Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2123) to reauthorize the Head Start Act to improve the school readiness of disadvantaged children, and for other purposes.

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. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 455 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

The resolution before us provides for a structured rule for the consideration of H.R. 2123, the School Readiness Act of 2005, and makes a good number of important amendments in order and will provide for a full and wide-ranging debate on all the aspects of the Head Start program.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2123 was passed out of the Committee on Education and the Workforce unanimously. It reauthorizes the Head Start program for fiscal 2011. At the same time, the bill incorporates a number of wide-ranging and widely supported commonsense improvements to Head Start which will improve teacher education standards, increase the accountability for the use of funds, and enhance outreach to the most deserving students.

The underlying bill does not include provisions which were deemed by some controversial in the base text, such as providing hiring protection for faith-based Head Start providers. Instead, the rule does provide for this and other items to be debated and voted upon separately so that the House may work its will and the final outcome will reflect the views of the majority of the Members, which is an understandable approach.

The Head Start program has provided comprehensive early childhood development services to low-income and disadvantaged children since the mid-1960s. Today, almost 1 million students are involved in Head Start. The Head Start program is good. In some places the Head Start program is great.

I do not want to be a little bit parochial here, but being well acquainted with those involved in Head Start in my particular area, they do a great job and I am very proud of my association with them. But in each of these situations, the program still could be better. For that purpose, this bill focuses or attempts to focus the academic program more clearly in particular areas. They put greater emphasis on language skills, prereading, premath, and cognitive skills. They insist that any new money above and beyond the funding skills, 60 percent of that be tendered only to teacher quality, which is where that emphasis needs to be.

The Head Start program is administered by the Department of Health and Human Services and is accomplished through grants that directly go to applying entities.

The Head Start program has been largely successful because the Head Start program is locally designed and they are administered by a network of 1,600 public and private nonprofit and forprofit agencies at the local level. Because of this local emphasis, educators can tailor their approaches to fill the specific needs of the populations they serve, instead of a one-size-fits-all approach that too many other Federal programs, including other Federal education programs, have.

Especially important is this particular thing, that in the text of this particular bill it puts a greater emphasis on tying Head Start programs to a State's curricular standards. To be a priority grantee in the Head Start program, they have to show a pure correlation to a State's curriculum standard. This is for the benefit of the kids coming through the system.

Of increasing specific importance to me is the local tie-in that is demanded by this particular bill. The Head Start

programs have to demonstrate an active support in trying to tie their programs into local school districts. This is essential in the long run if you want to have a smooth transition between Head Start and the local schools. Too often programs running contrary to that simply have a disconnect; and, therefore, there is not local support for these programs. This bill recognizes that is a serious problem and a serious error and attempts to try to bridge that gap by insisting that Head Start programs work closely with their local school districts to provide a seamless entry for those kids going through Head Start into the regular school programs in the States where they are.

The GAO was critical of some financial management standards of the Head Start program. To solve that without losing the purpose of Head Start, which is to help disadvantaged kids prepare for school, they have increased the element of competition within the program. The competition that will be new in this particular program will drive improvements in Head Start; at the same time it will meet the needs of a recommended financial management that the GAO suggested. By looking for and rewarding success in Head Start programs and also looking for and punishing deficiencies in any 5-year cycle, there is an element to try to improve this program, taking a program that is good and great and in every situation making it indeed better.

There are also within this guarantees that there is a guaranteed share of the money that will go to Native American programs, migrant and seasonal workers, the most disadvantaged of the groups that Head Start is trying to help and assist, who will never be placed at a disadvantage in the overall process.

In addition to that, this bill removes certain flawed techniques of evaluation that have been standardly used by the Head Start program and replaces them with something that is more scientifically based.

The rule that is currently before us provides for important amendments and policy discussion, and it is a very fair rule. In addition to a manager's amendment, the chairman of the committee who recommended this bill recommended four amendments, two by Republicans and two by Democrats. The Committee on Rules instead, in addition to the manager's amendment, recommended 11 additional amendments, five by Republicans, six by Democrats.

I commend the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) and the sponsor of this legislation, the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), for their hard work in placing this bill before the House; and I urge all of my colleagues to support this rule.

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

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

If I could just make a note of the amendments that were not made in order, of the 12, four were defeated in committee. So they did have a hearing in which they were discussed. Two were not germane. One was withdrawn in the committee. One was withdrawn before our Committee on Rules. Two dealt with issues that can be dealt with in other bills and should be dealt with in other bills. One was combined and given preference to a similar bill, and one was a policy issue that we simply said would not be there because it would take money away from the training of teachers, in contradiction with what the bill was trying to do.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Mr. Speaker, I am more than pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller).

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the gentlewoman from Minnesota. I understand her feelings about not being allowed to have an amendment placed in order on the floor. I have been in that situation myself several times.

I would simply point out that the particular amendment to which the gentlewoman refers was offered in the committee itself and was defeated on a bipartisan vote in that committee. It was one of the concepts that we thought was not necessary to replow all old ground over and over again, and that is probably one of the reasons why this particular amendment was not placed in order by the Committee on Rules.

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

Mr. Speaker, once again I share the frustration and understand the gentlewoman from California, as to her amendment not being made in order here. But I once again would point out that the amendment was presented in the committee and was rejected by the committee. And once again, it is not necessary to replow old ground every time the bill appears before the group again. So I appreciate that consideration very much.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, there is a time and place for everything we do. If this rule is passed, there will be a 30-minute time and place to discuss the details of the specific amendment which has been referred to several times. I hope saying there is a time and place for that, and I apologize since I am paraphrasing from a faith-based piece of literature, and if it would be more profitable I could say I am paraphrasing from a popular song of the counterculture of the 1960s, and I am sure that would absolve anyone with 9th and 10th Circuit concerns. But let me say just one particular word, and I appreciate the comments that have been made so far.

Mr. Speaker, what we are talking about is the rule on if an amendment should be debated, which is far different than actually debating the amendment itself.

Since the minority has jumped over that line and tried to go into the amendment itself, let me say a couple of things about it, and I appreciate the comments from the gentleman from Texas.

I served as a missionary from my church for a couple of years. I am used to people asking me those questions, so if the gentleman has got more, he should. Although when you put the discrimination, if the gentleman put my religion first instead of the end of the line, it would have been nicer.

I also was a school teacher, and I realize in the article the gentleman quoted from the Constitution I was an officer of public office and trust.

What we are talking about here is simply whether a church who is organized should be able to hire Members of their church to work for their church. That is a concept which has been upheld in statute by this body. It is a concept which has been upheld by the courts. Should the State be able to compel a church to hire somebody outside of that church to work for that church: That is the question. Then the issue is once you have decided that, and it has been decided by both the courts and the legislature, can we allow those people to help kids?

What we are talking about is if we can help kids and how best we can help kids. The entire purpose of this act is to try and focus academic efforts to try and make sure that kids are prepared to enter the school system, and are there groups that can help kids. We should not put some kind of artificial barrier in front of groups that can help kids from actually doing that, especially when they are functioning under the rules that we have established and have been upheld by the courts.

This debate is going to be extremely lively during its proper time and place during the debate on the floor when the amendment is presented.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings). I have always enjoyed his comments in the Committee on Rules, and I have oftentimes agreed with his comments in the Committee on Rules.

I do disagree here about the concept of time and place and when this amendment should be discussed. I would point out that contrary to what we sometimes hear on the floor, the minority's first approach on this particular amendment was to try to ban it and take it off the table so it would not be discussed. That did not pass, and there will be a time for discussion. I am sure when the amendment is actually before us, it will be a remarkable discussion based on what we have had right now on the rule on if we discuss the amendment. But I appreciate very much the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), the sponsor of this piece of legislation; not the rule, but the sponsor of the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Puerto Rico (Mr. Fortuno).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart).

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

Mr. Speaker, as we conclude the debate on this rule, I would remind people that the underlying bill provides for the Head Start program in many different areas. It provides for academic refocusing on class readiness and to close the class readiness gap. It provides for competition to improve the quality and to meet questions of mismanagement of financial abilities. It provides for a closer tie to State curricula and to local ties which will improve it, and it also provides, if the amendment is adopted, for faith-based institutions to actually help kids.

We have an opportunity to discuss 12 amendments plus the underlying bill, and we have an opportunity to hit a home run for kids. That is the goal that we still have.

Mr. Speaker, this is a good and balanced rule, and I urge the Members to support this rule.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.

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. Speaker, I rise today to express my sincere disappointment in the Committee on Rules decision to report a restrictive rule for consideration of the bill before us today, the reauthorization of Head Start, the future of our children.

Several commonsense amendments were not ruled in order. Not surprising, most of them were Democratic amendments. Instead, several amendments that were ruled in order will weaken Head Start and the opportunity for our children.

In the committee, there was support of adding the language ``faith- based'' into the bill, even though faith-based institutions currently participate in providing Head Start programs. We were happy to do this in committee; I was also, along with my colleagues, because the Equal Opportunity Employment Act is also spelled out clearly in the bill, which does not allow for discrimination in hiring.

But there was another amendment that was not ruled in order, my amendment, an amendment which would have protected the privacy of our faith-based organizations and the integrity of our tax dollars. The amendment that I offered in the Committee on Rules would have simply required faith-based organizations to create a separate bank account, a separate bank account in which to receive Federal dollars for the Head Start program, a distinct and separate bank account from the private dollars that a religious organization collects to put forward their religious mission.

Why do we need to do that? Well, first, we need to protect Federal tax dollars from being used improperly; and, secondly, we need to protect the privacy of faith-based organizations' accounting books for their religious mission. With the commingling of funds, if fraud is suspected, a faith-based organization would have to open up all of their books for inspection. My amendment would have required separate accounts, therefore, protecting the church's mission and the Federal education mission of Head Start.

Mr. Speaker, let me quote from the Covenant Companion, a Christian publication. I quote from this publication, and I will also include this in the Record, as well as two other publications that speak to this. From the Covenant: ``Churches are particularly vulnerable to embezzlement because of the high-level of trust given to employees and volunteers that lack the sophistication, fiscal controls, and oversight.''

My amendment simply would have been a preemptive strike against financial abuse that we know will happen because it has already occurred. For example, this past summer, $80,000 was stolen from a Federal Head Start program run by a church.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this rule. We need a new rule, one that will protect the taxpayers, one that will protect faith- based organizations and stop discrimination.

[From the Covenant Companion, Apr. 2003]

When the Numbers Don't Add Up

(By Bob Smietana)

Sandra had a problem--an overdue Visa bill for $672 and no

cash to pay it. And the Visa bill wasn't the only problem.

Sandra was behind on a number of other bills and her

creditors were calling. And calling.

Then Sandra, the bookkeeper at a small manufacturing

company in Kansas, came up with a desperate plan. She would

use one of the company's checks to pay her bill. ``I thought,

just this one time, just to get back on my feet,'' she told

Fortune Small Business (FSB) magazine. ``No one will know.''

To disguise her actions, Sandra recorded the check under

the name of one of the company's vendors. When the bank

statement came, she removed the canceled check, leaving no

trace of the theft.

But it wasn't just one time. From 1992 to 1999, Sandra, a

former small town cheerleader and mother of two, wrote out

eighty-eight checks to pay her bills and made eighty-eight

false entries. The total, according to FSB, was $248,383--all

of it going to pay living expenses. Since her employers at

the small, family-run business trusted her, they never

checked her work.

The embezzlement was discovered when Sandra went on

vacation. While she was gone, one of the canceled checks was

found and her boss discovered what she had done. Sandra was

convicted of embezzlement and sentenced to eighteen months in

prison.

While fraud at major companies like World Com and Enron

have made headlines in recent years, small businesses,

nonprofits, and churches arc particularly vulnerable to

embezzlement because of the level of trust given to employees

and volunteers and the lack of sophisticated financial

controls and oversight.

In the past three years, GuideOne, which insures 45,000

churches in the United States, paid 3,845 claims to churches

for losses from theft (by people outside the church) or

embezzlement (by people inside the church). Those claims

total over $8 million, with an average claim of $2,106.

In the past ten years, at least eleven Covenant churches

have reported being victims of embezzlement, with anywhere

from ``just over'' $10,000 to more than $300,000 taken by

people they trusted--volunteer treasurers, church staff, even

a pastor. At least one major embezzlement at a Covenant

church was discovered in 2002. And the actual number of

embezzlements is likely higher because many churches are

reluctant to report when a member of the church has embezzled

money.

Kent Egging, interim pastor of Bethany Covenant Church in

Mount Vernon, Washington, has studied embezzlement in

churches as part of a doctor of ministry degree program.

Egging also knows the effects of embezzlement on a church

firsthand--while he was co-pastor of a Covenant church in

Portland, Oregon, the church's treasurer embezzled more than

$45,000.

The embezzlement began in 1992, soon after Jim, a member of

the church, became treasurer. His main qualification, Egging

says, was not formal training in business or accounting--``he

was willing to do the job.''

Soon after starting, Jim learned that the church had a

separate account to handle funds for a campaign to build a

Christian education (CE) wing. Since the funds were not

needed immediately, there seemed to be no need to closely

monitor the account.

That separate account gave Jim two things that an embezzler

needs to succeed--access and no accountability. ``He found he

could transfer funds into this CE account and then withdraw

them,'' says Egging, ``and absolutely nobody knew.''

The transfers were made by phone, leaving no paper trail,

and then the treasurer would create a false financial

statement, which made it appear that the transactions had

never taken place.

``When the building committee began asking for access to

the CE funds, they had a hard time getting Jim to write them

a check. In April 1993, he admitted--at first--taking

$20,000. After learning about the embezzlement, the church

discussed whether or not to call the police. In the process,

Egging talked with a friend who worked in the local district

attorney's office.

``You call the police now,'' his friend told him. ''You

call them now. Here's what I can tell you--if he says it's

twenty, it's probably forty. If he says he'll do anything you

want right now to repay it, two months from now he won't be

willing to do anything.''

Much of what Egging's friend said was accurate. A thorough

investigation revealed that $45,000 was missing. While the

church filed a police report, they did not press charges.

Instead, they reached a binding agreement with their former

treasurer to repay the money.

``We ended up having a stipulated statement of judgment,''

says Egging, ``which is a combination of a legally binding

confession to a crime, so there is no need for prosecution,

and a contract for repayment.'' The agreement for repayment

was for about $50,000. The church only received about $300.

Restoring trust after an embezzlement at a church is a long

process. The first step is getting an accurate picture of

what was lost. ``It was very important for us to do a proper

accounting,'' says Egging. ``The biggest issue in all of this

is trust, the violation of trust. It's not about the money so

much. It's about the trust. He violated our trust. The trust

of leaders in the congregation was in question because of

this.''

To prevent any embezzlement from happening in the future,

the church revamped its entire financial system. They hired a

CPA to set up and monitor new accounting procedures. The

church changed its bank accounts so that telephone transfers

were no longer allowed. All financial statements were kept at

the church, and all accounting work was done on the church's

office computer rather than on a volunteer's home computer.

That's an area of vulnerability in most churches, says

Egging.

``I would bet that most churches in America have some or a

significant number of financial records at somebody's house

in a box or on somebody's home computer,'' he says, ``because

home computers are generally better than church computers. A

church wants to make it easy for a volunteer who's working on

church finances.''

Embezzlement can happen even when a church has taken steps

to prevent financial losses. That was the case at Highland

Covenant Church in Bellevue, Washington, during the mid-

1990s. The church had a number of common financial safeguards

in place--two signatures were required on every check, two

people were present whenever collections were counted, and

the church did an internal audit of its book each year.

Highland also practiced a ``segregation of duties.'' One

person, the financial secretary, deposited funds; another

person, the bookkeeper, prepared checks. Neither the

bookkeeper nor the financial secretary was allowed to sign

checks.

For the most part, Beth, the church's bookkeeper, generated

Highland's checks on her computer. ``But every few months,

she would call up and say her printer wasn't working,'' says

Dave Kersten, who was pastor of Highland Covenant from 1986

to 1997.

When this happened, Beth would prepare all of the payroll

checks by hand and then send them to the church office to be

signed. After they were signed, she would alter the checks,

adding just a single digit to increase the amount, sometimes

by several thousand dollars.

``She would write herself a check and her husband a check,

because he was the part-time janitor,'' says Kersten.

``Instead of it being a check for $700--it could become a

check for $4,700.'' Over a seven-year period, Beth took more

than $300,000.

The embezzlement was not detected because the church's

bookkeeper had control of the bank statements. Early on, she

had asked that all of the church's bank statement be sent to

her home. ``And in a very trusting environment,'' says

Kersten, ``that was the big mistake.''

When the first altered check was discovered, Kersten called

the Bellevue police and spoke to a fraud detective.

``As soon as he heard that she had control of the bank

statements, he knew that he had a real case,'' Kersten says.

``Invariably, when an organization allows a person who is

writing the checks to control the bank statements, they are

very vulnerable.''

While the church's financial reports indicated that it had

money in savings and other discretionary funds, that proved

to be false as well. All of those funds had been folded into

the church's checking account. And because the embezzlement

had taken place slowly, over a long period of time, it was

easier to hide even during internal audits.

Each year, two members were appointed to audit the books.

They would call up Beth and ask her to send 3 months of

statements, picked at random. ``She would pick months she

didn't embezzle any funds and send them those accounts,''

says Kersten. ``The books balanced and that was the end of

the story.''

The embezzlement came to light in April 1995, after the

church let Beth go as bookkeeper because of suspicions that

something was wrong with the church's finances. She was

arrested, tried, convicted, and sentenced to 40 months in

jail. The decision to turn the matter over to the police had

been fairly straightforward, because of the amount of money

involved.

Because their policy limited the amount of losses due to

embezzlement or fraud, Highland received less than $20,000

from their insurance company. But the church was able to

recover from the embezzlement, and by the time Kersten left

in 1997, had rebuilt their savings and completed a major

fundraising campaign.

Most churches, charities, and businesses that arc victims

of embezzlement are never able to recover the funds they

lost. Often their insurance policies have clauses that limit

liability due to fraud. Many embezzlers have financial

problems and, despite stealing large sums of money, have no

assets left when they arc caught. And while embezzlers often

make restitution plans, it is difficult to enforce them.

Remember Sandra, the accountant from Kansas? She was

released from prison 2 months early so she could start

repaying what she stole. According to FSB, she makes a

monthly payment of $100--at that rate, it will take 20 years

to pay it all back. She said she told her story because she

wanted to help prevent other people from making the same

mistakes she did.

``I'm not a bad person,'' Sandra told FSB. ``But I did a

really bad thing.''

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.