National Science Foundation Authorization Act of 2007

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

Mr. Chairman and Members of the House, today we take up the Head Start Improvement Act of 2007. This is a bipartisan piece of legislation, as it was last year when it was brought to the House floor. And in that vein, I certainly want to begin by thanking the staff on both sides of the aisle that have worked very hard to bring this legislation in this form with the cooperation of the members of both sides of the committee, the majority and the minority. I begin by thanking Mr. Lloyd Horwich, who is working for Mr. Kildee; Stephanie Milburn, with Mr. McKeon; Sarah Rittling, working with Mr. Castle; and Molly Carter and Ruth Friedman of the majority staff. This staff knows this program backwards and forwards. They have worked long and hard with the Head Start community, with the States, with Governors, with local communities, to make sure that, in fact, we have a program that we can be proud of, that we can continue to place our faith in, and does what we want, which is to give children from impoverished families and communities the opportunity to have a head start and to come to kindergarten school ready, if you will, with the skills necessary to take advantage of the opportunity that will be presented to them when they start school.

Head Start has been the premiere early education program in this country for more than 40 years. It has served more than 20 million children and families in that time. It is a highly successful research- based, comprehensive childhood development and early education program for low-income children from birth to 5 and for their families.

Both Head Start and Early Head Start help our country's most disadvantaged children become better prepared to succeed in school and in life by addressing the needs of the whole child and providing services such as

health and nutrition in addition to the educational curriculum. Its design has always been based in science, and the bill before us builds on the strong foundation again by turning to the best science to renew and improve the Head Start program.

Head Start remains a cornerstone of this country's effort to close the achievement gap, to combat poverty, and to provide all its citizens with the opportunity to thrive.

Today more than 12 million children in America live in poverty, 20 percent of them under the age of 6. Children who grow up in poverty are more likely to struggle in school, face physical and mental health problems, and see fewer economic opportunities throughout their life.

The bill before us is central to achieving the goals of No Child Left behind because the achievement gap that appears later on in elementary school begins before these children reach kindergarten. Head Start is one of the most evaluated Federal programs, and research concludes that Head Start works. Recent findings from the congressionally-mandated Impact Study found that after less than one school year, Head Start narrowed the achievement gap by 45 percent in prereading and 28 percent in prewriting. The study also found that Head Start helped to improve some of the important parenting practices, including helping to increase the frequency with which parents read to and with their children.

Another large-scale study on Head Start found that children made significant gains during the Head Start year, and made even greater gains over the kindergarten year.

By the end of kindergarten, Head Start graduates were essentially in the national norms in early reading and writing, narrowed by the achievement gap in vocabulary and general knowledge and early math.

I am encouraged that the research concludes that Head Start is doing what we expect and demand that it should do to help prepare children to succeed in school. However, this research shows that there are many new ways to improve Head Start, and I believe we accomplish that in the bill before us. The bill before us will help more children arrive at kindergarten ready to succeed by improving the program quality and expanding access to more children.

This bill includes many improvements to build on the latest research in brain and child development. The bill also recognizes that key to the first-class Head Start programs is teachers. This is absolutely imperative, and this bill works hard to make sure that we continue to provide for improvement and professional development of the teachers in the Head Start program.

We increase the teacher qualifications by directing the majority of new funds for program improvement activities, including significant new funds to increase teacher salaries; requiring that all programs use research-based practices to support children's preliteracy and vocabulary skills; requiring a full time staff to develop career ladders and professional development plans; directing the Health and Human Services agency to implement an observational assessment tool that will evaluate classroom quality and provide immediate feedback for programs on their strengths and weaknesses; improving the professional development and training and technical assistance systems so that they are better grounded in science and more responsive to local training needs; and requiring the Secretary to reevaluate and update current early learning standards and assessments using the best science available.

The point is this: This is a major revamping of the Head Start program, with an emphasis on quality, with an emphasis on outcomes, with an emphasis on the assessments and how these programs are doing so that we can provide the continuous improvement of these programs, and we can provide continuous high-quality programs to the children who are in need of these programs. It's only then that we can be assured that Head Start will continue to earn its reputation as the premier early childhood education and development program in this Nation. It is only then that we can say to the taxpayers that this continues to be a very wise investment of the dollars in the children of this Nation in providing them access to the kinds of programs that are necessary if they are going to be able to take advantage of the educational opportunities in K-12, if they are going to be able to close the gap between themselves and middle-income kids, if they are going to be able to go to school with those skills.

I believe that this legislation does that. This legislation builds on what was tried and worked on in the last session of Congress under the leadership of Mr. Castle, Mr. McKeon, Mr. Boehner, myself and Mr. Kildee. This is a continuation of that process, and that's why it received the overwhelming bipartisan support when it was reported from the committee. I hope that my colleagues will lend it the same kind of support at the end of this debate and the amendment process.

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

I yield 4 minutes now to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee), subcommittee chair and responsible for bringing this bill to the floor.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

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

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume and just to thank my colleagues who joined in the general debate and for their support for this legislation and, again, to thank the staffs on both sides of the aisle of both the subcommittee and the full committee without whose work and effort and knowledge this legislation would not be in the kind of shape it is today, with the support that it has from both Republicans and Democrats for the Head Start bill.

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

I rise in strong support of this amendment and urge its adoption. I thank the gentlewoman for offering it.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, Members of the House, we are here today to authorize the Head Start program. What this amendment would do would simply end Head Start in those eight States as we know it. There would be no requirement that those States would take the money that we have set aside, that we have worked hard to provide within the budget for the Head Start program and use it to implement a program that is anything like Head Start, because there would simply be no requirements on that money to provide the kind of comprehensive programs that are now required under the Head Start program that have demonstrated the success that we just spent an hour with speakers from both sides of the aisle attesting to in their own districts or on a national basis as members of the committee have talked about what we are doing in this reauthorization. These States would be eligible for these funds without demonstrating any expertise or commitment to the high quality of this proven preschool program.

Essentially that's the end of it in those eight States. Now, maybe one of those States will have a strong commitment to Head Start and all the rest of it. That's what Head Start is. That's what Head Start is. Why are we running this money through another filter system to recreate the Head Start program? We already require, and we went through a series of hearings about coordination with the States to make sure that Head Start coordinates with other State programs and State agencies.

But we also know that because of what we have done with Head Start over the years, where we have provided reauthorization after reauthorization, the continuous improvement of the programs that are integral to the success of Head Start and to the success of the children, where we have used scientific-based educational and performance standards, where we have provided for accountability and oversight and evaluation of the program, where we have provided for the parent policy councils, all of these things that have been integral to this program over this time to bring it to a point now where we can see that it demonstrates a marked impact on these young children in closing the achievement gap for these children and getting them ready and the skills that they will need for early reading, for early math, for early writing, that is what this program does.

There are not many States that do any of that. They have a lot of early childhood programs. They have a lot of child care programs, they have a lot of it. But they don't have this comprehensive program. That's why this is considered the premier program in the Nation for the education and the development of these young children. That is why we should not support this block grant amendment.

I daresay that we have watched over the last decades effort after effort be made to block grant programs. Generally, where they have been successful, they have been the first step to the budget cuts, to the loss of quality. That's what's involved here.

Again, when we structured this legislation, and in consideration of the budget and the increases in the money, we are putting 60 percent of the money into quality, into teacher and professional development, into salaries, because we recognize that we have to have that continuous update and that improvement of the Head Start program.

Voting for this amendment is not to vote for Head Start; it's to vote for something, but it's not to vote for Head Start. It's, in fact, detrimental because that money, then, is out of the Head Start system to be used for whatever purposes. In fact, you can take this Federal money and then withdraw the local money. There is no requirement in this amendment that there be a maintenance of effort by a State to do this.

What have you really done? You have taken money for the Federal taxpayers that paid into this program that we have decided on a bipartisan basis should go for the Head Start program. You said, oh, you can give it to a State, and they can draw their money out the bottom. So we put the taxpayers' money in at the top, and the State takes the money out of the bottom.

That is not going to improve quality. That is not going to improve access. Now, you can argue that maybe you can add a lot of children to a program, a program, not the Head Start program, because the Head Start program is expensive because we do it the way we should be doing, the way it has been scientifically analyzed and supported by the data.

You can put a lot of kids in low-quality programs, but that is not what we

are trying to achieve. We are trying to achieve high quality so we get the results that Head Start gets and most other States don't get.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee).

Mr. Chairman, I would just say that is exactly the point. Yes, it offers all services, but it doesn't require the same high-quality service we have now. You can do all of these things, but you end up doing these things on the cheap because the demand is for slots. We have seen that tension here all the time.

There are no requirements here that you have anything comparable to the quality and the requirements in the Head Start program, and yet you are you are taking money out of the program to give it for these other purposes.

I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

I thank her very much for introducing this amendment, and we rise in support of this amendment. We think it improves the legislation, and thank her for her consideration.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Chairman and Members of the House, I rise in opposition to this amendment, simply for the simple fact that we are trying to balance, in this legislation, the best we can do to increase the number of teachers with a B.A. degree in child education, child development and at the same time meet the other needs of the program. And to accelerate that effort on behalf of more teachers with an M.A. upsets that balance.

It's not like, with all due respect to my friend on the other side, and he shares my concern for teacher quality, it's what I've spent my public life trying to do. The fact of the matter is this is a program that essentially has received less than the COLA, last year got a 1 percent cut. And the fact of the matter is we're trying to patch it back up, trying to bring it back to the level where it was around 2002, and recognizing that we want to increase the access to a number of children, so money has to go for slots, money has to go for professional development, money has to go for quality, and money has to go for the salaries, and that's the balance that we have put in this program.

The date that you have was the date that you had at the beginning of 2005 when we started considering this legislation. That legislation didn't get through. We're now 2 years later, so we moved it back 2 years so that the programs can balance, can rebuild the quality, can add additional slots for the million children who are now waiting, and that's the balance that we arrived at on both sides of the aisle.

You could offer an amendment and say, well, there's a million children waiting. Let's put all the money into slots. Then you just reduce the quality and the availability to pay teachers to have them to stay.

So this isn't a game where you can just pick out one part of the program and say, let's put the money there, and that's the reason why we did what we did. And I don't think that this amendment is helpful in terms of our ability to hold on to current staff that have B.A.'s, and that's the staff we're trying to build, and then to attract additional ones to be able to put some money into that pay quality, and the additional slots. And I would hope that we would oppose this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment and yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. This is what agencies have to do when the funding isn't sufficient and they are trying to hold on to the number of children, the hours of availability of the program and the quality of the teachers that are there. In the past when we had the cut, I believe the agency, HHS, allowed some local programs to do this. I would hope that this will not be a necessity. We are adding an additional $400 million to this program. I hope that the Appropriations Committee will be able to follow through.

The amendment is a good amendment. I hope we don't have to use it, but it's a good amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, let me start by commending my friends, Chairman Miller, Chairman Kildee and Mr. Castle, for their hard work on this good bill, which I am so pleased we were able to pass with an overwhelming bipartisan majority in committee 2 months ago.

While the resources to fund Head Start are significant, more work is needed to achieve the ultimate program goal on closing the readiness gap between Head Start children and their more advantaged peers as they enter kindergarten.

Some studies indicate that children enrolled in Head Start do make some progress, but at the same time we need to understand that we still have some work ahead of us in closing the readiness gap. With this in mind, the bill before us today will strengthen Head Start's academic standards by emphasizing cognitive development and the results of scientifically based research in topics critical to children's school readiness.

The measure also aims to 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. That's great news for those children who will be participating in the Head Start program years down the road.

I have also been disappointed that in recent years we have heard many stories that have marred Head Start's good name. In various communities we found that financial abuse within Head Start centers is far too commonplace. In fact, a March 2005 report from the Government Accountability Office warned that the financial control system in the Head Start program is flawed in failing to prevent multi-million-dollar financial abuses that cheat poor children, taxpayers and law-abiding Head Start operators.

In the 109th Congress, Republicans led the House in passing a Head Start reauthorization bill that addressed these weaknesses in the Head Start financial control system. I believe the bill before us moves in that direction as well. It will require Head Start operators to meet a range of financial disclosure requirements as a condition of receiving and keeping their Federal Head Start grants. Furthermore, under this bill, grantees would have to be overseen by a local governance board that provides direction and actively oversees program activities. These are positive steps to ensure abuses are minimized, and that taxpayers' funds and the children those funds are meant to serve are protected.

Mr. Chairman, while this bill does represent overall progress for Head Start, I would be remiss if I did not note that there are some significant flaws in it, flaws that I hope we can correct before this measure is sent to the President. For example, under this measure the majority has decided to expand Head Start eligibility to those who the program was not designed to serve. Ultimately I believe this policy change may have the impact of leaving many children who live in poverty underserved by Head Start programs. This runs contrary to what we all believe to be the mission of this program and will do nothing to strengthen Head Start services; if anything, it will weaken them.

I am also disappointed that the House will not have an opportunity

today to vote on an amendment offered yesterday at the Rules Committee by Mr. Fortuno, to protect the civil liberties of faith-based providers by clarifying that these institutions are not required to relinquish their Civil Rights Act hiring protections when they participate in the Federal Head Start program. These protections are already the law of the land with regard to various Federal programs, including those impacting welfare reform and Community Service Block Grants. In fact, President Clinton himself signed such language into the law.

The Fortuno amendment also would have ensured religious organizations would not be forced to remove art, icons, Scripture or other symbols in order to receive Federal Head Start grants. Barring these providers from fully participating in Head Start is not only a disservice to the faith-based providers, but also to the children who depend on the Head Start program and the taxpayers who should know that Federal dollars are granted to the best available service providers, faith-based or otherwise. Instead, the majority thrust upon us an amendment that praises the work of faith-based organizations, but does not protect their civil rights. It's literally all talk and no action. Indeed, the only people protected by this amendment are certain members of the majority party seeking political cover. Faith-based providers are left to fend for themselves.

Mr. Chairman, in spite of these flaws, which I hope we can correct in time, the Improving Head Start Act remains a solid reauthorization measure. Head Start is a good program that is capable of achieving even greater results, and the bill before us will help us get there.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes at this time to the senior Republican on the subcommittee. I am proud of all the work that he has done to bring this bill to the floor last Congress and this Congress, the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle).

Mr. Chairman, we have no further speakers, and we reserve the balance of our time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle).

Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleagues for a productive debate on the Improving Head Start Act. As many of us have noted throughout the day, Head Start is a good program that can be made even better, and that is why we are here. I hope everybody listened carefully to Mr. Castle as he talked about the importance of the upcoming amendments we are going to discuss because they can make the bill better.

This program serves nearly 1 million underprivileged children and eases the divide between the haves and the have-nots when it comes to preparing them for kindergarten, which will give them a good start for their life. The bipartisan support we have seen for the bill today should lend all of us confidence that the program will remain on a solid foundation for generations to come.

By reauthorizing Head Start, we are voting to build upon improvements that were made by the House Republicans in past Congresses by strengthening academic standards by emphasizing cognitive development using scientifically-based research; improving teacher quality by ensuring more Head Start teachers have bachelor degrees and are adequately trained in early childhood development; increasing financial disclosure requirements by Head Start operators as custodians of Federal Head Start grants; and requiring local governance boards to actively oversee grantees.

These are common-sense reforms that I wholeheartedly support. That said, this bill remains flawed, and soon, we will turn to a number of amendments that highlight those flaws. One such amendment that we will not be able to discuss unfortunately is one offered to the Rules Committee by Mr. Fortuno yesterday. The Fortuno amendment is a principled one. It clearly protects the hiring privileges of faith- based providers and protects their civil rights to display religious symbols, rights that are sheltered under the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Yet, we will not be able to debate and vote on it today, a major statement about the real priorities of this purportedly fair, open and honest Congress.

Nonetheless, Mr. Chairman, I still believe the Improving Head Start Act is a worthy piece of legislation, deserving

of the same bipartisan support it received from the Education and Labor Committee just 2 months ago.

Before I conclude, I would like to thank a number of current and former members of my staff who have made this bill possible. First, to Kate Houston, who no longer works on Capitol Hill, let alone on our committee staff. Years ago, Kate helped craft legislation that closely tracks the bill we are poised to pass today.

Stephanie Milburn, who left our staff earlier this year to join Mr. Boehner's team, played an integral role in bringing this bill to where it is today, and I thank her as well.

Finally, I thank Susan Ross and James Bergeron for their work in helping to bring this bill across the finish line.

I have already mentioned thanks to Mr. Miller, Mr. Kildee, Mr. Castle, and I would like to thank their staff also for working with us so closely on this bill.

The team effort that we have demonstrated on this issue, and our ability to work closely with our Democratic counterparts, yielded the product we are poised to vote on this afternoon.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the gentlewoman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I believe that the amendment will improve the underlying bill. Let me just give one example that can come from her amendment.

Delaware State University is an example of a Head Start HBCU partnership that nurtures a continual goal of providing high quality educational experiences to Head Start participants by enhancing the competence of teachers and teachers' aids; improving parental confidence and life management skills to ensure that the work of Head Start is continued in the home; and improving the administrative, managerial and leadership skills of centers directly so the Head Start resources, including personnel, are used as efficiently as possible.

We think that her amendment will further this help, and we think it improves the bill. We would be happy to support the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, before I came to Washington, I served in local government on the school board, on the city council. I have great respect for local leadership. I don't know what we're afraid of.

Sometimes I get the feeling that people here in Washington feel that all wisdom resides within the Beltway. I just think that to give the opportunity to a maximum of eight States to try to expand and bring creativity to a program that's good, to make it better, I think is nothing but a good thing, and it's on the upside.

I commend the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price) for this amendment. I encourage all to support it.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, while I support the intent of the amendment, which I think is good and which we included in last year's bill that we passed, the higher ed reauthorization bill, that I think is a better vehicle for this particular amendment.

I would encourage the Member to withdraw it and put this in the higher ed bill when we move later this year to reauthorize that. It fits better there.

We did a study, and we found that most of the education programs don't come under the Department of Education, they come under 39 other bureaucracies throughout this town. And it would be, I think, moving to try to have things more organized. It fits better under the Higher Ed Act, and I would encourage that the gentleman put it under that. Otherwise, I would oppose this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to the amendment, even though I support the gentlelady's amendment.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the gentlelady's amendment, which revises the training and technical assistance program for Early Head Start by ensuring that training and technical assistance are provided by entities with specific expertise in infant and toddler development. I believe that that makes a stronger bill, and I thank her for her amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition, even though I support the gentleman's amendment.

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

I believe that this is an improvement to the bill and will assist Head Start programs which are required to spend 10 percent of their funds on services to disabled students in improving the quality of their programs to serve young children.

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

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I think this is a good amendment that Mr. Putnam has put forth. I don't think we should fear competition. I think the idea that once a program is granted, it should have lifelong tenure, I think, is something we should avoid. I think competition and accountability is good. Once every 5 years, programs that are good should not fear competing to keep the program for another 5 years. I think it is always good to have somebody coming up behind you that is going to make you do a little bit better.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

And I have seen the work that he has done over the years in protecting children. I think that children are our most vital asset. And because of the risk out there of the kind of lawbreakers that he mentioned that we could eliminate by having a good, solid

background check, I think this is a tremendous amendment. I think it really strengthens the bill.

I thank the gentleman for his work on behalf of children, and I urge support of the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment allows grantees to negotiate a reduced enrollment level with the Secretary of HHS if the amounts appropriated for Head Start do not exceed the prior year's appropriation or include an increase commensurate with

the cost-of-living allowance. In effect, this amendment allows grantees to cut services for children and kick children out of the Head Start program if Congress does not appropriate ever-higher funding amounts for Head Start.

I think all of us want to service as many children as we can, and we want to have as high an appropriation level as we can, but if we fail to appropriate higher numbers, I don't think we should take it out on the children. I ask my colleagues, is Head Start an early education program or a jobs program?

We believe the purpose of Head Start is to help our Nation's most vulnerable youngsters lay the foundation for a very successful academic future. This misguided amendment has the potential for denying these children Head Start services, and I therefore urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished ranking member of the subcommittee for his kind words and for yielding. I also obviously thank Mr. Miller and Mr. Kildee for their work on this, and Ms. Woolsey, who has worked on it before with me. And I am pleased to be able to be here.

I support the legislation before us today which will reauthorize the Head Start program. And like almost every other Member of this body, I believe strongly in the benefits of this program. I trust that H.R. 1429, the Improving Head Start Act, will improve Head Start by emphasizing that every child, regardless of their 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 over 1,600 grantees across the United States. In my home State of Delaware, Head Start programs serve over 2,000 children, with over 800 additional 3- and 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 that Head Start can produce even greater results for children. Students who attend Head Start programs do start school more prepared than those with similar backgrounds who do not attend Head Start. However, Head Start students continue to enter kindergarten well below national norms of school readiness. By moving to close the school readiness gap, this bill will improve results for almost a million Head Start students across the Nation.

Toward the goal of closing the readiness gap, the Improving Head Start 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; prereading knowledge, including an interest in and appreciation of books, reading and writing; premathematics 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 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.

As I am sure some of my colleagues know, this bill does not include a proposed State demonstration project, which was incorporated into the legislation the House passed in 2003. I believe strongly, however, in the policy goals of increased coordination and integration that were and continue to be at the heart of efforts to remove barriers and prevent collaboration between Head Start and successful State and local early childhood initiatives. I believe the proposal to be offered by Tom Price of Georgia would foster integration among quality early childhood programs, and plan on supporting Mr. Price's amendment.

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 also 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, and we must ensure that all children are receiving the same quality education. In this new era, Head Start should be working toward integrating service 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-12 academic 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 the 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 strongly in the Head Start program, particularly because of how the program helps children later in their lives. Despite these stories, we have also heard many stories of programs in which funds were being diverted away from this purpose.

In 2005, the GAO 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 some helpful recommendations on how we can strengthen the oversight structure to prevent abuses and protect good grantees. They 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 of how to eliminate financial mismanagement, we are increasing the competitive nature of the current program. The competition requirements in the Improving Head Start Act will help to alleviate these problems, but, more importantly, will drive program improvement across the board. Program improvements will ultimately help thousands of children nationwide, which should always be our goal.

As I said at the outset, Head Start is an important and very popular program. The importance of early childhood education services cannot be overstated. I believe strongly that the reforms sought in H.R. 1429 will go a long way to institute needed reforms in an already successful program.

I urge my colleagues to support the legislation, and I thank all those who worked on this, including the staff, and I look forward to the passage of the legislation today.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the wonderful Representative from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers).

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price).

Mr. Chairman, just very briefly, we are about to pursue I think a dozen amendments here. All of us had a chance to work on this, had a chance to look at it. I think some of them are very good amendments. I think some are relatively neutral. I think some are maybe a little detrimental to the bill.

I just hope that everybody will listen carefully to the amendments and will not end up being a party vote necessarily and we do what is in the best interests of these children that we have talked about so frequently in the last hour or so.

There is real significance to some of these amendments. I think it is very, very important that we understand the context of them.

I would just like to also finally say at the end that, in my judgment, if you look at any aspect of Head Start that this underlying legislation basically improves the opportunity for young children who are within the parameters of the Head Start program, and I hope that all of us will be supportive of that.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I strongly support this amendment. I have a tremendous amount of respect for the chairman of the committee, Mr. Miller, but I disagree with him on his basic premise here.

I do believe that the Governors of this country, which I had the chance to be one, seems eons ago now, but a few years ago, have a tremendous and strong interest in the children of their States and in the education of those children.

I also believe that in the time since Head Start was created, that many of these Governors have put together prekindergarten, kindergarten, early childhood programs. I think they are ready to move forward with this. I think in many instances they have been competitive with, if not even ahead of, Head Start. We basically backed off from what the White House proposed originally, which is to give all 50 States the option to do this, to a pilot program of eight States.

There are requirements that those eight States match these funds, in fact, put in extra money in order to be able to enter into this program of dealing with the Head Start-type programs. The State demo would be limited to States with a demonstrated investment in early childhood education and established existing preschool system.

You can't just jump into this and take the money or whatever. You have to show you are ready for it, and that you are ready to do it, and you are ready to put the money into it. I believe strongly that those States should be afforded the opportunity. I actually think the competition with some of the Head Start providers would be positive in terms of developing the opportunity for young children.

I would hope that everybody would stop for a moment and take time for a moment to listen to this amendment and the arguments pro and con before votes are cast on it. I believe Mr. Price has demonstrated through Georgia, as well as other States, that this is something which could be beneficial to the children, which is really what this is all about, hopefully helping those children in poverty so that they could move ahead.

I hope everybody will support the amendment.

I thank my friend, Mr. Blunt, for yielding.

On Monday, the House will meet at 12 noon in pro forma session. No legislative business.

On Tuesday the House will meet at 10:30 for morning hour business and noon for legislative business. We will consider several bills under suspension of the rules. A complete list of those bills will be made available by the close of business tomorrow.

On Wednesday and Thursday the House will meet at 10 a.m.

On Friday no votes are expected, assuming we complete our business scheduled for Wednesday and Thursday.

We'll consider H.R. 1429, the Head Start reauthorization bill; H.R. 1867, the National Science Foundation reauthorization bill; H.R. 1868, the NIST reauthorization bill; and H.R. 1592, the Local Law Enforcement and Hate Crimes Prevention Act.

Votes could occur as early as 12 noon. It will be a full day. Even though we are not here Monday, usually you're in 6:30 the next day. But because of the shortness of the week, we will be in, as I indicated, at 10:30 a.m. for morning hour and then 12 for business. There could be votes as early as 12 noon.

The answer is I have not talked to Rules Committee Chairman

Slaughter about the specific nature of those rules. But, as you know, the Rules Committee is scheduled to meet on the Head Start bill and two science bills on Tuesday, and they will do the rules then.

We'll do the hate crimes bill rule later in the week, probably Wednesday, for consideration on Thursday.

But I understand the gentleman's observation that there was significant debate on both these bills. There are issues that a number of people want to raise on the floor, and I would think that the committee would want to try to make in order some amendments to accomplish that objective.

Obviously, to some degree, that is dependent upon how quickly the President acts. Obviously, he has a number of days to act. But our presumption is he will act soon. And one of the reasons that we have put the time of 12 noon, I mean, it depends upon how early in the day he vetoes that bill. We may have it back here very soon. I talked to the majority leader in the Senate just an hour ago. It's his expectation that that vote will occur today. It's our expectation that we will send the bill down either late Monday, obviously the funeral is occurring and people won't be here, or very, very early Tuesday so that the President will have it Tuesday. And then it will depend upon how soon the President acts. But it would be our expectation that we would act quickly on any action the President took if he vetoes the bill.

We, of course, as you know, are hopeful that he will sign the bill. We think it gives all the money for the troops that the President has asked for, and then some additional monies, and it does not either micromanage the troops or set any precipitous withdrawal dates. But obviously the President has expressed a contrary opinion.

So I think you're right; I think the expectation, based upon the President's representation, is that he is going to veto that bill if it comes to him, and we will have to consider that veto.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Of course, as you know, that bill was scheduled for consideration last week. We did not get to that bill. We took it off the calendar.

Let me find out.

I am not sure of the exact sequencing. But let me say this in answer to your question, because your question was really not necessarily about this specific bill, but about general process.

Clearly, we are trying to pursue a process which gives notice to Members about what they are going to consider.

As you noted, I hope, we waited the full 24 hours on the supplemental conference report so that Members will have the full 24 hours. And as a matter of fact, we were almost to the hour at 5:50 p.m. yesterday. And although there were some Members whom it had caused a problem to because of their schedules, we had said we were going to give 24 hours' notice, and we did give 24 hours' notice, and we want to continue to do that.

On the amending process, obviously, we are going to many times require that amendments be filed timely so that Members have an opportunity to see what amendments are going to be asked of the Rules Committee. But we will pursue what we believe to be, and hope in consultation with you, is a reasonable time frame to expect people to notice their amendments. Clearly, they have to be out of committee. Clearly, they have to have time to see the bill and prepare amendments. But we want to have amendments in many instances noted so that the membership can know what they are considering.

If the gentleman would yield.

Certainly we want to make a process where all Members on either side of the aisle have the opportunity to note their amendments in a fashion that does not put them in a place where it makes it very difficult for them. On the other hand, obviously, it is not just the floor that considers it. It is the Rules Committee that has to; so you have to consider when the Rules Committee is going to meet as well.

And although I appreciate the gentleman's observation about Fridays, I have heard a lot about what we can or cannot do on Fridays, I will tell my friend, or what we should be doing on Fridays.

But having said that, assuming a Member is working with his staff and/or the committee's staff or CRS in preparing his or her amendment, obviously if they get it ready and the Rules Committee is going to meet Monday or Tuesday, an expectation that it would be filed by close of business on Friday I don't think is unreasonable, even if we are not here on Fridays, because presumably their staff has been working with them on their amendment and

can make sure that amendment gets filed even if the Member is not physically present here.

Will my friend yield?

Because you said as long as the bill has been available at least a week before. I want to think about that timeframe. That was sort of an add-on in your comment. I don't want my silence to be perceived as, oh, yes, okay, that's a procedure we can follow. I am not sure we can follow that. But certainly the substance of your comment we do want to follow, and that is give Members a reasonable opportunity to prepare an amendment to a bill. Obviously they considered it in committee and they reported it out of committee, but there may be times, as you observed, when that doesn't happen and it goes more quickly.

I will try to be precise so that your response will be germane to my observations.

Let me say that with respect to the GSE bill, there has been a reference to another committee. That committee has not reported out that bill, so obviously we have to find out what it does.

On your general question, let me say it is my hope during the next 30 days prior to the Memorial Day break there will be a number of significant things we will do. We mentioned this coming week's work. We will start the appropriations process. I am hopeful that we will adopt a budget resolution conference report by that time. If we do not, as I indicated last week to you, it would be my hope that we would have the Appropriations Committee move ahead and mark bills to the House-passed level, as we have done in the past, and deem its passage.

I would hope that we would pass a number of appropriations bills in May. And as the gentleman also knows, as we have historically done, we will be considering the defense authorization bill in May.

So appropriation bills, the authorization bill. There will be some other pieces of legislation, but I expect them to be the major focus of the balance of time between now and when we take the Memorial Day break.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 349 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (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.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H. Res. 349 and insert extraneous materials into the Record.

Mr. Speaker, this rule permits the House to consider the National Science Foundation Authorization Act of 2007. This important legislation will be considered under an open rule with a preprinting requirement, allowing any Member to submit changes or improvements to the bill.

Chairman Gordon, Chairman Baird, Ranking Member Hall, Ranking Member Ehlers, and the Science and Technology Committee have put together an excellent product, and I look forward to an open and constructive debate.

I am proud that today's debate will shine a light on the National Science Foundation. The National Science Foundation is truly one of the Federal Government's greatest accomplishments. It features a rich tradition that has supported talented young investigators, made America the world leader in basic science and innovation, and laid the groundwork for the Nation's economic strength.

This reauthorization also represents another important step in the implementation of the innovation agenda. By boosting scientific research and development, moving the Nation toward a clean energy economy, promoting broadband deployment, and supporting small business entrepreneurs, the innovation agenda will keep our promise to maintain and strengthen America's competitiveness and leadership in the global economy.

At present the National Science Foundation supports research and education activities at over 2,000 universities colleges, K-12 schools, and research institutions throughout the country. It is unique among our Federal research enterprises in that NSF supports scientists and engineers across all disciplines.

In a given year, NSF will support about 200,000 scientists, engineers, teachers, and students. That is why NSF has led to groundbreaking research in such varied fields as genetics, computer science, information technology, nanotechnology, and climate change.

By way of example, in my district, NSF funds the UC Davis Center for Biophotonics Science & Technology. The center features dynamic and innovative research that harnesses light to facilitate revolutionary advances in biomedical science. The potential applications for medical research and treatment are groundbreaking and will offer hope to thousands of our constituents. That is the kind of research NSF supports.

I would also like to point out that NSF resources are distributed on a competitive peer review basis; so an objective process allows for only the most worthy proposal to receive funding. This is the best kind of investment the Federal Government can make because the return on this investment is tremendous. By stimulating innovative research, we create educational opportunities for promising students and drive cutting-edge research throughout the country. There is no better way to fuel the economy and create quality jobs. That is why the National Science Foundation has broad and bipartisan support in Congress.

This reauthorization provides $21 billion at NSF for fiscal years 2008 through 2010. In doing so, it keeps us on the path to double the National Science Foundation funding by 2017. This was a key recommendation of the highly respected National Academy's report on U.S. competitiveness, ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm.'' And this boost is urgently needed, since today NSF can only fund about a quarter of the grant proposals that are submitted.

The bill also creates a pilot program targeted at new investigators so we can bring more talented young people into scientific research fields, and it directs NSF to facilitate public-private partnerships, a proven method to leveraging Federal investment and bolstering American competitiveness.

Finally, this reauthorization bill is on the Agency's legacy of promoting math and science education by including the provisions of H.R. 362, the 10,000 Teachers, 10 Million Minds Math and Science Scholarship Act, which the House passed last week.

With that, I thank the Science Committee once again for this excellent legislation. I look forward to a robust debate on this bill, and I hope we can work with the Senate to get it on the President's desk in short order.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very much looking forward to the upcoming debate on the National Science Foundation reauthorizing that this rule allows. In discussing the various programs and initiatives at NSF, we will demonstrate how the Federal Government can strategically and effectively drive scientific discovery and innovation.

The importance of the National Science Foundation and its mission must not be underestimated. While America has been blessed with abundant natural resources and defensible borders, it is the innovative spirit of our citizens that has driven this Nation's leadership in the global economy.

Throughout our history, we have been willing to experiment, to take risks, to constantly redefine what is possible. That tradition has given us a competitive advantage over other countries that has created prosperity for the Nation, improving the quality of life for all our constituents.

As Members know well, our leadership in the global economy is at risk today. While we face rising threats from countries like India and China, we have also failed to make the necessary investments in education, science, and research and development to maintain the foundation of knowledge that has served us so well in the past.

This NSF reauthorization takes great strides to remedy that neglect. Most importantly, by committing to double NSF funding over the next 10 years, we demonstrate that ensuring the Nation's competitiveness is of the highest priority.

As the House continues to consider items from the innovation agenda, the importance we place on competitiveness will be demonstrated again and again.

With that, I look forward to today's debate and continuing to move forward on measures like this one that will bolster innovation and competitiveness.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the 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.