To extend the waiver authority of the Secretary of Education with respect to student financial assistance during a war or other military operation or national emergency.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of this bill to reform and reauthorize the Head Start early childhood program.

I want to commend the chairman of the Subcommittee on Education Reform, the author of this bill and my good friend, the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle). I also want to recognize the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) and the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) for their work to strengthen the Head Start program.

The School Readiness Act will introduce greater competition into the Head Start program and use that competition to leverage reforms that will result in a better program for the children Head Start was created to serve.

This bill will strengthen school readiness and increase the role of all 50 States and local communities in Head Start. It will protect children and taxpayers against the abuse and mismanagement of Head Start funds, and it will make Head Start more transparent and more accountable to parents and taxpayers.

I am pleased at the approach that this bill takes to solve the school readiness gap between Head Start children and their peers when they reach kindergarten.

There is no question that most Head Start children are better off in the program than they would have been without it. That is not in dispute here. But there is evidence that some Head Start centers could be doing an even better job of providing preschoolers with the academic foundation they need in order to succeed in school.

This bill will strengthen Head Start's academic standards by emphasizing cognitive development and the results of scientifically based research and topics critical to children's school readiness. It will also improve teacher quality by ensuring a greater number of Head Start teachers have degrees and are adequately trained in early childhood development, particularly in teaching the fundamentals.

I am particularly pleased about how the bill will improve coordination between Head Start and State and local early childhood education programs. We are going to improve program integration in all 50 States by encouraging cooperation and program coordination from the ground up.

The bill also addresses weaknesses in the Head Start financial oversight structure that have allowed the mismanagement and outright abuse of Federal funds meant for disadvantaged children. Local media outlets across the Nation have documented more than a dozen instances of financial mismanagement involving millions of dollars and thousands of children. This lack of program integrity and financial accountability is unacceptable. The Federal Government is investing nearly $7 billion per year in Head Start, and every dime should be going to support disadvantaged children.

The GAO, the Government Accountability Office, in a report that we requested, found that the financial management weaknesses in Head Start are resulting in diminished services for children. Unfortunately, there is currently no system in place to assure parents and taxpayers that these types of abuses will be prevented. This is unfair to parents and children. It is unfair to taxpayers. And it is unfair to the many high- quality, hard-working, law abiding people who operate Head Start centers across the country who should not be associated with the deeds of these bad actors.

Head Start is an important program entrusted with a vitally important mission. The vast majority of those in Head Start are honest individuals dedicated to making sure the poorest of our Nation's children have a chance to succeed.

The School Readiness Act takes critical steps to support quality Head Start programs and the children they serve by encouraging quality through competition, strengthening transparency and disclosure, and improving the financial oversight structure to protect children and taxpayers.

I would like to address one more issue that is the subject of great debate today. In numerous Federal programs across the country, faith- based institutions that want to lend a helping hand and providing critical social services are allowed to do so without changing the fundamental character of their organization. Former President Bill Clinton, for example, signed four bills into law that explicitly protected the hiring rights for faith-based organizations when participating in Federal programs.

The Head Start program unfortunately provides no such protections to these organizations. To the contrary, faith-based organizations are forced to relinquish their protected right to hire individuals who share their beliefs or they are not allowed to participate in the program at all. For many faith-based organizations, it is their very nature to offer help and support the neediest among us. Their efforts in response to Hurricane Katrina serve as just one more example.

Their mission defined by their faith is to serve their community. Yet, when they seek to participate in federally funded programs for this purpose, they must forfeit the identity that drives them to serve.

Today I urge Members to support an amendment that I will be offering on behalf of the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany) to restore the hiring protections in the Head Start program so that faith-based institutions can participate fully without giving up their mission and character that make them such an effective partner for programs like Head Start that serve those in need.

Once again, I would like to thank the author of the bill, the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), for his hard work on behalf of the nearly one million children served each year by the Head Start program. We have got a strong bill that will help give disadvantaged children the head start they need

to succeed in school and in life. I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam) for purposes of a colloquy.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam), my friend and colleague, for his efforts. His contributions and commitment to Head Start and the financial accountability that needs to exist within the program are so important.

Many of the accountability principles that were outlined in the gentleman's bill, H.R. 778, have been included in the School Readiness Act, and these reforms I think are critical if we are going to ensure grantees are effectively managing taxpayer dollars and also to ensure that funding is targeted most effectively for purposes that support the program's goal of preparing kids for school.

So, with that, I want to thank the gentleman for his contributions.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), the author of the bill and the chairman of the Subcommittee on Education Reform.

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

There has been a great deal of effort been put into this bill on a bipartisan basis, and it has been pointed out it came out of committee 48-0.

One of the reasons that there is some concern is that Members on both sides of a question over the role of faith-based organizations, there are meaningful differences on both sides, but we have nothing to fear in allowing the House to work its will.

I respect those views of others who do not believe that if a faith- based organization takes a dollar of Federal money, they should give up their rights protected by the 1964 Civil Rights Act, but there is no reason to fear allowing the House to make that decision.

So, later today, we will have an amendment that I will offer on behalf of the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany) to allow those organizations to have their rights protected under the 1964 Civil Rights Act and still provide these necessary services.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price).

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Platts).

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

Mr. Chairman, when our forefathers in the 1960s wrote the 1964 Civil Rights Act landmark legislation, they provided a specific exemption in hiring for religious organizations, understanding that religious organizations would probably want to hire someone of their own faith. Now, if you disagree with that, go to the Committee on the Judiciary and rewrite the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Nowhere in this exemption does it say that, well, you have the exemption if you use your own money, but if you participate in Federal programs, you lose the exemption. It does not say that anywhere in the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

The fact is, that I understand there are deeply held beliefs here, but I do not think a religious organization should have to give up their rights under the 1964 Civil Rights Act just to participate in providing services to poor children who desperately need them.

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

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

If what is being proposed under the Boustany amendment is so awful, why would President Bill Clinton, during his 8 years in office, have signed the following bills into law: the 1996 welfare reform law; the 1998 Community Services Block Grant reauthorization, the 2000 Community Renewal Tax Relief Act; the 2000 Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration Act.

Why would President Bill Clinton have signed all of these bills into law if, in fact, this was such a bad idea? Because all of these acts, signed into law by President Clinton, have the same identical language that is going to be offered later today.

The second point I would make is that what do we have to fear from allowing the House to work its will and letting the majority rule? Let us have the debate. Let us have the vote. Unfortunately, my colleagues know that we are likely to win, because we have won on this case time and time again as this debate has occurred in this House.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry).

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder).

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

The underlying reauthorization bill here is a good one, to help Head Start children to get the head start they need if they are going to have a chance to succeed in school. And we know from all of the studies for low-income children to have a chance in school, going through an early childhood development program like Head Start is

absolutely essential and that those children that are involved in Head Start and other like programs have a much better opportunity and a much better chance to succeed while they are in school.

We are about to get into the amendment process where we will consider a number of amendments to perfect this bill, and I would ask my colleagues to pay attention to these amendments. I think for most of them there is quite a bit of agreement. But, clearly, the one amendment dealing with the rights of faith-based organizations will draw an awful lot of attention.

But I would ask my colleagues, why should we not let the House work its will? If Members agree or disagree, we ought to have that right and we ought to respect the outcome of that vote.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the amendment offered by my friend, the gentleman from Indiana, a member of our committee. It is over a very sensitive issue of how to deal with the parent councils. Under the current law, the current practice, these parent advisory councils have actually had veto authority over the decisions of the Head Start grantee.

Now, there is no one in this House who believes more in empowering parents to be active participants with their children, active and empowered parents with Head Start programs. But we have seen a number of problems in Head Start programs, from financial abuses to very poor results for children; and the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) and I have worked closely to develop this bill and to develop this proposal that continues to allow parents to be actively involved.

It still requires the grantees to urge parents to be involved; but we do it, though, in a strictly advisory capacity. They are still going to play a big role. The only difference here is the veto power: whether, in fact, the parent councils can veto the decisions of the board or the management.

Now, this bill came out of committee 48 to nothing with the language that we are trying to preserve. I appreciate my colleague from Indiana coming along at the eleventh hour, wanting to change it, but the fact is that the committee endorsed the underlying language, and I would ask my colleagues to reject this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), the ranking Democrat on the committee.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), the chairman of the subcommittee and the author of the bill.

Mr. Chairman, I do not oppose the amendment, but I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition.

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

Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) brings a very good amendment to this debate. And I certainly support the good work of Jump Start and think that the amendment that she offers makes a valuable contribution to the bill.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), the chairman of the Labor-HHS Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations, and the Dean of the Ohio Delegation, for general remarks on the bill.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).

The amendment would temporarily suspend a large-scale assessment of Head Start children while needed work is done to ensure that the test is suitable for Head Start children and until we have greater assurances that the results are accurate and used for appropriate purposes.

The Head Start National Reporting System developed by the Department of Health and Human Services is a standardized assessment administered at the beginning to all 4- and 5-year-olds enrolled in Head Start.

During the first year's administration, the National Reporting System was completed by nearly 437,000 preschool children participating in Head Start, including 35,000 children with disabilities and 125,000 children with limited English proficiency.

The NRS was developed with limited congressional authority and input and has been the subject of great concern by many child development and early childhood advocates. There was general agreement by early childhood experts on the value of the assessment, and I tend to agree with that; and children are assessed regularly in nearly every preschool program across the country, including all Head Start classrooms.

I, too, recognize that early childhood assessments play an important role in measuring children's progress in key areas such as vocabulary, letter recognition, and early math, as well as other aspects of early childhood development.

I also agree with this administration that better data is needed on how well individual Head Start programs are doing in preparing children for kindergarten. However, we have a responsibility to ensure that assessments are conducted appropriately and effectively. And if we are going to do this, we need to make sure we get it right.

I want to commend the Secretary for convening panels to review and take steps to improve the National Reporting System, but I also believe that more time should be taken to make sure we get it right before its data are used to evaluate the progress of children participating in individual Head Start programs.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy).

Mr. Chairman, I suggest to my colleagues that the amendment the gentleman from Wisconsin offers, he and I have worked together on this closely over the course of this year. I think it is a good amendment and would urge my colleagues to adopt it.

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

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

I rise in support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica) which makes further improvements to the management of the Head Start program. This has been a particular concern of mine as we have held hearings and taken a comprehensive look at how we can improve the effectiveness of the program on behalf of children and families. As we have heard here today, there are many great things happening in Head Start, but many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle share my view that not everything is working as well as it should.

When approaching this reauthorization, I took my job seriously to take a hard look at every aspect of the Head Start program and work toward the reforms that were necessary to make this program the very best that it can be. And to be perfectly frank, I did not like everything that I saw.

Over the course of the last several years, incidents of waste, fraud, program mismanagement, and even financial abuse of taxpayer dollars have been reported in at least two dozen Head Start programs across the country. While a large majority of the Head Start programs have responsible management organizations in place, I think this Congress has an obligation to improve known problems before they get worse. I think it is unfair to taxpayers, but most importantly, it is unfair to children and their parents who count on the Head Start program.

The underlying bill contains meaningful program reforms, focused primarily on improving program oversight and accountability at the local level, but in my assessment, additional reforms are needed to ensure effective program management at the top. In fact, as a recent General Accountability Office report reveals, there are systemic flaws in the program's Federal management, and these systemic flaws have been there for many, many years.

There is no need no question that we need to fix the problems at the local level. However, addressing issues locally is not enough, and I believe weaknesses in the Federal oversight mechanisms have contributed to the rash of financial mismanagement that we have seen in recent years because Head Start lacks the fundamental management standards and risk-based assessment tools necessary to prevent these types of abuses.

This amendment offers reforms that will lead to more efficient and effective Federal management of the Head Start program. In my view, the best way to accomplish this goal is for the department to contract with an experienced, independent organization to conduct a wholesale review, and support the implementation of reforms to the system of Federal management of Head Start grants. The amendment would task the intermediary organization to evaluate all systems affecting program quality, including grant selection, resource allocation, and processes to ensure the early identification of programs in need of intervention.

This amendment I think is a commonsense opportunity to inject accountability and sound management principles into the upper levels of the Head Start program. This bill seeks excellence from local Head Start programs, and I believe the same standard should be applied to the Federal Head Start structure as well.

Mr. Chairman, passage of the underlying bill will mark an important step toward enactment of the most far-reaching reforms to Head Start since the program first began 40 years ago, and this amendment could greatly improve the national program quality and maximize the use of taxpayer dollars. I want to thank my colleague from Florida, once again, for offering this amendment and ask my colleagues to support it.

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

Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me time, and I also thank him for his tremendous work in bringing this bill together. It is not always that easy. He has done a superb job working with the other side.

I do rise today to ask everybody here to support the legislation which will reauthorize the Head Start program. I, like I think most of us, if not all of us, believe very strongly in the Head Start program, and I believe that this act emphasizes every child, regardless of his or her economic status, should have the best chance possible to succeed.

In 1965, Head Start was created to give economically disadvantaged children access to the same educational, health, nutritional, social, and other services that were enjoyed by their more affluent peers. The goal of the program was, as it remains today, to provide children a solid foundation that will prepare them for success in school and later in life.

As the centerpiece of the Federal Government's efforts to support quality early childhood education for our Nation's most disadvantaged youth, Head Start has served nearly 20 million low-income children and their families. Currently, Head Start serves over 900,000 children every day and has nearly 1,600 grantees across the United States. In my home State of Delaware, Head Start programs serve over 1,500 children, with almost 500 additional 4-year-olds receiving assistance through State government funding.

We all can agree on the need for Head Start and its successes. We must also recognize Head Start can produce even greater results for children. Children who attend Head Start programs start school more prepared than those with similar backgrounds that do not attend Head Start. However, Head Start students continue to enter kindergarten well below national norms in school readiness. By moving to close the school readiness gap, this bill will improve results for almost 1 million Head Start students across the Nation.

Towards the goal of closing the readiness gap, the School Readiness Act strengthens Head Start's academic focus while maintaining its comprehensive nature that is imperative to its success. The bill improves the academic focus of the program by establishing new quality standards that ensure enrolled children develop and demonstrate language skills; pre-reading knowledge; including an interest in and appreciation of books; reading and writing; pre-math knowledge such as recognition of numbers and counting; cognitive abilities related to academic achievement; and social development important for environments constructive for child development, early learning, and school success.

Research clearly and consistently demonstrates a link between the learning potential of children and the level of education and training of classroom teachers. For that reason, we improve the quality of teachers in Head Start classrooms by requiring that, in time, 50 percent of all Head Start teachers nationwide must have a baccalaureate degree.

I am sure some of my colleagues were pleased to learn that this bill does not include a block grant or a State demonstration project. I believe strongly, however, in the policy goals of coordination and integration that were at the heart of the demonstration project incorporated in the legislation I introduced last Congress. We continue to believe it is essential to remove barriers and prevent collaboration between Head Start and successful State and local early childhood initiatives, and I believe the proposal we are offering will, in fact, go further to foster integration among quality early childhood programs.

About 40 States, including Delaware, have established some form of early childhood education, because States recognize that these services can make a real difference in preparing children for a successful future. Various local initiatives have been launched, and today, disadvantaged children and families have access to programs and services from a wide range of sources. Some of these programs rival or exceed the quality of Head Start, while others fall short. Head Start is no longer the only option for early childhood education. We must ensure that all children are receiving the same quality education. In this new era, Head Start should be working towards integrating services with other school readiness programs, not competing against them.

Where we previously would have allowed no more than eight States to improve Head Start coordination with State and local efforts, this bill will ensure programs in all 50 States are able to increase collaboration. We are encouraging Head Start grantees to align their academics with State-developed K-through-12 content standards, as well as to have a more active partnership with local school districts that serve the same communities. This will help to facilitate a smooth transition to kindergarten for their students. Finally, we are asking early childhood providers in a State, including Head Start, preschool and child care, to come together to identify ways to integrate school readiness initiatives across the State.

As I have said, I believe in the program, particularly because of how the program helps children later in their academic lives. Despite these stories, we have also heard many stories of programs in which funds were being diverted away from this purpose. The GAO recently released a report that warned the financial control system in the Federal Head Start early childhood program is flawed and failing to prevent multimillion-dollar financial abuses that cheat poor children, taxpayers, and law-abiding Head Start operators.

The GAO made a couple of recommendations on how we can strengthen the oversight structure to prevent abuses and protect good grantees. It recommended that increased competition in the program could help weed out poorly performing grantees and ensure high-quality services are available to children and families. In response to the GAO's recommendations, we are increasing the competitive nature of current program. The competition requirements in the School Readiness Act will help to alleviate these programs, but more importantly, will drive program improvement across the board, program improvements that will ultimately help thousands of children nationwide, which should always be our goal.

This is an important and a very popular program. The importance of early childhood education services cannot be overstated, and I believe strongly in the reforms which are here.

I would say finally, although we may have some disagreement about some of the amendments on this legislation, that ultimately getting all these children up to the starting line equal in school, and particularly those who are at 100 percent of poverty or less, is in the best interests of all of us in Congress and all the kids out there in the United States of America.

I hope we can go forward with good legislation to make a very good program even better than it is.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

I am pleased to offer this amendment which I indicated was drafted on a bipartisan basis. Specifically, the amendment would revise the financial audit language to ensure that financial audit requirements for Head Start programs are consistent with those required under the Single Audit Act Amendments of 1986; that it builds on parental consent requirements included in H.R. 2123 as reported, to further clarify that any health service available to children in Head Start may not be performed without the prior written consent of the parent; and included a number of technical and conforming amendments.

To the best of our knowledge, there is no dispute about this, and the details of it can be discussed at further length if anybody wants.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I totally oppose this amendment, and I oppose the statements which have been made here that it takes away from the parents, the rights they may have. Basically, what our bill does is reinstate the parents council where it was always supposed to be.

Dr. Edward Zigler, who is opposed, by the way, to some things that I was for in the past, so I do not always quote him, but he is widely credited as the Father of Head Start, and many people follow him here, and he stated with respect to the policy council: ``I created and implemented the policy councils in the early 1970s. The time was past due to take a fresh look at the government issue. In fact, I very much like that the House bill keeps in place the policy council with the role I had in mind for it, while putting above it a board of directors with what I see to be some good requirements for membership on this board. I like the synergism that you have built between the board and the policy council,'' said Zigler's letter.

I think this is the right governance for our Head Start operations in the United States of America. I would encourage everyone here to listen carefully, as it is very easy to say, oh, give the authority to the parents. The bottom line is they will be involved and engaged, but the board will make the decisions. That is the way it should be. I urge the defeat of this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I do not oppose the amendment, but I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition.

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

Mr. Chairman, I would like to say how strongly I personally, and I hope all of us would support the Stearns amendment. I think it makes a tremendous amount of sense.

This amendment, the one before it, and a couple of others we have I think actually truly improve the bill. They are not just amendments we are accepting, but they are amendments which indeed make the bill better.

The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) has pointed out, in my judgment, a significant problem in education. I think it is greater as you deal with lower-income children, to even a greater extent than perhaps it is with other children, and as a result of that, I think such training is absolutely in order.

So I would like to thank the gentleman for that and I would like to congratulate him for thinking of the idea. Certainly I am in support of the amendment.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I do rise in support of the Davis amendment. I believe this is one that improves our legislation.

The amendment supports outreach efforts to train and recruit African American and Latino American men to become Head Start teachers. Any such teachers would still be required to meet teacher qualification requirements, of course, which are in the School Readiness Act.

The amendment would help to ensure African American and Latino American men are encouraged to become teachers, Head Start teachers. I think that is a goal that is very laudable, teachers in general, as a matter of fact.

This amendment supports these men to provide quality services and instruction to the many children with diverse backgrounds and participate in the Head Start program. That is absolutely true. That there are many people with diverse backgrounds in the Head Start program. It is important to understand this amendment does not create a new program. Instead, it directs the Secretary of HHS to support outreach to minorities. That is only correct and right, and for that reason I hope we would all support the Davis amendment.

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

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

First, let me just say that I strongly support the Filner amendment. Actually, it is interesting to hear some of these amendments, because they would apply to education in general and not just to Head Start, and I think this is one that falls into that category.

It is very important to understand qualifications, retention, and what is happening in that particular area. I think, as I know the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner) is aware, but I think everybody needs to be aware of the fact that the underlying bill requires that at least 50 percent of all Head Start teachers nationwide have a baccalaureate or advanced degree in early childhood education or related field by September 30, 2011. And it also requires that within 3 years all Head Start teachers hired after the date of enactment of this act must have at least an associate degree in early childhood education or related field, or be enrolled in a program of study leading to an associate degree in early childhood education or related field within 3 years.

These are significant steps. They will enhance the educational progress as far as Head Start is concerned. We also need to worry about the retention. It is going to raise economic issues in terms of being able to pay for this. We are clearly going to have to look at that in terms of our future appropriations. So I think all this melds together in what in my mind would be a dramatic improvement in Head Start.

Again, we retain all of the services presently provided. It is just that there is an added emphasis on the educational side of it, which I think we all agree is needed. So I am strongly in support of the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, the evidence of financial mismanagement is real, and I believe the committee has taken steps in this bill to try to address that, and this authorization bill goes a long way to do that. But as a member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, I have had the chance to visit all of my Head Start centers in western Wisconsin. You cannot help but walk away from that with an overwhelming feeling of pride and sense of security that those kids are receiving very professional, caring treatment in those Head Start centers.

Head Start has been one of the most successful anti-poverty programs ever created. It is also the most poked, prodded, picked, analyzed, and surveyed program in the Federal Government; and for the last 40 years it has withstood the test of time. It consistently ranks at the top of participant satisfaction surveys compared to any other Federal program.

I commend the leadership of the committee, the chairman, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner); and the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle); and the ranking members, the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), for putting together a good bipartisan bill that we were able to report out 48 to zero in committee, because there is a right and a wrong way to reauthorize this important program.

The right way is to enhance integrated services, increase accountability, tighten up the financial oversight, and require highly qualified teachers. A wrong way is to continue to leave behind over 400,000 students who currently qualify, but cannot go to Head Start because of inadequate resources. A wrong way is to allow the legal discrimination against an individual based on religion.

Later this afternoon, I will be offering my own amendment that would allow the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences to establish proper standards and assessments so we can properly measure the progress of these kids. The current national reporting system is not working well, and we need to make sure that we get the measurements and the testing of these children done correctly at this very early age so we do not do any harm. I will ask my colleagues to support my amendment when it comes up later.

Mr. Chairman, I join educators, parents, and Head Start staff from Wisconsin as well as many of my colleagues here today in support. of reauthorizing Head Start. This program has helped millions of high-risk children from impoverished families achieve academic success.

Since the creation of Head Start 40 years ago, there has always been bipartisan consensus to continue this program that serves more than 13,000 children in Wisconsin and 2,000 in the Third Congressional District. As a member of the House Education and Workforce Committee, I am pleased to have had the opportunity to work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to produce the best possible bill. I would like to thank Chairman Boehner, Representative Castle, Ranking Member Miller, and Representative Woolsey for their leadership and commitment to our children in crafting this legislation.

I also would like to thank those people in western Wisconsin who have advised me throughout reauthorization. They include: Lori Dilley, director of Southwest Wisconsin Head Start; Dan Stickler, director of Western Dairyland, Paula Wainscott, director of Head Start in Eau Claire Area School District; Tim Hathaway, director of Renewal Unlited, Sue Schultz, and Barbara Wehman at CESA 11; and James Vermeul, director of Child & Family Development Centers.

Since the reauthorization process began in the spring of 2003, we have made tremendous progress to reach consensus on the bill before us. However, I remain concerned with the implementation of the National Reporting System for Head Start children. The NRS is an assessment instrument developed under HHS's guidance in 2003 and used to test half a million children in Head Start twice yearly.

Unfortunately, HHS implemented NRS--at the cost of $25 million so far--despite protests by early child education experts who question the validity, reliability, and appropriateness of the assessment. While we support ongoing assessments of Head Start children to help ensure their school readiness, these specific tests were developed behind closed doors and with very little input from child development experts, Congress, or Head Start centers.

The GAG validates many of these concerns. In May, they released a report stating: ``If the test is to be used as a measure of program performance or to assess changes in child outcomes, it is important to ensure that it is sensitive to the range of development typically demonstrated in Head Start. Based on our analysis and that of the Technical Working Group and independent experts, we continue to believe that further study is necessary to ensure that the NRS results are reliable and valid and the results are appropriate for the intended purposes.''

I authored language in H.R. 2123 to commission a study by the National Academy of Sciences to report on appropriate standards and benchmarks for school readiness and valid measures of assessment. Today, I will offer an amendment to suspend the National Reporting System until the National Academy of Sciences completes its review, and I urge all my colleagues to support my amendment.

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. Until child development and early education experts can agree about the appropriateness of the NRS, we should not be spending millions of dollars on its implementation and subjecting 500,000 children to it every year.

In addition to promoting development of the mind, I also believe that we must promote good physical development for all children. I am pleased that an amendment I offered in committee to promote physical development, including outdoor activity to support children's motor development and overall health and nutrition, was accepted.

The requirement for physical activity and nutrition for pre-schoolers is increasingly important as childhood obesity rates have doubled for young children in the past 20 years. Studies show that healthy eating habits help to prevent childhood obesity and other nutrition-related diseases. Given the epidemic rate of child obesity, dramatic changes need to take place in school nutrition environment.

The Society for Nutrition Education, SNE, reports that child nutrition programs present opportunities for positive role modeling of healthy and nutritious meals, from the formative years of early childhood through the teen years. Additionally, implementation of educational programs that guide and motivate parents and children to improve the nutritional quality of their dietary choices and to increase their physical activity levels is extremely important. Physical activity, particularly for youth, help to improve school performance, establish positive health habits, and possibly prevent the onset of adult diseases.

Mr. Chairman, again, I am pleased to have worked on this bipartisan bill to reauthorize the Head Start Act. The consensus we have reached on H.R. 2123 reflects positively on how well Head Start is working. Numerous studies indicate that every dollar spent on Head Start saves taxpayers $4 to $7 in the future due to savings in education and welfare expenses. Therefore, it is my belief that the bill before us today will continue to provide the best Head Start program for all of our children.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, my amendment is very simple and straightforward. It would suspend the use and implementation of the National Reporting Service until the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences has an opportunity to conduct their study to determine what would be the proper measurements, standards, and assessments to be used with children at this age with different developmental stages in their life.

Mr. Chairman, I believe this is a very important issue because there has been a lot of outside expertise devoted to early childhood learning, and we are going to be taking measurements that they are done appropriately so we do not do any harm to them; and that is why I believe that what is in the bill right now calling for a National Academy study to be conducted so that the National Reporting System can use those recommendations for measurements and standards as we move forward will improve the quality of Head Start.

It was not so long ago, Mr. Chairman, when the National Research Council of the academy published a book called ``Eager to Learn, Educating Our Preschoolers.'' And in that publication they indicated why it is important for us to take the time and the energy to make sure that we get the measurements done correctly rather than wrongly.

In that book I quote their summary: ``All assessments, and particularly assessments for accountability, must be used carefully and appropriately if they are to resolve and not create educational problems. Assessments of young children pose greater challenges than people generally realize. The first five years of life are a time of incredible growth and learning. But the course of development is uneven and sporadic. The status of a child's development, as of any given day, can change very rapidly. Consequently, assessment results, in particular, standardized test scores that reflect a given point in time, can easily misrepresent children's learning.''

Now, when the National Reporting System was created, it was done internally. I do not believe that there was any consultation with us members of the committee, nor were any outside experts brought in for advice or consent or what standards and assessments should be used.

Shortly after the National Reporting System was implemented, the President then appointed his technical working group for the NRS. This was a group of outside experts. Even the technical working group trying to work with the National Reporting System has highlighted a lot of problems and deficiencies with the current system and is recommending changes to it.

That advice from the technical working group was recently backed up and supported by a May GAO report which found, among other things: ``If the test is to be used as a measure of program performance or assess changes in child outcomes, it is important to ensure that it is sensitive to the range of development typically demonstrated in Head Start. Based on our analysis and that of the technical working group and independent experts, we continue to believe that further study is necessary to ensure that the NRS results are reliable and valid and the results are appropriate for intended purposes.''

Mr. Chairman, we have had a lot of discussions in this committee. We have had a discussion during the hearings and markup of this bill. I have enjoyed working with the chairman of the committee and the ranking members of the appropriate committees in trying to resolve this issue. I think we can resolve it. I think it is the right direction to go with the amendment that I am offering. I hope my colleagues will support it.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman of the committee for his support of the amendment and for working with us in order to get this accomplished. I also want to thank the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy), my good friend, for helping to elevate this issue and educate other Members in this place about the importance of the measurements and the assessments that are being used, especially for these children at this early age.

Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), the ranking member of the subcommittee, and thank her for her support.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the School Readiness Act which will reauthorize the Head Start program, but this measure will not get my vote if the amendment allowing for religious discrimination is adopted by this House.

I think that we can all agree that this is not a perfect bill, though it is certainly an improvement over the Headstart reauthorization bill that the 108th Congress considered.

As a former mayor of the city of Alexandria, Virginia, I know just how important Head Start programs are to communities because they help to provide our low-income preschool-aged children much needed services such as child development, educational, health, nutritional activities which help them receive greater advantages in life. More importantly, these programs help to level the playing field for disadvantaged children and prepare them for school.

In addition to the educational services that are provided by Head Start programs, some of the other services include health screenings, such as dental and eye care. Statistics have shown that children who receive these crucial services, along with a hot breakfast every morning, have increased their readiness for school.

In my congressional district, one of the most successful Head Start programs is the Alexandria Head Start. This is a collaboration that the Campaign Center, the city of Alexandria and the Alexandria City Public Schools system formed about 37 years ago.

AHS serves over 250 Head Start children and because of a wonderful group of dedicated educators and involved parents, these children are truly getting a ``head start.''

I am pleased that many of my low-income constituents are served by Head Start programs. I am concerned, however, that the School Readiness Act's authorized funding levels, with limitations, will allow less than one-half of the eligible preschoolers, to participate in Head Start.

Unfortunately the cost of the Iraq war and massive tax cuts have produced a fiscal crisis which now translates into the under-funding of critical programs like Head Start and others focused on our low-income citizens.

I am saddened that so many children, who truly would benefit from participation in a Head Start program, will not be given a chance of doing so, and as a result, will be far less likely to reach their true potential.

Another area of concern in this bill relates to teacher quality.

The School Readiness Act will require that half of the Head Start teachers nationwide have at least a B.A. in child development or a related field by 2011, and that all new teachers, beginning three years after the enactment of the bill have at least an associate's degree or be enrolled in a program to achieve an associate's degree.

While I certainly agree that our Head Start teachers should be highly educated, however, unless additional funding is provided for increased salaries, it will be extremely difficult for Head Start programs to attract and more importantly, retain the highly educated teachers the bill requires.

Why would someone who is interested in being a teacher and possesses the education and background the bill requires, choose to make $25,000 a year as a Head Start teacher instead of $41,000 as a kindergarten teacher for a school system that provides its teaches with cost-of- living adjustments?

The non-profit Trust for Early Education said it best in a recent report, ``If we do not provide appropriate compensation for our pre- kindergarten teachers, they will leave the pre-kindergarten classroom.''

The School Readiness Act needs to provide Head Start programs with the financial ability to recruit and retain our Nation's brightest teachers to educate our Nation's most disadvantaged.

I am also adamantly opposed to the Boustany amendment.

If a Head Start program is being administered by a faith-based institution and it is receiving federal funding for the program, it must not be permitted to discriminate on religious grounds when making employment decisions.

It is as simple as that.

Head Start teachers and workers not only provide cognitive development services to children; they help in the development of children's character.

Most preschoolers have a strong sense of right from wrong. This will be setting a confusing example if we authorize discrimination of any kind. This amendment is opposed by every credible anti-discrimination an civil rights protection organization, and I ask my colleagues to oppose it.

It was once said that ``Education is the great equalizer in a democratic society, and if people are not given access to a quality education, then what we are doing is creating an underclass of people who will ultimately challenge our very way of life.''

While I recognize the shortcomings of the School Readiness Act, it is a worthwhile effort that will help our low-income children by working to level a very un-level playing field, so they will be prepared and successful in school.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the School Readiness Act which will reauthorize the Head Start program, but this measure will not get my vote if the amendment allowing for religious discrimination is adopted by this House.

I think that we can all agree that this is not a perfect bill, though it is certainly an improvement over the Head Start reauthorization bill that the 108th Congress considered.

As a former Mayor of the city of Alexandria, Virginia, I know just how important Head Start programs are to communities. They help to provide our low-income preschool-aged children much needed services in the area of child development. These educational, health and nutritional activities help them receive greater opportunities in life. More importantly, these programs help to level the playing field for disadvantaged children by preparing them for public school.

In addition to the educational services that are provided by Head Start programs, some of the other services include health screenings, such as dental and eye care. Statistics have shown that children who receive these crucial services, along with a hot breakfast every morning, have increased their readiness for school.

In my congressional district, one of the most successful Head Start programs is the Alexandria Head Start. This is a collaboration that the Campagna Center, the City of Alexandria and the Alexandria City Public Schools system formed about 37 years ago.

AHS serves over 250 Head Start children and because of a wonderful group of dedicated educators and involved parents, these children are truly getting a ``head start.''.

I am pleased that many of my low-income constituents are served by Head Start programs. I am concerned, however, that the School Readiness Act's authorized funding levels, with limitations, will allow less than one-half of the eligible preschoolers to participate in Head Start.

Unfortunately the cost of the Iraq war and massive tax cuts have produced a fiscal crisis which now translates into the under-funding of critical programs like Head Start and others focused on our low-income citizens.

I am saddened that so many children, who truly would benefit from participation in a Head Start program, will not be given a chance of doing so, and as a result, will be far less likely to reach their true potential.

Another area of concern in this bill relates to teacher quality.

The School Readiness Act will require that half of the Head Start teachers nationwide have at least a B.A. in child development or a related field by 2011, and that all new teachers, beginning three years after the enactment of bill have at least an associate's degree or be enrolled in a program to achieve an associate's degree.

While I certainly agree that our Head Start teachers should be highly educated. However, unless additional funding is provided for increased salaries, it will be extremely difficult for Head Start programs to attract and more importantly, retain the highly educated teachers the bill requires.

Why would someone who is interested in being a teacher and possesses the education and background the bill requires, choose to make $25,000 a year as a Head Start teacher instead of $41,000 as a kindergarten teacher for a school system that provides its teachers with cost-of- living adjustments?

The non-profit Trust for Early Education said it best in a recent report, ``If we do not provide appropriate compensation for our pre- kindergarten teachers, they will leave the pre-kindergarten classroom.''

The School Readiness Act needs to provide Head Start programs with the financial ability to recruit and retain our nation's brightest teachers to educate our nation's most disadvantaged.

I am also adamantly opposed to the Boustany amendment.

If a Head Start program is being administered by a faith-based institution and it is receiving federal funding for the program, it must not be permitted to discriminate on religious grounds when making employment decisions.

It is as simple as that.

Head Start teachers and workers not only provide cognitive development services to children; they help in the development of just as importantly, they aid them in their character development skills.

Most preschoolers have a strong sense of right from wrong. This will be setting a confusing example if we authorize discrimination of any kind.

This amendment is opposed by every credible anti-discrimination and civil rights protection organization, and I ask my colleagues to oppose it.

It was once said that ``Education is the great equalizer in a democratic society, and if people are not given access to a quality education, then what we are doing is creating an underclass of people who will ultimately challenge our very way of life.''

While I recognize the shortcomings of the School Readiness Act, it is a worthwhile effort that will help our low-income children by working to level a very un-level playing field, so they will be prepared and successful in school.

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

I have an amendment, the second amendment, coming up that I believe is very critical. It goes to the heart and soul of the Head Start program, and that is whether parents have voting rights or whether they are just going to get a pat on the head and told we like their opinions. I believe it is critical to Head Start that we put this back in.

But two points: first off, I thank the chairman and the Committee on Rules for allowing an amendment in order that they do not support, and I appreciate that and I want to thank them for that.

Secondly, I gave my word and I believe it is important that we move this Head Start bill whether my amendment is agreed to or not. I believe the Senate will never allow an amendment that strips parents, and I believe the administration will not sign a bill that strips parents, and I believe it is important that we have that debate, but it is also important we move ahead.

A number of Members have told me that if the amendment is not agreed to, they would vote against the bill. I urge them to move the bill forward regardless of what happens to the parents amendment. We need to address it in conference if we do not today, but it is the number one empowerment program in America. We do not need to go backwards and give more power to the government and boards that are not responsible to parents. We need to keep it at the parents level.

But I want to, again, thank the chairman for his leadership in trying to clean up the financial problems. It was not the parents. This bill does that, and I support this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, first I want to again thank the chairman for making my amendment in order. Let me give a very short history, and then I will elaborate a little further.

After the Great Society was less than sensitive to many urban areas in the United States, empowerment movements developed in America, led actually by a leftist named Sal Olinsky, that said local people, when they are being displaced, ought to have more input into the decisions that are being made in their lives. This happened originally in Chicago and it is something that we are looking at doing in New Orleans in the name of empowerment.

We saw, when the Republicans came to power in the 1980s and to the Presidency, President Reagan put Jack Kemp in charge of HUD, Housing and Urban Development, and we had tenant management and resident management moving to homeownership and we said, let the people make the decisions themselves. Sometimes it was messy. Sometimes we did not really like their decisions, just like sometimes we do not necessarily agree with the people who they elect to Congress; but we let the people make the decisions.

Head Start, when it came in the 1970s as part of Richard Nixon's efforts to block grant, to give more local empowerment to react to the programs of the 1960s, the heart and soul of this program was to say, we are going to let the parents, in these preschool situations, in these low-income situations, we are going to let them make the decisions. It is not going to be like PTAs in schools where often they become fund-raising supplements and they are allowed to give their opinions, but they have no vote. We are going to let them actually vote. When you go into Head Start programs, they get to vote on what they are going to serve for lunch, they get to vote on the textbooks, they get to hire and fire the teachers.

This bill, unfortunately, because of a broader concern about how to address some of the problems in Head Start, removes the voting rights, the actual powers of those parents. Not because of any GAO report. Not because the GAO report says there is a problem with the parents. There is no reference to the parents in the GAO report, other than one. It says the tips of financial mismanagement came from the parents. It is not because of the boards because, in the GAO report, the boards are only mentioned twice, because they had financial problems.

The underlying part of the bill addresses the financial difficulties that we have, and we have added in our amendment to make sure that fraud is actually addressed because there the board has legal liability if there is fraud, but not what is being served for lunch or what textbook or even who is hired and fired. They have legal liability for fraud. That is already granted. But we made it clear that the board has the legal liability on fraud and they have the decision-making power on fraud.

I somehow think that we have drifted into this policy that we think we know better than the people who are making the decisions themselves. How are we going to move ahead in New Orleans with this attitude? We cannot one week strip the number one empowerment program in America, and the next week say we are going to empower in New Orleans.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Chairman, there was no testimony at any hearings about this subject. The only reference in the hearings, I believe, was actually on the Senate side from the deputy mayor of Memphis who complained that he did not have decision-making powers to make some changes that he wanted to make, but it was not financial abuse or financial waste. I have asked the committee staff, as well as the chairman, to come up with an example. There is not an example.

There are problems in the whole system; but mostly it is the grantees and the board that have been the problems. The board is not as engaged like the parents. In this case, it is not a question of whether the parents have veto power. The parents have the power, the board has shared power, and the parents have the primary power, the board has the veto power. The parent council is 51 percent parents, 49 percent community leaders who are actively engaged. The board tends to be leading citizens of the community who come in and review that.

We are gutting, for a pat on the head, saying we like your opinion, but not your vote. You are not good enough to vote, but you are good enough to give your opinion.

This is an empowerment program by the people who are running it, it has worked well, and we should not change it.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida

(Mr. Keller), a member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce and a leader on education issues.

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

Let us make this absolutely clear. Advice is nice. We just went through this in high-intensity drug trafficking areas where we tried to take the voting power away and we resisted that in Congress.

Power comes from voting, not advise. This strips the parents of their power and lets them give their opinions. This is a tremendous reversal for either side of the aisle to make of the number one parent advisory program in America. There are not financial problems with the parent councils. The financial problems were with the agencies that were granted to and the boards. For fraud, they need to be held accountable. This bill does that. Do not take the power away from the parents.

I have also received these letters which help explain my concerns.

Dear Mr. Mark Souder: My name is Chris Wallace Sr. and I am

a parent of 3 children. Two of which have been enrolled and

ongoing participants in CANI's Headstart program, my third

child is going into her 2nd grade year with Adams Elementary,

Fort Wayne Community Schools. I am currently the Policy

Council President, and the Vice-President of MILC (Males

Involved Leading Children), and my wife and I are repeatedly

volunteering for CANI (in-kind). I have received the

Volunteer of the Year Award from CANI, and I have also

received a Certificate of Recognition from the City of Fort

Wayne, for my ongoing commitments with CANI. Currently I am

looking forward to another successful year with my

involvement with CANI, MILC, and introducing MILC along with

All Pro Dads into the Fort Wayne Community school system.

Which brings me to my disappointment with the news that

some of these programs, most importantly the parent

involvement initiative may be withdrawn from CANI's Headstart

programs. I would like for you and those involved with this

decision to understand the importance of parent involvement.

It has not only allowed for me to be more involved in the

decisions that affect my children, it has also allowed me to

be involved in some of the decisions that affect my

community. These programs allow parents to understand more

how important education, family and social development is to

their family, and the community around them. I believe that

these programs empower parents, and give them leadership

skills that they may never learn elsewhere. I can attest to

this, for I have learned many leadership, mentoring, and role

model skills. I also have learned how important I am to the

community and the development of my children, and my peers

children.

I believe it would be an injustice to take this away from

so many who are currently involved and those in the future

that have yet to benefit. Please pass on our plea, meaning

the parents, employees, and even more important our children,

that you work for keeping the current programs well

established within CANI's Headstart program. This will

continue to allow us to provide a good start to our future

leaders.

On behalf of parents of CANI Headstart.

Sincerely,

Chris Wallace, Sr.,

Parent, Volunteer.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.