Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2210) to reauthorize the Head Start Act to improve the school readiness of disadvantaged children, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Roybal-Allard).

(Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).

(Mrs. CAPPS asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Linda T. Sanchez).

(Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez).

(Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Watson).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. Majette).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen).

(Mrs. CHRISTENSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Corrine Brown).

(Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from Ohio for yielding to me.

Mr. Speaker, what we have just seen is a powerful demonstration of women and two men that represent nearly 13 million people in the United States of America.

One would think that this highly contentious Head Start reauthorization bill would be the kind of thing that would allow us to not have this kind of undertaking. One would think that this would be a simple four-step process involving the systematic introduction of a bill that increases funding and expands Head Start services; followed by committee markups to ensure the bill includes bipartisan interests; next, it is placed on the calendar; and, finally, a 15-minute vote with the passing of Head Start reauthorization. But since the Republicans are in control of the House, it is never that simple. Instead, I wind up opposing the rule and the underlying bill on Head Start.

Head Start is America's best known Federal program. Of the more than 20 million children and families that are enrolled in Head Start nationwide, there are 2,574 Head Start children in my congressional district alone, including 41 Head Start centers with a total of 127 classrooms. Of those Head Start children in my district, 98 percent of them live in families that receive public assistance or have incomes that are below the Federal poverty line.

These kids receive a gamut of services which include medical and dental care, mental health services, disability assessment and treatment and family assistance.

In fact, studies have shown that Head Start narrows the gap between disadvantaged children and other children, narrows that gap in vocabulary, writing skills, and social behavior. Head Start children are less likely to repeat a grade, require special education or be convicted of a crime. And I underscore, 80 percent of all of the children who start and end Head Start do not wind up in prison. These children show IQ gains compared to low-income children who are not in the program and are more likely to graduate from high school and college.

Mr. Speaker, I cite these statistics to simply say it seems to me that, as one of the gentlewomen said, If it ain't broke, don't fix it. This seems to be a solution in search of a problem.

Although Head Start has a well-documented record of improving the education and health of participating children, Republicans seek to begin its evisceration. The current proposal by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle is completely without reason.

While H.R. 2210 does seek to reauthorize Head Start funding, it also seeks to undermine and erode the foundation of Head Start programs through its proposed change. We need legislation that will build upon and ensure Head Start's continued success.

We would not be building upon its success if we passed a bill that begins the state-by-state dismantling of Head Start programs by establishing block grants in eight States, Florida included.

We would not be building upon its success if we passed a bill that promotes discrimination in hiring by ignoring civil rights laws and lowers Federal standards.

We would not be building upon its success if we passed a bill that literally and figuratively shortchanges teachers by not mandating an increase in pay and denies services to eligible children through an insignificant increase in funding.

Mr. Speaker, I might also add that of the 25 amendments that we heard in the Committee on Rules that were offered by Democrats, only two were allowed, and the one Republican amendment by arguably the most qualified Member of the House on this particular matter, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murphy), a child psychologist, was also rejected.

This is shameful, and, frankly, sinister. You Republicans really know how to kick a kid when he is down. First the child tax credit, now this. What is next? Maybe there is a Republican bill out there that outlaws kickball or stickball.

Mr. Speaker, this body owes the American people a reauthorization that significantly increases funding and allows for the expansion of Head Start and Early Head Start. We will be doing a disservice to lower-income families and the future of America to pass the bill on the floor today. I urge rejection of this Draconian rule and of the underlying bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa), my good friend.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Ortiz).

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

Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards), my good friend.

Mr. Speaker, I would most respectfully ask that the gentleman's words with reference to idiocrasy be stricken, but without asking a ruling from the Chair, I would ask the gentleman to give consideration to undertaking to do that before making such a demand. He said idiocrasy.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds.

To the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), I went to school in Alta Mont Springs. There were no certified teachers. Every one of them loved me. My mama and daddy and grandmama never went to school and somehow or another I managed to get three degrees.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), my very good friend and a leader in this field; and I invite the House to listen for 2 minutes to the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I yield for a unanimous consent to the gentlewoman from Kansas City, Missouri (Ms. McCarthy).

(Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), my very good friend.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), my very good friend.

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

Mr. Speaker, will the Chair tell me how much time we have remaining.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), my good friend.

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva), a new Member, but a distinguished person that has dynamics with reference to this matter as a part of his portfolio.

Mr. Speaker, I yield for a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky), my good friend.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Linda T. Sanchez) who is distinguishing herself in our body as new Member, my friend.

Mr. Speaker, how much time do we have at this time?

Three, and we are at that time prepared to close.

Mr. Speaker, I am very privileged and pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), who is not only my good friend, but is a person that ran a Head Start program in the United States of America while the rest of us are running our mouths about Head Start.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge), who was the superintendent of education in North Carolina and speaks very clearly with reference to these issues based on his experience.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), who should be able to vote on whether or not there are vouchers in her city.

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

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Delaware

knows that I have great respect for him. That will continue regardless of our different views on this subject.

What he did was read from today's Roll Call by that paragon of education, Morton Kondracke, who is probably a friend of his and certainly a friend of mine. But the gentleman left out another thing that Mr. Kondracke said. He said, ``Democrats did help Bush pass his No Child Left Behind standards and testing initiative in 2001 and now have every right to blast his and the GOP Congress' failure to fund it.''

So, you see, context has a lot to do with things. When the gentleman was before the Committee on Rules, I asked him, in a respectful manner, was there one teacher organization or one parent organization or one student organization that supported the bill that he put forward. He looked to his staff and indicated that there was an education trust group, which the Democrats support as well because it deals with the quality of teachers and teacher pay. There are no teacher organizations, no parent organizations, no student organizations that support this proposition.

The fact of the matter is, one of my distinguished colleagues from Florida came down here and all of these ladies who represent nearly 13 million people, along with the two men that stood with them and asked unanimous consent, he referred to them as a line of mediocrity. If he wants mediocrity, all he has to do is suggest that if this bill rose to the level of mediocrity, it would be fine. Look to Florida for mediocrity when they say they leave no children behind. In Florida we not only leave them behind, we lose them and cannot find them.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman for yielding me the time.

I wanted to debate this at the very beginning of this very long evening because this is the rule that will design whether we work on this in a bipartisan manner or whether or not we use the singular view, My way or the highway.

This is actually Head Start retrogression, and I wish that we could have come to the floor of the House and crafted reform that would truly help our children, but Mr. Speaker, this legislation continues the saga.

Only 60 percent of preschool children are able to access the real Head Start, 19 percent only of those who are seasonal and migrant children and 3 percent only of infant and preschoolers are able to access a real Head Start program.

Mr. Speaker, if we look at America, we will find Members of this body that started in Head Start. Children who are children of incarcerated persons were in Head Start. Average Americans have had the ability to be in Head Start, but we have never finished the job, and this legislation that we have before us is going to unravel Head Start as we know it, a nurturing, caring program that has nutrition, has psychology, has education, has teachers who care and teaches parents how to access better education for their children.

Why could my Republican colleagues not see that education is a dream of all America? This rule should be denied because this rule does not address the question of giving block grant moneys to the States so that they can abuse those resources, and our children still will not have a viable Head Start program.

I support the Woolsey amendment. I support the substitute. We need to go back to the drawing board and really listen to those who have now grown up who have been products of Head Start. Ask them the question whether or not they have benefited from the ability to have immunization and good health care, good nutrition and then be able to have a loving environment to educate or to be educated in.

Why my good friends think that that is a good bill, I do not know, but the best thing to do is to send it back. It is a Head Start retrogression. Vote against the rule.

I oppose the rule governing H.R. 2210, the Head Start Authorization Act, because it denies the Minority an opportunity to make a bad bill better. Make no mistake about it; the underlying legislation is a bad bill. I regret that my colleagues and I do not have the opportunity to improve upon it.

The Republicans on the Rules Committee have denied us the opportunity to have our amendments heard, to have our colleagues vote on the amendments and to decide for themselves what best suits their constituents. The Head Start program is of critical importance to our children and this rule does not do justice to the undertaking of reauthorizing that program.

A total of 26 amendments were submitted to the Rules Committee on this bill. Of those 26 amendments, Democratic Members submitted all but one. The rule makes in order only two of those amendments: a Democratic substitute and the Woolsey/Edwards/Frank/Scott/Van Hollen amendment to restore civil rights protections to Head Start teachers by striking the language in the bill that allows Head Start programs to discriminate in hiring with regard to religion. Certainly, those are both excellent amendments and it is my hope that they will be adopted. Then, this bad bill will be better. Those two amendments however, were not the only worthy amendments that should have been allowed to come to this floor.

There was Mr. Grijalva's Migrant and Seasonal Head Start and Indian Head Start amendment which calls for additional funds to be allocated to Head Start. That is important because the legislation currently on the table will prevent more than 80 percent of eligible children from benefiting from Head Start services. The U.S. Department of Health has found that Migrant and Seasonal Head Start Programs serve only 31,400 out of 161,400 migrant and seasonal children; this is a mere 19 percent of all eligible children. That overwhelming shortfall leaves 130,000 children of migrant and seasonal Head Start families behind.

This is simply unacceptable; America's children deserve better. As a Texan, I understand the importance of that amendment, as would many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. I wish that we had the opportunity to vote for the Grijalva amendment.

The amendment proposed by Mr. Grijalva aimed to minimize the existing gaps that are preventing the children of migrant and seasonal workers from receiving the early education that prepares children for more structured schooling later in life. The amendment calls for an increase in the total authorization of early education programs from $6.87 billion to $7 billion and raises the set-aside for each of these programs from 13 percent to 15 percent. While Migrant and Seasonal Head Start Programs as well as Indian Head Start programs serve both infants and toddlers, the fact remains that neither program has access to Early Head Start Funds. However, these funds are available to Regional Head Start programs. The only way Migrant and Seasonal Head Start and Indian Head Start Programs can receive increases is if additional funds are appropriated. That is what the Grijalva amendment would do.

By making a modest increase in the funding for Migrant and Seasonal Head Start as well as Indian Head Start programs, we would be able to move these programs toward parity and ultimately to reduce the significant funding gap. What a small price to pay for the success of our children. Given the chance I would have urged my colleagues to vote in favor of the Grijalva amendment and to support the measure on behalf of America's marginalized children. Due to the Republican's restrictive and unfair rule, I will not have the opportunity to do so.

The Republican leadership of the Rules Committee closed out a number of other valuable amendments. One of those amendments was offered by Mr. Davis of Illinois. His amendment would have provided scholarships to Head Start teachers to assist them with the cost of obtaining a post-secondary degree. It is stunning that the majority denied this amendment because post-secondary degrees will be a requirement for half of current Head Start teachers, if this version of H.R. 2210 passes.

If we are to demand higher levels of formal education from Head Start teachers then we must compensate them fairly. Unfortunately, well- educated Head Start teachers can earn more by taking a new job teaching kindergarten. It is a fact that a teacher with a Bachelor's degree in Early Childhood Education can earn, on average, about $16,000 a year more teaching in a public school kindergarten than working in a Head Start program. That is nearly double the salary. How then can we expect these teachers to bear the expense of attaining additional education and then remain

as Head Start employees earning lower salaries? It is illogical and frankly, it is unlikely that most Head Start teachers will make that choice.

We know that these teachers are caring people. They want to remain in their jobs working with children and families that need them most. Without the Davis amendment, however, H.R. 2210 will make that financially impossible for many Head Start teachers. The result could be a great loss to Head Start programs, to the children they serve and thus to the future of the country.

I too offered amendments to the underlying bill. I too had those amendments shut out of the process. One amendment was written to maintain the mandate for a study comparing the educational achievement, social adaptation, and health status of children participating in Head Start programs with that of eligible children who do not participate. The underlying bill would eliminate that study. It is apparent, that the data gained from the study would be useful in adding to our understanding of the importance of Head Start and the ways in which we can improve program.

Among those children who are eligible for Head Start, the study would focus on the developmental differences between children who participate in Head Start and those who do not. Such a study could be particularly relevant as we seek to better accommodate the increasing number of special needs disabled children, emotionally or mentally challenged children, and non-English-speaking Head Start children.

In Texas, and in other states, there are thousands of children who are eligible for Head Start but who are not enrolled. Those children are entitled to the services that they would receive from the Head Start program. The families of those children would benefit from the holistic approach of Head Start as it seeks to educate not only the child but also the child's parents about what it takes to help a child thrive. This study is a mechanism through which we may better understand the positive impact that Head Start creates on the lives of the children and families whom it serves. Unfortunately, the Members on the other side of the aisle would not allow it to be heard on the floor.

My other amendment was authored to prevent states from using federal funds allocated under this Act to supplant other federal funds that states are currently spending on Head Start. In other words, my amendment would have helped keep Head Start dollars in Head Start programs. Under the amendment, the text of the Head Start Act would read, in part, ``Funds received under this section shall not supplant any Federal, State or local funds.'' That language is crucial to the preservation of Head Start in states that currently spend federal dollars on Head Start centers.

Without this amendment, the cash strapped states could choose to use funds allocated under this Act to supplant funds currently being spent. Thus, there would be no net gain for the children who need the services provided by Head Start. Undoubtedly, the overburdened states will use this opportunity to plug federal dollars into another hole in their budgets. My amendment would had cured that problem but the majority on the Rules Committee will not allow it.

The amendment was supported by the Children's Defense Fund, yet my colleagues were denied the opportunity to vote the amendment up or down. What a shame, Mr. Speaker. What a pity that something so important should fall prey to partisan politics.

While I am disappointed that my amendments and those of my colleagues were excluded from the legislative process here on the floor, I am substantially more disappointed about what the underlying bill will do to Head Start. I am dismayed by this rule but I am in fact more dismayed about what this bill will do to the children and families who would otherwise benefit from a healthy Head Start program. I am so disappointed and dismayed because the legislation seeks to desolve Head Start. Although the Republicans seek to disguise it, Title II of this bill will end Head Start as we know it.

Frankly, the underlying bill is the answer to a question that has not been asked. It is a solution for a problem that does not exist. The block grant created under Title II is no more than a treacherous experiment. It will push a successful program onto states that have unproven expertise to manage it. Not only does the bill push Head Start to the states for experimentation but also, it does so without the federal quality requirements and oversight that have demonstrated their success.

There are other failures in this bill that could have been corrected had the Democrats of this House been allowed to offer their amendments. Would that I had time to speak about them all but, I have only 2 minutes to speak on the rule. Would that my colleagues had the opportunity to vote on those amendment to improve this bill. Nevertheless, there is still a chance.

There is still an opportunity for this body to improve the Head Start bill. Voting ``no'' on this rule will allow us that opportunity. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to join me in voting no on the rule. Vote no and let us come together to pass a better piece of legislation one that will strengthen not dismantle Head Start and serve the needs of our children.

Mr. Speaker, by the direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 336 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purposes of debate only.

Mr. Speaker, House Res. 336 makes in order the bill H.R. 2210, under a structured rule. The rule provides 1 hour of debate to be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

The rule provides that in lieu of the amendment recommended by the Committee on Education and the Workforce, it shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment, the amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in part A of the Committee on Rules report accompanying this resolution and provides that it shall be considered as read. The rule waives all points of order against the amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in part B of the report.

It makes in order only those amendments printed in part B of the Committee on Rules report, which shall be considered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for a division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of order are waived against the amendments printed in part B of the report.

Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Mr. Speaker, there are many things in this world that I can be content with, fully satisfied. Watching a beautiful sunset, eating a good piece of chocolate cake, or reading a great ending to a nail- biting suspense book. But there are other things in this world with which we should never be content; ideals which we should never tire of championing, that we should never stop striving for. And the quality of our children's education is one of those items with which we should never be content. We should always want more for them.

Mr. Speaker, the debate today is in many ways a vote on the status quo. Do we keep the existing system as it is, or do we demand more for our children? More specific to our debate: Are we completely satisfied that the quality of our children's education is fine, or do we demand more? The bill before us today, the School Readiness Act, strengthens the Head Start program, the Federal Government's largest effort to prepare the Nation's most disadvantaged children for school.

An immensely popular program, Head Start provides a range of services including education, nutrition, health, and parent training to over 20 million preschool children and their families who are living in poverty. But Head Start can do better.

The legislation before us aims to reform and improve Head Start so that disadvantaged children hold the same level of academic preparedness as all of their peers before entering kindergarten. Specifically, this plan aims to enhance school preparedness, improve teacher quality, and close the ``readiness gap'' that exists between Head Start and non-Head Start children.

First, this education package will help enhance each school's effectiveness by providing certain select States with more flexibility and control over the operation of prekindergarten initiatives through a measured pilot program. Currently, States lack the ability to fully coordinate their State's early childhood programs with Head Start. This inefficiency results in the duplication of programs and services, underenrollment, gaps in services, and missed opportunities. With this pilot program, however, States and local communities will be able to tailor their programs and services to best meet the needs of local families.

It is important to note that this pilot program in no way eliminates basic programs and services, nor is the program an unfunded mandate or a loophole for States to cut early childhood education programs. Let us be crystal clear: this bill in no way cuts funding for any of Head Start's education, nutrition, or health services. Quite the opposite, Mr. Speaker. This package provides safeguards to prohibit participating pilot program States from making funding cuts. In addition, the Head Start package authorizes a $202 million increase in funding for the program, an amount that has nearly doubled in the past 7 years.

This legislation will also ensure that more Head Start teachers are adequately trained and educated in early childhood development, particularly in teaching the fundamental skills of language, prereading, and premathematics. These provisions will help to meet a goal set recently by the National Head Start Association itself, which calls for 75 percent of the Head Start teachers to have at least an associate degree by the year 2005 and for all Head Start teachers to have at least an associate degree by 2008.

And, finally, for our country's most, most disadvantaged children, this education plan will help close the Head Start readiness gap and ensure that all children achieve academic parity.

Most children entering Head Start hold academic skills far below national standards. That is very sad. And while most children make improvements in these schools while enrolled in Head Start, the average Head Start child still lacks many of the premathematics and prevocabulary skills that their peers attain.

Head Start students are learning, but they are not learning enough. In fact, for the brightest 25 percent of Head Start kids, there is no evidence of academic progress while enrolled in the program. This bill makes significant improvements to the program, fine-tuning its focus on a strong curriculum and academic excellence.

And so we find ourselves faced with the same questions I asked just moments ago: Is Head Start better and more effective than it was yesterday or last year?

It is a worthy question, especially when faced with the long list of studies that shows the sad truth, that Head Start children simply do not begin kindergarten with the same level of academic preparedness as their more fortunate peers.

So I ask the opponents of this legislation, are you satisfied with this readiness gap? Are you comfortable with the status quo? Well, I am not. Parents are not. And neither are the supporters of this bill.

The level and quality of our children's education is something with which we can never be completely content. It is an on-going struggle, an area where we must be willing to constantly demand more.

There is no rest when it comes to fighting for a better education and a brighter future for the youngest in our society. There is no such thing as a perfect classroom, a perfect teacher, or a perfect student. There is always room for improvement.

Mr. Speaker, this plan raises the bar on our standards and our expectations. It closes the readiness gap between disadvantaged and more affluent children, and it will enhance teacher quality and school effectiveness.

In short, Mr. Speaker, it is a bill that demands the best for our children, and I urge my colleagues to pass the rule and agree to the underlying bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 5 minutes to my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from the great State of Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce from which this bill arose.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield four minutes to my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne), a member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4\3/4\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), a member of my very own class in Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), the distinguished colleague of mine and the dean of our delegation, a former elementary school teacher and principal himself, and, most importantly, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee on Health and Human Services that funds this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I would inquire of the gentleman as to how many speakers he has?

The gentleman may as well go ahead then, please.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton), a very thoughtful member of this conference.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Education Reform, the chief sponsor and author of this legislation.

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

It is time to demand the best for our children. The gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) are offering us that opportunity this evening. I urge my colleagues to pass this fair rule and agree to the underlying legislation. It is time to improve our children's chances.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the underlying bill. While we spent a great deal of time in No Child Left Behind to provide for improved student achievement, increased standards and accountability to ask more of State schools and students, this legislation does exactly the opposite. It decreases the standards and decreases the accountability, and it weakens our commitment to quality and it asks less of the States.

We should not be experimenting with this program. I appreciate that the gentleman says that 91 percent of these programs were out of compliance, but what he does not tell us is that in that same audit 85 percent of the programs were found to be of high quality. Why were they of high quality? Because of the Head Start standards, the Head Start performance standards and the quality standards. These are the performance and quality standards that Congress after Congress and President after President have worked to continuously improve so that Head Start now is the premier pre-K program for impoverished children in this Nation. There is no State that has a program comparable to Head Start for these children.

When my colleague on the other side suggests that these children do not do as well as their peers, he is denying all of the evidence. These children are doing better than their peers. They are not doing as well as middle-class white children in the suburbs, but he does not know of any program that will have these children do as well in the year or two as middle-class white children in the suburbs, but among their peers, among the children in same community who do not get to participate, these children do much better and they accelerate by the end of kindergarten.

Head Start works and it performs, and it performs well for these children. But this legislation takes another approach. While the first part of this legislation makes many improvements that we agree with and we support in this bill, the second provision provides for a block grant. It was a wholesale block grant of the entire program that politically was unsustainable. It became an eight-State block program, and over the last few days apparently some people got promises to vote for this bill and they would not block grant their State. There is a commitment to block grants.

But what do they do with these block grants? In the block grants they circumvent the standards of performance and quality and education standards and health services and comprehensive services because if they have a block grant, they do not have to meet those standards. It says so in the bill. They will say in their Dear Colleagues, it has to meet or exceed Head Start standards, but in the law, it says it must generally meet or exceed. ``Generally'' is a very important word here because they do not have to comply with the standards.

The same is true in accountability, and yet we do this. We weaken these standards. We create this loophole of the block grant, and we do it without any evidence to suggest that that is the answer.

The concern is about accountability, the concern is about performance; and we put the children into a system for which there really is no accountability or performance. Nothing requires a showing that the system that will be created is better than the current Head Start system, that the program running currently in the State is better than the Head Start system; and yet, we are talking about creating a system where almost as much as 40 percent of the children could be put in that system.

That is really not fair to these children because Head Start is their best hope. Head Start is our premier early education program in this country, and that is why it must be protected. And ``protected'' is the right word because this legislation with the block grant is an all-out assault on Head Start as we know it, on Head Start as it performs and Head Start as it delivers for these children and these families and their educational opportunity.

Can it be improved? Of course it can be improved, and what every President and every Congress on a bipartisan basis, Republican and Democratic administrations, year after year, time after time, they have continuously improved this program. I have been on this committee for 29 years, and we have continuously approved this program every 3 to 5 years. That is why it is the premier program. That is why it gets the results it does.

Now what happens here? For the first time, we essentially see a partisan assault on that bipartisan coalition that has led to that continuous improvement of this program, that has led to these comprehensive services for these children.

And these services are terribly important. Terribly important. Health screening, vision, dental care. What will you get under their block grant? You will get a referral to a service. You may not get the service. You may get to stand in line. You may get put on a waiting list, but you do not necessarily get the service for mental health screening and general health screening and nutrition and health education, all of which we know in terms of child development of these impoverished children is terribly important.

But, finally, let me say this. There is something else going on in this bill that is the first in 35 years. When they capped the expenditures in the outyears, when they changed such sums as necessary, under which every President and every Congress has expanded the participation in the Head Start program, there is not enough money for inflation. So in the third year, we find that some 5,000 to 10,000 children at a minimum are going to have to stop attending Head Start because of the capped authorization.

I appreciate all of the money we have put in Head Start under President Clinton's leadership, under this Congress, the Republican leadership, that we have done over the last 8 years; but that comes to a grinding halt in this legislation. That is why this bill should be rejected, and later we will hope that the substitute will be accepted by the Congress; and then we can continue the process of continuing to improve America's premier education program for pre-K impoverished children.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), the ranking member of the subcommittee dealing with Head Start.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds just to say to my colleague, we do not know whether this bill will improve the education of the children, but we do know that the language contained in this bill will weaken the education standards, will weaken the comprehensive services available to these children and will weaken the accountability of this program.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee), subcommittee ranking member.

Mr. Chairman, change for any program can be a good thing, if it is change the right way. That is why I reluctantly rise in opposition to the Head Start bill this evening. The recommended changes are wrong for the children of the Head Start program.

The story of Head Start is that it works. It is a highly successful program. Studies have shown for every $1 we invest in children at this age in Head Start programs, we realize $4 to $7 worth of savings down the line. There is not a business person in the country that would not take that deal.

According to surveys, 96 percent of the Head Start families express a high level of satisfaction with their Head Start programs because of the quality and the accountability that exists there already. That is probably why there has been such overwhelming opposition to the radical Republican transformation of the Head Start program before us tonight.

We have heard the concerns of the block grant proposal that they are recommending without accountability or quality assurances. We have also heard the concerns that the bill would legalize religious discrimination in the Head Start program.

What we have not heard this evening is that under their bill they call for a reduction in funding for professional development programs, again affecting the quality of these programs.

What we also have not heard, perhaps a very important issue, is that they are planning on moving forward with an entirely new testing regime by this fall for these 3- and 4-year-olds, when experts in early childhood development tell us, unless we do it right, unless we have the right measurements, it could do more harm than good for these children.

That is why I got included in the legislation a National Academy of Sciences study to recommend what measurements are appropriate for children. But instead of waiting for the results of that study, they are moving forward on an untested, unscientific, new testing system this fall, which could do our children more harm.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I join educators, parents, and Head Start staff around Wisconsin as well as many of my colleagues here today in opposing drastic changes to the highly successful, early education Head Start program. Changes offered by the Bush Administration and backed by the Republican Congressional majority threaten the program, which has helped millions of high-risk children from impoverished families achieve academic success.

In the 38 years of Head Start, there has always been bipartisan consensus to continue this program that currently helps more than 13,000 children in Wisconsin and 2,000 in the 3rd Congressional district alone. As a member of the House Education and Workforce Committee, it is my believe that the majority leaders have put our 3- and 4-year-old children in the middle of a partisan tug-of-war.

Under the bill, which I voted against during the committee consideration, the burden of Head Start would be on the shoulders of cash-strapped States through a series of block grants. Under current law, the Department of Health and Human Services gives money directly to local Head Start programs. Under the proposed changes, however, block grants would be administered by new State bureaucracies, which would cost additional money and provide no guarantee the money would go towards Head Start.

Nearly every State in the nation is facing a budget deficit. We cannot take the chance that one dime of this critical funding would fail to go towards Head Start and the kids it serves.

Educators and parents are particularly upset with the changes because of the success rate of Head Start. Further, numerous studies indicate that every dollar spent on Head Start saves taxpayers $4 to $7 in the future due to savings and lower education and welfare expenses.

I offered a series of amendments to H.R. 2210 during Committee markup and again to the Rules committee last week. The first amendment would restore to current law the 2 percent set aside for training and technical assistance for improving program quality in Head Start. We know the key to quality Head Start programming is having quality teachers dealing with the students. And, yet, the base bill before us would actually go backwards. It

would decrease the training and technical assistance fund to an undetermined amount between 1 and 2 percent. That is especially disconcerting since we know that approximately 2.5 percent of Head Start funds are currently being spent on such programs.

This money is critical for quality staff. Funds are being used to supplement teacher salaries and train staff in a variety of areas. For example, this funding is used to improve staff qualifications, to implement early childhood curriculum, to assess child development, to monitor child health and safety, provide human resources training, support parenting and family services, and to better integrate the use of technology in Head Start centers in working with these kids. Now is not the time we should be going back on the maximum amount that is allowed for ongoing training and technical assistance.

Furthermore, I offered an amendment that would have halted the National Reporting System until the National Academy of Science (NAS) reports to Congress on the appropriate standards and benchmarks for school readiness and valid measures of assessment.

I am concerned with the Administration's implementation of a country- wide testing system for Head Start children despite protests by early child education experts who question the validity and reliability of the assessments developed. The National Research Council's ``Eager To Learn'' report warns, ``assessments must be used carefully and appropriately if they are to resolve and not create educational problems.'' Thus, while we support ongoing assessments of Head Start children to help ensure their school readiness, these specific assessments were developed behind closed doors and with very little input from Congress, Head Start Centers, or other experts.

Reauthorization provides Congress with an opportunity to evaluate appropriate standards and benchmarks for school readiness, as well as valid measures of assessments for Head Start students. Unfortunately, efforts to slow down and properly evaluate the National Reporting System during Committee consideration were defeated. For the sake of our children, it is important that these assessments are not rushed and are given ample review before implementation.

Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose H.R. 2210. I will not support any legislation that reduces the opportunities for children. All children deserve a high-quality prekindergarten program and according to numerous studies that is exactly what Head Start children currently receive.