Congressional Responsibility for Immigration Act

Mr. President, it is a privilege to join Senator Dodd and other colleagues in introducing the Head Start Coordination and School Readiness Act. Our goal is to reauthorize Head Start and continue this very successful federal program to prepare low-income children for school.

For nearly four decades, Head Start has enabled vulnerable, young pre-kindergarten children to enter school ready to learn. It provides a balanced educational curriculum to see that children develop early skills in reading, writing, and math, and positive social skills as well. It provides visits to doctors and dentists, and nutritious

meals to see that children are healthy. It provides outreach to parents to encourage them to participate actively in their child's early development.

It is clear that Head Start works. A federal evaluation found that Head Start children make gains during the program itself, and the gains continue when the children enter kindergarten. Once Head Start children complete their kindergarten year, they are near the national average of 100 in key areas, with scores of 93 in vocabulary, 96 in early writing, and 92 in early math.

In this legislation, we build on Head Start's proven track record and expand it to include thousands of low-income children who are not yet served by the program. We provide for better coordination of Head Start with state programs for low-income children. We strengthen Head Start's focus on school readiness and pre-literacy. We increase the education requirements and compensation for Head Start teachers. We provide greater accountability, including a high quality assessment of each Head Start program.

To strengthen Head Start, we have to begin by providing more resources for it. The need for Head Start is greater than ever. Child poverty is on the rise again. Today, only 60 percent of children eligible for Head Start participate in it. Over 312,000 three- and four-year-olds are left out because of the inadequate funding level of the program. Early Head Start serves only 3 percent of eligible infants and toddlers. It is shameful that 97 percent of the children eligible for Early Head Start have no access to it. It's long past time for Congress to expand access to Head Start to serve as many infants, toddlers, and preschool children as possible.

Throughout the 1990's, we tripled our investment, and Head Start expanded by 52 percent. But this year, the President's budget fails to reach out to a single new child. It provides only $148 million in additional funding for the coming year--only a quarter of the increase that Head Start received in recent years, and barely enough to cover inflation.

The bill that we introduce today will set a goal of fully funding Head Start over the next 5 years, in order to reach all eligible preschoolers. Each year, an additional 62,000 three- and four-year-olds would be served by the program. Funding will rise from $6.7 billion in the current fiscal year, to $8.5 billion in fiscal year 2004, and $16.3 billion in fiscal year 2008.

Early Head Start is an especially important lifeline for needy infants and toddlers. Research clearly shows its benefit to infants and toddlers and their families. Early Head Start children have larger vocabularies, lower levels of aggressive behavior, and higher levels of sustained attention than children not enrolled in the program. Parents are more likely to play with their children and read to them.

This bill will double the size of Early Head Start, providing resources to serve an additional 29,000 infants and toddlers each year, at an estimated cost of $1 billion in fiscal year 2004, and $3.2 billion in fiscal year 2008.

The current Federal-to-local structure of Head Start enables it to tailor its services to meet local community needs. Performance standards guarantee a high level of quality across all programs. Yet each program is unique and specifically adapted to the local community. Head Start is successful in serving Inuit children in Alaska, migrant- workers' children in Tennessee, and inner-city children in Boston. It is essential to maintain the ability of local Head Start programs to tailor their services to meet local community's needs.

To strengthen this coordination with local programs, our bill creates a Head Start Quality Improvement and Collaboration Office in every state to maximize services to Head Start children, align Head Start with kindergarten classrooms, and strengthen its local partnerships with other agencies. These offices will also work to expand training and technical assistance to Head Start grantees to better meet the goal of preparing children for school.

States will also have an active role in coordinating their early childhood programs and increasing their quality. Our bill designates an Early Care and Education Council in each State to conduct an inventory of children's needs in the state, develop unified data collection and make recommendations on coordination, technical assistance and training.

Over the past four decades, Head Start has built up quality and performance standards to guarantee a full range of services, so that children are educated in the basics about letters and numbers and books, and are also healthy, well-fed, and supported in stable and nurturing relationships. Head Start is a model program, and we can enhance its quality even more.

One way to do that is to strengthen Head Start's current literacy initiative. We know the key to later reading success is to get young children excited about letters and books and numbers. Our bill emphasizes language and literacy, by enhancing the literacy training required of Head Start teachers, by continuing to promote parent literacy, and by working to put more books into Head Start classrooms and into children's homes.

At the heart of Head Start's success are its teachers and staff. They are caring, committed persons who know the children they serve and are dedicated to improving their lives. They help children learn to identify letters of the alphabet and arrange the pieces of puzzles. They teach them to brush their teeth, wash their hands, make friends and follow rules. Yet their salary is still half the salary of kindergarten teachers, and turnover is high--11 percent a year.

Because a teacher's quality is directly related to a child's outcome, our bill sets a goal that every Head Start classroom has a teacher with a bachelor's degree within 8 years. It provides an additional $650 million over the next 5 years to see that teachers have the means to go back to school to earn a bachelor's degree, and it guarantees $3 billion over that period to see that teachers earn adequate wages to keep them in Head Start once they obtain their degree.

Finally, accountability is a cornerstone of excellence in education and should start early. Head Start should be accountable for its promise to provide safe and healthy learning environments, to support each child's individual pattern of development and learning, to cement community partnerships in services for children, and to involve parents in their child's growth.

Head Start reviews are already among the most extensive in the field. Every 3 years, a Federal and local team spends a week thoroughly examining every aspect of every Head Start program. They check everything from batteries in flashlights to how parents feel about the program. Our bill promotes even stronger monitoring of Head Start programs. It calls for periodic visits to programs, and strengthens annual reviews and plans for improvement.

Assessing outcomes for children is vital in promoting accountability and ensuring that the gains promised for Head Start children are actually achieved. But these steps have to be taken the right way.

Instead of rushing forward, as the Administration suggests, with a national assessment for every four-year-old in Head Start this fall, our bill calls on the National Academy of Sciences to guide the development and implementation of a high-quality assessment for Head Start children over the next four years. That assessment will be valid and reliable, fair to children from all backgrounds, balanced in what it measures, and assess the development of the whole child.

Unfortunately, the Administration and House Republicans have presented plans that would turn Head Start into Slow Start or No Start. It makes no sense to turn Head Start into a block grant to the states. To do so would dismantle the program and undermine Head Start's guarantees that children can see doctors and dentists, eat nutritious meals, and learn early academic and social skills. It would undermine the role of parents, who are better parents today, strong advocates, and enthusiastic volunteers as a result of Head Start.

The Head Start Coordination and School Readiness Act we are introducing today will keep Head Start on its successful path. I urge our colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join us in continuing and strengthening this program, and give children the head start they need and deserve to prepare for school and for life.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter of support and statement from the National Head Start Association be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, it is a privilege to join Senator Harkin and other colleagues on this legislation to protect the right to overtime pay for millions of working men and women across America. The Bush administration has just announced new regulations that would deny overtime protections to more than 8 million hard-working men and women, including an estimated 200,000 workers in Massachusetts. Firefighters, police officers, military reservists, nurses, retail clerks, medical technicians, tech workers and many others would be harmed by the new rules.

In the current failing economy, these workers depend more than ever on overtime pay to make ends meet and to pay their bills for housing, food, and health care. Overtime pay often constitutes as much as a quarter of their total pay, and the administration's proposal will mean an average pay cut of $161 a week for them.

Our bill states clearly that no worker currently eligible for overtime protection can be denied overtime pay as a result of the new regulations.

We know that overtime protections make an immense difference in preserving the 40-hour work week. For over half a century, the Fair Labor Standards Act has discouraged employers from requiring longer hours of work, by making overtime more expensive. Instead of relying on fewer workers forced to work longer hours, employers are likely to hire additional workers to meet the employer's needs. That result creates more jobs, and reduces the unfair exploitation of workers.

The Bush administration is the first administration in 70 years in which the number of private sector jobs has declined. Not since President Hoover have we been hemorrhaging jobs like this. How could any fair administration possibly adopt regulations that will increase overtime working hours, and reduce the need to hire additional workers?

According to the Congressional General Accounting Office, employees exempt from overtime pay are twice as likely to work overtime as those covered by the protection. Americans are working longer hours today than ever before--longer than in any other industrial nation. At least one in five employees now has a work week that exceeds 50 hours, let alone 40 hours.

Clearly, workers are already struggling to balance their families' needs with their work responsibilities. Requiring them to work more hours for less pay will add an even greater burden to this daily struggle. Protecting the 40-hour work week is vital to protecting the work-family balance for millions of Americans in communities in all parts of the nation.

Sixty-five years ago, President Roosevelt signed into law the Fair Labor Standards Act to establish a minimum wage and maximum work hours. It was the midst of the Great Depression and President Roosevelt told the country that ``if the hours of labor for the individual could be shortened . . . more people could be employed. If minimum wages could be established, each worker could get a living wage.''

Those words are as true in 2003 as they were in 1938. The economy has lost more private sector jobs during this economic decline than in any recession since the Great Depression. What can the administration be thinking, to come up with this shameful proposal to weaken the overtime protections on which millions of workers rely? Is the administration so desperate to prop up business profits that it's willing to punish workers to do it?

As Senator Harkin says, the President's policy is economic malpractice. Democrats will not sit idly by and watch Americans lose their jobs, their livelihoods, their homes, and their dignity. We will continue the fight to restore jobs to the economy, provide fair unemployment benefits, and raise the minimum wage. And we will do all we can to preserve the overtime protections on which so many Americans families depend. I urge my colleagues to support this essential legislation to keep the faith with the Nation's working families.

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to strengthen the Buy American Act of 1933, the statute that governs procurement by the federal government. The name of the act accurately and succinctly describes its purpose: to ensure that the federal government supports domestic companies and domestic workers by buying American-made goods.

While I a strong supporter of the act, I am concerned that, through abuse of its 5 broad waivers, the spirit--if not the letter--of the act is being weakened time and again.

It only makes sense, Mr. President, for the federal government to make every effort to purchase goods that are made in America. A law requiring this common-sense approach should not be necessary. Unfortunately, this law is necessary, and the way in which its many loopholes are being used also makes strengthening it necessary.

I have often heard my colleagues say on this floor that American-made goods are the best in the world. I could not agree more. This Congress should do more to ensure that the federal government adheres to this sentiment by enforcing and strengthening the provisions of the Buy American Act.

As we all know the United States manufacturing industry is hemorrhaging, as jobs and companies move overseas or are lost all together. According to the AFL-CIO, the United States has lost more than 2.4 million manufacturing jobs since April 1998. This disturbing trend is of particular concern in my home state of Wisconsin.

A March 2003 report by the Wisconsin State Department of Workforce Development notes that ``a combination of weak domestic and global demand, mergers and consolidations, automation, globalization of operations, and uncertainty surrounding war have caused employment in Wisconsin's manufacturing sector to shrink in recent years.'' The Department found that there were 594,100 manufacturing jobs in Wisconsin in 2000, and the Department estimates that this figure had dropped to 517,100 jobs by June of this year. More than 77,000 jobs lost in just 2\1/2\ years, Mr. President. And the people of my state can expect more of the same during the rest of this decade if we don't take action soon.

While the Department expects some sectors to experience an upturn by 2010, it estimates that the people of my state can still expect to lose thousands more manufacturing jobs by 2010.

Much of this can be blamed on flawed trade agreements that the United States has entered into in recent years. The trade policy of this country over the past several years has been appalling. The trade agreements into which we have entered have contributed to the loss of key employers, ravaging entire communities. But despite that clear evidence, we continue to see trade agreements being reached that will only aggravate this problem

This has to stop. We cannot afford to pursue trade policies that gut our manufacturing sector and send good jobs overseas. We cannot afford to undermine the protections we have established for workers, the environment, and for our public health and safety. And we cannot afford to squander our democratic heritage by entering into trade agreements that supercede our right to govern ourselves through open, democratic institutions.

I will be introducing legislation in the near future to address that problem directly by establishing minimum standards for the trade agreements into which our nation enters. That measure is a companion to a resolution that will be introduced in the other body by my colleague from Ohio [Mr. Brown].

Regrettably, some of the blame for the dire situation in which American manufacturing finds itself also lies in our own federal tax and procurement policies, some of which actually encourage American companies to move or incorporate abroad. The Buy American law was enacted 70 years ago to ensure that Federal procurement policies support American jobs.

Some argue that the Buy American Act has outlived its usefulness in today's global economy. I argue that it is as relevant today as it was when it was enacted in 1933. The passage of 70 years has not diminished the importance of this Act for American manufacturing companies or for those who are employed in this crucial sector of our economy. In fact, a strong argument can be made that this Act is even more necessary today than it was 70 years ago. With American jobs heading overseas at an alarming rate, the Government should be doing all it can to make sure that U.S. taxpayer dollars are spent to support American jobs.

Some argue that the Buy American Act is protectionist and anti-free trade. I disagree. Supporting American industry is not protectionist-- it is common sense. The erosion of our manufacturing base needs to be stopped, and Congress should support procurement and trade policies that help to ensure that we do not continue to lose portions of this vital segment of our economy.

The legislation that I introduce today, the Buy American Improvement Act, would strengthen the existing Act by tightening existing waivers and would require that information be provided to Congress and to the American people about how often the provisions of this Act are waived by Federal departments and agencies.

As I noted earlier, there are currently five primary waivers in the Buy American Act. The first allows an agency head to waive the Act's provisions if a determination is made that complying with the Act would be ``inconsistent with the public interest.'' I am concerned that this waiver, which includes no definition for what is ``inconsistent with the public interest'' is actually a gaping loophole that gives broad discretion to department secretaries and agency heads. My bill would clarify this so-called ``public interest'' waiver provision to prohibit it from being invoked by an agency or department head after a request for procurement (RFP) has been published in the Federal Register. Once the bidding process has begun, the Federal Government should not be able to pull an RFP by saying that it is in the ``public interest'' to do so. This determination, sometimes referred to as the Buy

American Act's national security waiver, should be made well in advance of placing a procurement up for bid.

The Buy American Act may also be waived if the head of the agency determines that the cost of the lowest-priced domestic product is ``unreasonable,'' and a system of price differentials is used to assist in making this determination. My bill would amend this waiver to require that preference be given to the American company if that company's bid is substantially similar to the lowest foreign bid or if the American company is the only domestic source for the item to be procured.

I have a long record of supporting efforts to help taxpayers get the most bang for their buck and of opposing wasteful Federal spending. I don't think anyone can argue that supporting American jobs is ``wasteful.'' We owe it to American manufacturers and their employees to make sure they get a fair shake. I would not support awarding a contract to an American company that is price gouging, but we should make every effort to ensure that domestic sources for goods needed by the Federal Government do not dry up because American companies have been slightly underbid by foreign competitors.

The Buy American Act also includes a waiver for goods bought by the Federal Government that will be used outside of the United States. There is no question that there will be occasions when the Federal Government will need to procure items quickly that will be used outside the United States, such as in a time of war. However, items that are bought on a regular basis and are used at foreign military bases or United States embassies, for example, could reasonably be procured from domestic sources and shipped to the location where they will be used. My bill would require an analysis of the difference in cost for obtaining articles, materials, or supplies that are used on a regular basis outside the United States, or that are not needed on an immediate basis, from an American company, including the cost of shipping, and a foreign company before issuing a waiver and awarding the contract to a foreign company.

The fourth waiver allowed under the Buy American Act states that the domestic source requirements of the Act may be waived if the articles to be procured are not available from domestic sources ``in sufficient and reasonably available commercial quantities and of a satisfactory quality.'' My bill would require that an agency or department head, prior to issuing such as waiver, conduct a study that determines that domestic production cannot be initiated to meet the procurement needs and that a comparable article, material, or supply is not available from an American company.

The newest Buy American Act waiver, which was enacted in 1994, exempts purchases of less than $2,500 from the domestic source requirements of the Act. While this waiver is not addressed in my bill, I have requested that the General Accounting Office conduct a study of this so-called ``micro purchase'' exemption, including how often it is used and its impact on American businesses.

My bill also strengthens the Buy American Act in four other ways.

First, it expands annual reporting requirements regarding the use of waivers that currently apply only to the Department of Defense to include all Federal departments and agencies. My bill specifies that these reports should include an itemized list of waivers, including the items procured, their dollar value, and their source. In addition, these reports would have to be made available on the Internet.

The bill also increases the minimum American-made content standard for qualification under the Act from the current 50 percent to 75 percent. The definition of what qualifies as an American-made product has been a source of much debate. To me, it seems clear that American- made means manufactured in this country. This classification is a source of pride for manufacturing workers around our country. The current 50 percent standard should be raised to a 75 percent minimum.

My bill also addresses the crucial issue of dual-use technologies and efforts to prevent them from falling into the hands of terrorists or countries of concern. My bill would prohibit the awarding of a contract or sub-contract to a foreign company to manufacture goods containing any item that is classified as a dual-use item on the Commerce Control List unless approval for such a contract has been obtained through the Export Administration Act process.

Finally, my bill would require the General Accounting Office to report to Congress with recommendations for defining the terms ``inconsistent with the public interest'' and ``unreasonable cost'' for purposes of invoking the corresponding waivers in the Act. I am concerned that both of these terms lack definitions, and that they can be very broadly interpreted by agency or department heads. GAO would be required to make recommendations for statutory definitions of both of these terms, as well as on establishing a consistent waiver process that can be used by all Federal agencies.

I am pleased that this legislation is supported by a broad array of business and labor groups including: Save American Manufacturing, the U.S. Business and Industry Council, the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, the Milwaukee Valve Company, and the National and Wisconsin AFL-CIO.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined today by my colleague, the ranking member of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, Senator Kennedy, and Senators Harkin, Mikulski, Jeffords, Bingaman, Murray, Reed, Edwards, Clinton, Rockefeller and Daschle in introducing the Head Start School Readiness and Coordination Act.

Let's be clear about one fact: Head Start works. More than 21 million children have gone through Head Start since the program began in 1965 and currently around 900,000 children are enrolled.

Head Start has to be one of the most studied of all Federal programs. But, with each study, there is no question about the results--Head Start children are learning. Could they learn more? Could they make greater gains? That's what our bill is about.

Our bill has four basic points. Our bill will: strengthen the Head Start workforce by requiring stronger Head Start teacher credentials and wages more comparable to public school pre-kindergarten and kindergarten children; improve Head Start's academic focus, particularly instruction in preliteracy; expand Head Start to all eligible preschool children by 2008, including serving 200,000 infants and toddlers through Early Head Start by 2008; and, promote better coordination across all early care and education programs in every State.

The biggest problem today with Head Start is not the children Head Start serves, but the children who are left behind--those who are not participating in a Head Start program.

While the majority of Head Start children enter the program below national language and literacy norms for all children of similar ages, about 25 percent of children entering Head Start are extremely behind their peers. For these children, Head Start is a particularly important jump start to build school readiness skills.

If our goal is to help Head Start children make even greater gains than

they are currently making, then we need to raise the educational credentials of Head Start teachers. We require that within 3 years, all newly hired Head Start teachers must either have an Associate's degree or become enrolled in a program leading to an AA degree within a year from when they're hired. In addition, we require a teacher with a Bachelor's degree in every classroom over the next 8 years.

Currently, over half of State-funded pre-kindergarten programs require a teacher with a BA. We should require no less for Head Start children.

Unlike the House bill, we provide additional funding to meet this stronger teacher requirement--in fact, $3 billion over 5 years. The average Head Start annual salary is about $20,000. The average annual salary for a kindergarten teacher is $43,000. If we do not raise Head Start teacher salaries to be more in line with public school pre- kindergarten and kindergarten salaries, Head Start programs will never be able to attract and retain a stronger workforce.

Next, we improve the academic focus of Head Start. We require Head Start programs to align their curriculum and classroom practice with local school districts and state school readiness standards. We require every Head Start teacher to have on-going training in literacy instruction. And, we provide funds for more books for Head Start classrooms so that each classroom can truly be a literature-rich environment.

While the House bill does not even include enough funding to keep pace with inflation, our bill expands Head Start to all eligible preschoolers by 2008. In addition, we double the current setaside for Early Head Start from 10 percent of Head Start funding to 20 percent. To me, the earlier we can reach these children, the greater the likelihood that they can make even greater gains than current children, who, for the most part enter Head Start as 4 year-olds.

Last, this bill will promote better coordination across all early care and education programs in every state--without a block grant. We require that every state designate or create an advisory council on early care and education. The council will issue a report to serve as a roadmap for how States can better coordinate various early childhood programs and services.

An expanded State Head Start Collaboration office would work with the advisory council to ensure that Head Start fits into the big picture set by the state for early childhood education.

Children in Head Start can learn more. But, they can't learn more unless we require a stronger workforce and unless we invest the resources necessary to attract and retain that workforce. While I agree that we need to strengthen the literacy focus of Head Start, we cannot do it unless every Head Start teacher is provided with literacy training.

The Administration and House Republicans believe that we need a block grant to promote coordination and collaboration. I disagree. The block grant serves only to weaken the comprehensive services offered by every Head Start program.

Tell the 208,000 children who needed dental treatment, the 71,000 who needed speech and language help, the 21,961 who had developmental delays, the 47,280 who needed treatment for asthma, the 25,869 who had vision problems, and the 20,260 who had hearing problems, that they did not need the comprehensive services provided by Head Start.

Doctors don't water down medicine that's working, and neither should we when it comes to Head Start. But clearly House Republicans have chosen expediency over bipartisanship. That's wrong.

Our bill, the Head Start School Readiness and Coordination Act, will further improve Head Start, without weakening the comprehensive services that Head Start children need.

While we look forward to working with House and Senate Republicans in an effort to craft a bipartisan bill, we also wish to emphasize that we hold certain fundamental beliefs about Head Start that are in our bill and should be part of any final bill.

Last night my colleague, Senator Alexander, introduced legislation to promote better coordination and the creation of Head Start Centers of Excellence. His interest and creativity help stake a marker for basic principles that in addition to my bill should be part of any final bill. I agree with my colleague that there is consensus around improving school readiness, improving coordination, and increasing accountability. I look forward to working with Senator Alexander and Senator Gregg, the Chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee and others who joined with me today in drafting a bipartisan bill to promote the strongest start possible for low income children prior to beginning kindergarten.

In the wake of the No Child Left Behind Act, now is not the time to leave Head Start children behind.

I ask unanimous consent that a short summary of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I have sought recognition to explain briefly the provisions of legislation I have introduced today that would direct the Secretary of the Army to award the Combat Medical Badge, CMB, or a similar badge to be designed by the Secretary of the Army, to pilots and crew of the Army's helicopter medical ambulance units--commonly referred to by their call sign ``DUST OFF''--who have flown combat missions to rescue and aid wounded soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines.

The legacy of the DUST OFF mission was recently brought to my attention by a group of Pennsylvania constituents who have been sharing the DUST OFF story in an attempt to persuade the Army to recognize the service and sacrifice DUST OFF crews made, especially during the Vietnam War, in saving the lives of thousands of fallen comrades by extracting the wounded from forward positions to bases where they would receive life-saving medical care.

The Army began using helicopters to evacuate wounded soldiers during the Korean War. However, because of their smaller size, Korean War helicopters were used solely as a means of transporting the wounded from the combat zones. It was not until the early 1960's that a group of Army aviators envisioned using the newer, larger, UH-1A ``Huey'' helicopters to serve as mobile air ambulances where a medic and crew could provide life-saving treatment en route to the medical aide station.

The road to establish air ambulance units within the Army was rocky and uncertain. Combat commanders often considered the use of helicopters for this purpose a diversion of valuable resources. However, through determination, skill, and the American fighting spirit, air ambulance crews proved they were a valuable and reliable resource in providing support to the combat mission. Indeed, between 1962 and 1973, DUST OFF crews evacuated more than 900,000 allied military personnel and Vietnamese civilian casualties to medical assistance sites.

Captain John Temperelli, Jr. was the first commander of the 57th Medical Detachment, Helicopter Ambulance, who would lead the first DUST OFF unit in Vietnam. Army Captain Temperelli is considered the ``pioneer'' of DUST OFF; however, it was Army Major Charles L. Kelly, the unit's third commander, who would establish the traditions and the motto that DUST OFF crews hold sacred today.

Major Kelly, like his predecessors, believed in the mission of rescuing fallen comrades--so much so that he gave his life to the mission. On July 1, 1964, Major Kelly and his crew received a call to evacuate a wounded soldier. When they arrived, Major Kelly was instructed by an American advisor on the ground to leave the area; the landing zone was too ``hot.'' Major Kelly responded with the phrase that would become the DUST OFF motto: ``When I have your wounded.'' As Major Kelly hovered over the battlefield, an enemy bullet struck him in the heart; he was killed. It was with news of Major Kelly's death and the story of DUST OFF's dedication to the wounded that DUST OFF earned its permanency in the Army.

I recently received a book written by a Pennsylvania native, Army Chief Warrant Officer 5 Mike Novosel, titled DUSTOFF: The Memoir of an Army Aviator. Mr. Novosel--a Medal of Honor recipient who served two tours in Vietnam and was a veteran of two other wars--knows first hand the sacrifice, courage and dedication to duty that DUST OFF crews displayed in Vietnam and continue to display today. In his two tours as a DUST OFF pilot in Vietnam, Mr. Novosel flew 2,543 missions and extracted 5,589 wounded. In his book, Mr. Novosel shares many amazing stories of landing in ``hot'' landing zones to allow his medic and crew chief, who were also exposed to enemy fire, to rescue and care for the wounded. But as Mr. Novosel has said, his experience as a DUST OFF pilot was not uncommon. Thousands of brave soldiers risked their lives every day by flying into combat zones to evacuate the wounded.

I am honored that Mr. Novosel and others have brought the story of DUST OFF to my attention. It is my sincere hope that the Army will recognize DUST OFF pilots and crew with an appropriate badge which acknowledges the combat service of these brave individuals. When the War Department created the Combat Medical Badge, CMB, in WWII, as a companion to the Combat Infantryman Badge, CIB, it did so to recognize that ``medical aidmen . . . shared the same hazards and hardships of ground combat on a daily basis with the infantry soldier.'' DUST OFF pilots and crew equally shared the hazards and hardships of ground combat with the infantry soldier. The fact that they were not directly assigned or attached to a particular infantry unit--a fact that, under current Army policy, makes them eligible to receive a CIB or CMB-- should not bar special recognition of their service, service that one author has characterized as ``the brightest achievement of the U.S. Army in Vietnam.''

I had not introduced a bill until today because I wanted to hear testimony from DUST OFF participants about their experiences under fire. I also wanted to provide the Army with an opportunity to explain its position and, perhaps, rethink its opposition to the awarding of an appropriate designation to DUST OFF crew members. Earlier today, the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs held a hearing on the matter. Based on testimony offered today by three Vietnam veterans--Chief Warrant Officer, Ret., Michael J. Novosel, M.O.H., Chief Warrant Officer, Ret., John M. Travers, and Mr. William Fredrick ``Fred'' Castleberry--I am now more convinced than ever of the worthiness of this legislation. The Army again expressed its opposition today; I do hope that it will reconsider.

On the Vietnam Veterans Memorial are etched the names of over 400 medics, pilots, and crew that gave their lives so others might live. The forward thinking, enthusiasm, and dedication of DUST OFF crews in Vietnam are attributes seen in today's DUST OFF crews. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation which would recognize the nature of the service these individuals have performed, and continue to perform, while serving on DUST OFF crew.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today as a cosponsor of the Head Start School Readiness and Coordination Act.

Since 1965, Head Start has provided comprehensive early childhood development, educational, health, nutritional, social and other services to low-income preschool children and their families. I believe our goal during the upcoming reauthorization must be to enhance, not dismantle, this essential program so it can continue its important and necessary work to lessen the effects of poverty and ensure that children are ready for school.

Head Start serves our poorest children and families but it does not reach enough of them. Although Head Start currently serves over 900,000 children, mainly 3- and 4-year-olds, 40 percent of eligible children, approximately 600,000, are currently not served. Early Head Start, arguably an even more critically important program for infants, toddlers and pregnant women given what we now know about early brain development, serves a mere 3 percent of those eligible.

Several measures are needed to improve Head Start while ensuring that its many important services are not reduced. We need to fully fund Head Start so that many more children can benefit. We need resources to improve the quality of Head Start teachers and adequately compensate them. And we need to improve coordination with child care and State- funded pre-kindergarten programs.

Unfortunately, the Administration's proposal and the House bill do none of these things. Instead they would create a block grant for States and, by doing so, eliminate both the program's Federal quality standards and the requirement for comprehensive services. With almost all States facing substantial budget deficits and many already cutting funding for early child care and pre-kindergarten programs, a block grant demonstration for one State, eight States, or more would jettison the Head Start guarantee of high quality programs and comprehensive services for our nation's low income children and families.

The Head Start School Readiness and Coordination Act preserves both the performance standards that ensure quality as well as the comprehensive services such as health screenings, immunizations, nutritious meals, emotional and behavioral supports, and direct support to parents of Head Start children. I will work hard to ensure that these important services are not diminished and that the effort to improve Head Start does not come at the expense or sacrifice of other aspects of the program.

A particular focus of mine during the past several education reauthorizations has been to ensure that our teachers get the training and continued professional development they need to help students succeed.

Currently, only 25 percent of Head Start teachers hold bachelor's degrees. A key provision in the Head Start School Readiness and Coordination Act would require all newly hired teachers to have a minimum of an Associate's degree and all classrooms to have a teacher with a Bachelor's degree by 2008. Importantly, the bill also provides funding for Head Start teachers to meet these requirements and to boost Head Start teacher's salaries to alleviate the shortage and turnover problem that currently exists. Head Start teachers typically earn half the salary of kindergarten teachers. If we expect a higher level of education from these teachers, then we must compensate them at higher levels.

Unfortunately, the House bill does not provide the means of achieving either of these goals. It is questionable whether the House bill even provides enough funding to cover the cost of inflation. It clearly does not provide funding to boost salaries or provide the additional educational training to achieve the degree requirements sought. Worse, the House bill reduces the minimum set-aside for training and technical assistance from 2 percent to 1 percent and introduces a cap of 2 percent. We will never attract and retain highly qualified teachers without financial support to enable their education and training and incentives to keep them in the Head Start program.

Another troubling aspect of both the Administration's proposal and House bill is that both would allow employment discrimination based on religion in Head Start programs run by religious groups.

Faith-based organizations are an integral part of Head Start, having already provided such services for years. We should continue to encourage their participation without allowing them to discriminate. Indeed, during the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee hearing, the Administration witnesses were unable to provide any information on barriers faced by religious organizations in participating in Head Start, nor could they identify any research pointing to the efficacy of teaching by unified religious staff. I

will fight hard to prevent such discrimination in Head Start as I have in other bills moving through Congress.

I am pleased that provisions I worked on have also been included in The Head Start School Readiness and Coordination Act.

I am particularly pleased about the over-income provision that will allow more children to qualify whose families are above the poverty line but are still struggling to make ends meet. The parental involvement provisions will encourage the continuity of their involvement and improve the academic success of children in Head Start activities. The library and museum provisions will develop and enhance close collaborations of these institutions with Head Start programs to strengthen literacy skills and other educational outcomes for children.

I commend Senators Kennedy and Dodd on their work to draft this bill, and I urge my colleagues to consider and pass this important piece of legislation.