here today.

Among these is my amendment to provide funding for grantees to fulfill the requirement that 50 percent of teachers have bachelor's degrees. Since my amendment was not accepted, this will continue to be an unfunded mandate like the rhetoric of Leave No Child Behind.

Education is, in fact, the great equalizer, and since its introduction in 1965, the Head Start program has helped over 21 million of America's poorest children gain the academic, social, emotional behavior, and readiness skills necessary for success. In those 38 years, we have learned much about the needs of disadvantaged children living in poverty. What we have learned is what it takes to prepare them for school. It takes dedicated, skilled, well-trained teachers. It takes parental involvement. It takes comprehensiveness. It takes health care. It takes nutrition. It does not take some kind of program that has never been tested.

Let us keep Head Start. ``If it ain't broke, don't fix it.''

Mr. Chairman, I would like to begin by commending Chairman Boehner and Ranking Member Miller from the Education and the Workforce Committee and Chairman Castle and Ranking Member Woolsey from the Subcommittee on Select Education for their work

on this bill. I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 2210. I am pleased that my amendments in committee to restore references to the importance of delivering culturally appropriate services and to increase opportunities for fathers to more actively participate in Head Start were agreed to. While I am pleased with acceptance of these amendments and others introduced by my colleagues on the Education and the Workforce Committee, I am greatly disappointed by the fact that numerous amendments designed to improve this legislation will not be discussed today. Among these is my amendment to provide funding for grantees to fulfill the requirement that 50% of teachers have Bachelor's degrees. Since my amendment was not accepted, this will continue to be an unfunded mandate, like the rhetoric of Leave No Child Behind.

Education is the great equalizer. Since its introduction 1965, the Head Start program has helped over 21 million of America's poorest children gain the academic, social, emotional, behavioral and readiness skills necessary for success in the future. In those thirty-eight years, we have learned much about the needs of disadvantaged children living in poverty and what it takes to prepare them for school. It takes skilled, well trained and dedicated teachers. It takes comprehensiveness. It takes health care, nutrition, it takes parental involvement and participation. It takes more than eloquent speeches about Leave No Child Behind experiments. The Head Start program has grown and changed through the years with the increased knowledge of how best to serve low-income children and their families. Study after study has shown that participation in the program results in decreased incidence of school failure, higher graduation rates, lower crime rates later in life, and better social and emotional relationships. In these times when politicians speak so eloquently on how no child should be left behind, why would we conduct an experiment that would restructure an already successful program and, ultimately, result in thousands of children being left behind?

Title II of this bill would do just that. It implements a pilot program for eight states to take the Head Start money appropriated to them and run the program on their own. The idea behind this experimental program is to integrate Head Start with already existing state preschool programs. However, such a move would undermine the intent of Head Start as a comprehensive, family-based program. Title II would allow states to determine their own standards, guidelines, and qualifications. These states could decide to implement Head Start as a pre-kindergarten program, cutting out nutrition, vaccinations, dental care, medical care, and other important services currently guaranteed to children in the program. With the current state budget crisis, these services will almost certainly be eliminated, leaving the low-income children served by Head Start with no way to receive these extremely important services.

The Head Start program has been in place for 38 years and has been continually improving in quality as professionals have gained knowledge on how best to serve low-income children. This knowledge and understanding has resulted in high quality standards being set. In contrast, many states do not even have preschool programs, and those that do are still in the early stages of developing them. Few state-run preschool programs have established quality standards. Nor do state-run preschool programs encourage the active participation of parents. Helping parents learn how to provide nurturing environments for their children has a positive impact for years after graduation from Head Start and is beneficial for the child in the program as well as his or her siblings. The role of parents in Head Start goes far beyond being a PTA member or a teacher's aide; parents learn that they are the most important role model for their children and must be a caring and supportive influence. The vast majority of State-run preschool programs also have little to no integration of services, which is already a major part of the Head Start program. Merging Head Start with programs that do not have quality standards, do not encourage parent participation, and do not provide such services as nutrition, health, and immunizations runs the risk of destabilizing a successful program and lowering standards and minimizing services that have been so painstakingly developed.

Mr. Chairman, Head Start could serve our children better. However, dismantling the program and leaving states to rebuild it without the insights gained over the past thirty-eight years would be a tragedy for our low-income children and their families.

Mr. Chairman, I have always stood by the saying that ``education is the great equalizer''. Yet, in this bill, we are allowing education to be easily accessible to the haves and more difficult to obtain for our Nation's have-nots. This attitude toward education is a giant step backwards to 40 years ago. Low-income children, children with disabilities and individuals who want to go to college are the ones that are being hurt substantially in this bill.

Although, the 2004 budget resolution was to provide the Department of Education with a $3 billion increase, this bill only allows for a $2.3 billion increase over Fiscal Year 2003. The Title I program is one that is hit the heaviest. Title I schools have the least experienced teachers, less competitive teacher salaries, higher teacher turnover, a less rigorous curriculum, the least amount of resources and students with greater academic deficits, which all adds up to these schools being less able to meet the No Child Left Behind Act's mandates. Instead of providing a substantial increase to offset the disadvantage these schools are already facing, this bill only provides a $666 million increase, compared to the $1 billion in the 2004 budget resolution.

On April 30, this House passed the IDEA reauthorization bill with the promise attached from the 2004 budget resolution to provide a $2.2 billion increase over the current level. Yet, this bill falls $1.2 billion short of that promise. As deficit stricken states continue to cut from their school funding, schools will have to continue to absorb the costs of providing special education for nearly 6.7 million school children as well as even cut other school programs or hope for a local referendum to pass to offset the shortfall.

A college graduate can expect to earn 80 percent more than a high school graduate, or $1 million over the course of a lifetime. This obviously allows for an individual to have a better quality of life by having a higher skilled job, better health insurance, pension and the ability to provide a better life for their children. Yet, this bill in essence abandons higher education federal student aid. All the federal student aid programs: Pell Grants, Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants (SEOG), Federal Work Study, Perkins Loan Program, LEAP, and Graduate Education are level funded. This may not sound too bad but for example the Pell Grants maximum award was kept at $4,050 which will only cover 38 percent or less of expenses in a 4-year public college compared to 84 percent of expenses covered by Pell Grants in 1975, when the program originated. Unfortunately, the Federal Government is abandoning higher education while the states suffer record breaking deficits. These simultaneous occurrences result in cuts in grant aid to students facing rising cost in higher education. Loyola University Chicago lost $1 million in state grant aid for needy students due to Illinois $5 billion deficit. How much more will their students lose without any increases to the federal student aid programs?

Mr. Chairman, If we pass this bill, we are sending the message that we do not care enough about all of our nation's children and young people. We need to ensure that we are helping those who are in most need of help--low-income children, children with disabilities, and those who have the desire to continue their education but who just can not afford to go without assistance of state and federal aid. Our message needs to be clear. But most importantly, our message needs to be more than just words. Let's see increases in funding where they are most needed.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne) who not only is extremely well known for his expertise in coaching, but is one of the leading experts on mentoring in this country.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes and 15 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers), who probably has had more to do with increasing the emphasis on math and science education than anybody in the Congress and has indicated this is one of the most misunderstood bills he has seen in 10 years here.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to take on the question of how well we are doing, at least educationally, in Head Start. This is really, really important, that everybody understands it.

First of all, there are not that many studies with respect to how Head Start children are doing. There is a longitudinal study in the works right now which we should have pretty soon. This is a study, and I will show 2 charts, one from 1997 and one from 2000, which shows children in Head Start far below average. The average is 50 percent. That is the median that we are dealing with here.

This study is by the Family and Child Experiences Survey, and it shows, and you cannot see it probably, but the blue is the fall of 1997 and the purple is the spring of 1998, so after they had been through a year of this. It shows the vocabulary of the kids had gone from the 16th percentile to the 23rd. In letter recognition they actually went down from the 27th to the 25th. In early writing, 16th to 23rd, and early mathematics, 17 to 19.

Believe me, these are numbers which tell us that these kids are not going to make it in school. This is absolutely why we have to challenge Head Start. It is why we need to go to a State demonstration to make sure it is brought in with all of the other State programs which exist.

Now, the numbers really are not a lot different for the year 2000, but there they are: 16 to 23 for early letter recognition; early writing went from 16 to 19; early mathematics, 21 to 23. This means that when these children reach kindergarten, we can almost predict that they are not going to make it out of school ultimately, and that, unfortunately, Head Start has not done all for them that it could.

Head Start does a wonderful job in many ways that we have described here today in terms of helping with the well-being of our young children, but it is not doing what we need to do in education, and we need to challenge it. It is as we have seen and heard in some of the newspapers that have written about it. The Detroit News on July 9 said:

``Head Start advocates fear States will fritter away any

Federal Head Start funds shifted their way, but proposals now

in the House restrict States in how they spend earmarked

money. The pilot program would be limited to eight States,

and that would be a good test for proposed preschool reforms.

If government can devise a better Head Start program, one

which helps children more effectively, it should hurry to do

so. The program's 900,000 children, the ones who need the

help, deserve no less.''

That is absolutely correct. We need to take steps to help them academically. What we have proposed will do so. Please support this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment and claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Isakson), who is the former chairman of the State Board of Education and a tremendous asset to the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert), a strong proponent for the children of our country.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers), where they have the university that stole their football uniforms from the University of Delaware, I might add.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), clearly a person very concerned about Head Start.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra), head of the Subcommittee on Select Education in the Committee on Education and the Workforce and a strong force on our committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson), another distinguished member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

Mr. Chairman, I listened to this argument all night, and there is some great success stories in Head Start, and there are a lot of us that are very devoted to what Head Start has done. But I hark back to about 15 or 16 years ago when I was Governor of the small State of Delaware, and we started welfare reform before anybody here in Congress had talked about it. We started it by having classes, mandatory classes. You had to go to classes, or you would not get your welfare.

I went to that first class after they had been there for about 2 months. I walked in there; I remember there were 19 people there, one man and 18 women. I was stunned, because I thought they would want to run me out of the place. Instead, they thanked me for giving them an opportunity.

We have done what you had to do with welfare in Delaware, and now in the United States. We have reduced welfare by 50 percent. The time has come in the United States of America to do more with Head Start.

There are some wonderful success stories for Head Start, no question about it. But there are also in-bred problems that we need to deal with if we are going to make Head Start better, and some of those we need to talk about right now.

First of all, I do appreciate the support for title I, because we did make a lot of changes. That is everything but the State demonstration and the faith-based business.

Secondly, we have increased spending. Since 1995, we have doubled spending. But if you look at these results for just 1 year, and I showed these charts before, ironically, that was about an hour and a half ago, nobody has come forward to show me anything different, any study, any chart, any test whatsoever, to show that Head Start results are better than this.

This shows that the increases are rather marginal, in fact, in some instances no increases at all as far as Head Start is concerned, averaging in the low twenties. This means these are kids that are going to have difficulty in school. Some are going to be higher and they are going to do all right; but for the most part, they are going to have difficulty in schools because we simply have not gotten them to where they should be, which is as close to the median level, 50 percent, as we can get them. We have to raise that.

What does the State demonstration make? The State demonstration that people are so concerned about, what does it do with respect to this? Well, it fences in all of the Federal money, all of local money, it adds more local money to what we are doing here, and it makes sure that the State merges it in with all of the other programs and projects which they are trying to do to help children.

Some of the comments which I have spelled out before from people on the outside, for example, the San Diego Union said: ``The strident opposition to President Bush's modest pilot proposal to fine-tune Head Start is nothing more than partisan sniping, pure and simple. Bush is looking to close the achievement gap for poor youngsters. He would do so by merging Head Start into often overlapping State programs and opposing new academic standards on the combined program.''

That is positive. That will help educate young people.

Then the Des Moines Register said: ``The eight States selected for the 5-year pilot project just might do better. The eight-State pilot project is a chance to see what States can do on their own. Meanwhile, Head Start is working to improve early literacy and math preparation. When the 5-year experiment is over, Congress can decide whether a state-by-state or national framework better serves the interests of young children.''

That is not taking apart Head Start, that is not block-granting anything. That is affording opportunities to young people to be able to be educated.

The Council of State School Officers has come forward and has indicated that they believe in this proposal and we need to do something about it. This is a council of State school officers which has done that, people who believe in education. The Brookings Institution, certainly a middle-of-the-road operation, has come forward and said that we need to do something. It said, given the immensity of the task and the modest success achieved thus far, new ideas are worth trying.

This is a new idea. This is not dismembering anything. This is affording opportunity. This is taking eight States and saying, we are going to give you, the best States in the country, who are willing to put in extra money and who are already running programs that are going to help in early education with these young children, the opportunity to do more to lift the standards of where we are going with Head Start. Everything else will be done in Head Start.

And Lord only knows, it does some wonderful things, and we have heard that said by a lot of people here tonight. But this is unacceptable; we have to do better educationally. That is what this is all about.

Please support the underlying legislation and defeat the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me this time.

It is a pleasure to rise and defend this bill. And as the chairman of the subcommittee has mentioned, I have been shocked by the misunderstanding about this bill that has been propagated throughout this country. It is a good bill, and I wanted to comment about one part of it that I think has really been improved.

The migrant and seasonal children of this country are special children who need special help. They need special help because they are moved from place to place, and they have special conditions that have to be dealt with. For example, in my community they must be attended to in Head Start programs from early summer to mid-fall. That is not the standard school year.

But that is just one of many ways in which they have to be treated specially. I am very familiar with their problems because in my youth I lived in a farming community. I worked on a produce farm. I worked side by side with migrant workers, both in the fields and in the packing sheds and even in transporting produce to markets.

It is very important to provide services for migrant children. When these children are not served, parents sometimes will bring their children to the field and sometimes even have them working. This certainly exposes them to harmful conditions.

Today, migrant and seasonal Head Start serves close to 35,000 children and operates in 39 States in every region of the country. But in contrast to the normal Head Start program that serves approximately 60 percent of eligible children, migrant and seasonal Head Start serves only approximately 19 percent. That is a dramatic shortfall, and we must improve that.

I am pleased that I was able to get an amendment approved by the committee that, first of all, will allow all migrant and seasonal Head Start grantees to operate Early Head Start programs. That is not true of all Head Start programs, but it is essential because that way the youngest children of the migrant and seasonal workers can participate in Head Start programs rather than being taken to the fields.

My amendment will also require the Secretary to ensure that migrant and seasonal Head Start programs are included in the planning and coordination of the State system of training and technical assistance. In addition, part of my amendment, in combination with a change that the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) made in his substitute, specifically makes one-fourth of 1 percent of all the total authorization available for seasonal and migrant Head Start. This means that we will have an additional $17.4 million in fiscal year 2005 and $18.5 million in 2008. This also means that the funding that will be available will provide an additional 2,300 slots for children to receive services in 2005 and up to 2,500 in 2008. I expect that these provisions will allow the migrant and seasonal Head Start program to successfully take care of a substantially greater number of migrant and seasonal Head Start children.

Mr. Chairman, there is an incredible amount of misunderstanding about the bill, and apparently about football uniforms as well.

Mr. Chairman, let me clarify a few points. I find so many people misunderstand the intent dealing with faith-based organizations receiving Federal funding. This is not money that is going to religious groups to proselytize students or kids or indoctrinate them. This is money provided to organizations who, in seeking to carry out their religious faiths, are trying to help their communities by establishing institutions that serve the people of their community. Head Start is just one example of that. There are many other examples of charitable organizations, faith-based organizations, which do good for the community.

My community is almost a poster child for that. We have the second largest private mental hospital in the world in my community. It is a faith-based organization. People come from all over this country and even from some other countries to get the service there because it is so extremely good. We have the largest adoption agency in the world headquartered in my district. It started there by a faith-based organization to serve with adoptions.

These are not people who are trying to proselytize. They are people who are trying to serve and serve in the name of God. That is what we are talking about.

I heard a reference from the gentleman from Massachusetts earlier about this is awful, that we are taking unbelievers' money and giving it to faith-based institutions. I would remind the gentleman that religious people pay taxes as well, and I can guarantee you that the amount of tax money collected from believers is considerably greater than the amount of money going to faith-based institutions. That statement simply makes no sense.

We have a long history in this Nation of supporting faith-based institutions. I taught at a State university. I have taught at a private religious college. The grants I received from the Federal Government were the same at both institutions. The Federal Government treats them evenhandedly.

I believe it is very important that we continue the faith-based practice outlined in this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me this time, and it is my pleasure to rise and defend this bill, and particularly the provisions in it regarding seasonal and migrant workers.

The migrant and seasonal children of this country have special needs and should get special help, and I do not disagree with the minority on that part. They need special help because they are often moved from place to place, and they have special conditions that have to be dealt with.

For example, in my community, they attend Head Start programs from early summer to mid-fall. Obviously, this is not the standard school year. But that is just one of the many ways in which they have to be treated specially. And I am personally very familiar with their problems because in my youth I lived in a small farming community in the great State of Ohio. I worked on a produce farm. I worked side by side with migrant workers, in the fields and in the packing sheds, and even in transporting produce to markets.

It is very important for us to provide the services for these children. When these children are not served properly, parents will often bring them to the fields and sometimes even have the slightly older ones working. They certainly can be exposed to harmful conditions that way. Today, migrant and seasonal Head Start serves close to 35,000 children in 39 States in every region of this country. But in contrast to the standard Head Start program, the part that serves the migrant and seasonal serves only approximately 19 percent of the eligible children. That is dramatically lower than the 60 percent of eligible children served in other areas.

Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to be able in the committee to offer an amendment that was approved by the committee that allows all migrant and seasonal Head Start grantees to operate early Head Start programs. Not every Head Start program is allowed to operate early Head Start, but this amendment allows all migrant and seasonal Head Start grantees to operate these.

Why is that important? Because frequently migrants have small children and they need the early Head Start program, or they are going to be taken to the fields. That is one great improvement.

Another is that my amendment will require the Secretary to ensure that migrant and seasonal Head Start programs are included in the planning and coordination of the State systems of training and technical assistance. In addition, part of my amendment, in combination with a change that has been made in the substitute, will provide at least 25 percent of any remaining technical assistance funds which are used in migrant and seasonal Head Start programs. And the bill specifically makes 1 percent of the technical training assistance funds available in this category. This means we will have an additional $17.4 million in fiscal year 2005 and an additional $1 million in 2008. This will provide an additional 2,300 slots for children to receive services and up to 2,500.

This is not just a magic authorization improvement. This is money that will be there. These are slots that will be there. These are children that will receive service. It is not simply increasing authorization; it is producing additional spots for the kids to go in.

We have covered a good deal of this problem in this bill through this amendment. Let us vote for this bill, let us reject the recommittal motion, and let us go on and get this bill into effect and help all the seasonal and migrant children of this Nation.