Calling on the Government of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam to immediately and unconditionally release Father Nguyen Van Ly, Nguyen Van Dai, Le Thi Cong Nhan, Le Quoc Quan, and other political prisoners and prisoners of conscience, and for other purposes.

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

Vietnam has long been known as a major violator of human rights. The U.S. House of Representatives went on record in the 109th Congress condemning and deploring the violations of human rights in Vietnam and strongly urging the Vietnamese Government to consider the implications of its human rights abuses for the broader relationship between the United States and Vietnam. I point out parenthetically that the House almost a year ago to the day passed a resolution that I sponsored similar to this one, H. Con. Res. 320, on April 6, 2006. There was some initial improvement. Regrettably, there has been a snapback to its original and even worsened situation when it comes to human rights observance. That is why I have sponsored H. Res. 243--calling on Vietnam to immediately and unconditionally release Fr. Ly, Mr. Dai, Mrs. Whan and other political prisoners and prisoners of conscience.

Mr. Speaker, the U.S. Department of State in its ``Country Reports on Human Rights Practices'' notes that the human rights record in Vietnam remains ``unsatisfactory,'' and that government officials continued ``to commit serious abuses.'' The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom stated in its 2006 annual report that Vietnam ``continues to commit systematic and egregious violations of freedom of religion and belief.''

However, in November 2006, pursuant to a boatload of assurances and solemn promises that the human rights situation would improve dramatically, Vietnam became the first country to be removed from the list of Countries of Particular Concern, so designated pursuant to the International Religious Freedom Act. Late last year, the U.S. Congress agreed to Vietnam becoming an official member of the World Trade Organization, and a group of Asian countries at the United Nations has nominated Vietnam as the sole regional candidate for a nonpermanent seat on the U.S. Security Council.

Despite this flurry of international recognition and tangible economic benefit, despite the hopes of many, including and especially the Vietnamese people, Vietnam has reverted to its repressive practices and has arrested, imprisoned, and imposed lengthy prison sentences on numerous individuals whose only crime has been to seek democratic reform and respect for fundamental human rights in their country.

The crackdown in Vietnam, Mr. Speaker, on religious and human rights activists is unconscionable and of course it is unnecessary. I have been to Vietnam, Mr. Speaker, on many human rights trips, and chaired several hearings on it as well. But on one of the most recent trips, I actually met with Father Nguyen Van Ly who recently got 8 years in prison; I also met with Nguyen Van Dai and about 60 other human rights activists and religious leaders and people who are pressing for reform in that country.

I was struck by how smart, talented, and kindhearted these people were. I believe they are Vietnam's best and brightest and bravest. I was amazed how they harbor no malice, no hate towards the government; nor do they hate the government leaders. They only want a better future for their country, and each and every one of the people I met with was committed, and is committed, to peaceful nonviolent reform.

But just one month ago, on March 30, the government sentenced Father Ly to 8 years imprisonment after subjecting him to a sham trial for distributing ``antigovernment materials.''

When I met with Father Ly he was under house arrest, he sounded just like the activists I had met and spoke to during the dark years of the Warsaw Pact and the Soviet Union. During those years of domination by communism, men like Vaclav Havel, Lech Walesa, and Anatoly Shcharansky--people who, like the folks in Charter 77 in the Czech Republic--only wanted freedom, democracy, and human rights. None of them wanted violence, and yet we see that men like Father Ly now get 8 years imprisonment on top of the 13 years he has previously served in the Gulag on trumped-up charges. Jailing dissidents is a window into the malice and evil of the government of Vietnam.

As I mentioned, attorney, Nguyen Van Dai, a tenacious campaigner for human rights who uses the law, international and domestic, to press his cause, nonviolently--he's totally nonviolent, hates violence, abhors it, stands up and tries to use the law to try to get remedies for his clients. He, too, is now awaiting a trial which will be another kangaroo court and a sham deal at that.

Another human rights lawyer, Le Thi Cong Nhan, is a labor activist. And according to reports, she too now will undergo another one of these bogus trials.

We know that Vietnam, due to our robust trade and recently enacted PNTR and their ascension into the WTO, we know that trade will increase between the United States and Vietnam. So when this lawyer seeks to be an activist for what the ILO and all of us in this room believe to be fundamental freedoms like collective bargaining, the secret police raids her office and drags her away. She is now awaiting another one of these kangaroo trials.

Another victim of the crackdown is Le Quoc Quan. Here's a person who just returned to Vietnam in early March after completing a fellowship right here in Washington at the National Endowment for Democracy. He was arrested on March 8, apparently for the crime of engaging in research on civil society development at NED. And all of us who know NED know what a great, completely transparent and human rights rule of law oriented organization NED is, a group funded, by this Congress and by the executive branch. It's a great organization. Quam goes back to victim and is basically arrested soon after his arrival and now he is awaiting a trial as well.

Mr. Speaker, a little over a year ago, a group called Block 8406 devised a statement of human rights principles. It reminds me of Charter 77. Brave men and women banded together united by a statement of principles, human rights concerns. We've seen such expressions in Cuba, we've seen it all over the world in despotic countries. These brave men and women sign on the dotted line, in a way not unlike our own forefathers who signed the Declaration of Independence. In Vietnam's case, they are pertaning for reforms. And openness. And I have read it. It is very, very simple and eloquent and to the point. It's all about human rights and democratization. And for being part of 8406, other activists are now being caught in this dragnet.

I would note parenthetically, Father Ly was also a signer of this Block 8406 a manifesto on Freedom and Democracy for Vietnam. The 8406 stands for April 8, 2006. That's when they founded this courageous organization.

H. Res. 243, the resolution before us, Mr. Speaker, is intended to send a critical and timely message to the Vietnamese government that these serious violations of basic human rights are absolutely unacceptable and bring profound dishonor on the government of Vietnam.

These human rights violations cannot be overlooked. They cannot be trivialized. These human rights violations which are ongoing, and they occur as we meet here today, cannot continue without equally serious consequences. It also urges our Government to make human rights a top priority in our bilateral relations with Vietnam. I do believe this recent snap back to human rights abuse underscores the unwitting naivete on the part of some who think if we just trade, if we just open our pocket books, dictatorships will automatically matriculate into democracies and freedom loving human rights respecting countries. It hasn't happened anywhere. Not in the PRC, it has not happened in Vietnam and it is not happening anywhere where that naive view is embraced.

So we've got to send some clear messages. Human rights do matter. And we will stand up for those who are mistreated. We will stand with the oppressed and not with the oppressor.

Finally, I've heard it from informed and very reliable sources that some of the recent jailees, the human rights activists that are now behind bars suffering torture and mistreatment, that they are being told that the United States really doesn't care about them; that we've walked away. I have heard this on a couple of occasions from people who have very good inside information. They are actually being taunted with that kind of mantra.

I want to tell the presecuted--you are not forgotten. It's a bipartisan expression today, you are no forgotten. We care deeply about these human rights activists and we will not forget you. And we will do all that is humanly possible, God willing, to effectuate your release and hopefully, some day, see a free and democratic Vietnam.

At this point in the Record, I would like to include 8406--manifesto on Freedom and Democracy for Human Rights.

Manifesto 2006 on Freedom and Democracy for Vietnam by 118 Democracy

Activists Inside Vietnam--April 8, 2006

Dear Compatriots Inside and Outside of Vietnam: We, the

undersigned, representing hundreds of Vietnamese democracy

activists inside Vietnam and all those Vietnamese citizens

yearning for True Democracy for Vietnam, hereby unanimously

proclaim the following:

I. The Current Realities of Vietnam

1. In the August 1945 Revolution, the entire Vietnamese

nation made a choice for national independence and not

socialism. Vietnam's Declaration of Independence on September

2, 1945 did not contain a single word about socialism or

communism. The two mainsprings behind the success of that

Revolution were the Vietnamese people's aspiration for

national independence and also the desire to fill the power

vacuum that existed after the Japanese surrender on August

15, 1945, following their overthrow of the French colonial

administration on March 9, 1945.

It is thus clear that the Vietnamese communists had

abandoned the main objective of the August Revolution. As a

result, the Vietnamese peoples' aspiration for self-

determination was disregarded. There have been two occasions,

one in 1954 in North Vietnam and the other in 1975 in all of

Vietnam, when there were good opportunities for the

Vietnamese nation to set a new course towards a true

democracy. Sadly, the Communist Party of Vietnam (CPV),

failed to take advantage of those opportunities. This failure

is due to the well-known fact, as propounded by Lenin, that

once a dictatorship of the proletariat has been installed,

its very first function is to foster violence and repressive

terror!

2. On September 2, 1945 in Hanoi, Ho Chi Minh, President of

the Interim Government of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam,

solemnly declared to the [Vietnamese] nation and the world

that: ``All men are created equal, endowed by their Creator

with certain inalienable Rights, among them the Right to

Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness,'' undying words

taken from the U.S. Declaration of Independence of 1776.

Interpreted broadly, this sentence can mean that all nations

are created equal and that they are entitled to Life, Freedom

and Happiness. The 1791 French Declaration on Human and Civil

Rights also proclaims: ``All people are born free and have

equal rights, and they must remain free and equal in all

rights.'' These are undeniable truths . . .'' (This quote is

taken directly from the September 2, 1945 Vietnamese

Declaration of Independence).

Nevertheless, the communist government of Vietnam began to

trample upon these sacred rights the moment they came to

power.

3. By February 1951, the Vietnam Workers Party (VWP, now

rechristened the CPV) proclaimed in a Manifesto at its Second

Party Congress that: ``The ideology of the VWP is Marxism-

Leninism.'' This was something that was even more clearly

expressed in the Party Bylaws, under the rubric of ``Goal and

Leading Principles'': ``The Vietnam Workers Party takes the

ideology of Marx-Engels-Lenin-Stalin and the thought of Mao

Zedong in combination with the revolutionary realities of

Vietnam to be its ideological foundation and compass for all

Party activities.

Since then, especially in the North after 1954, and in the

entire country after April 30, 1975, the specter of Communism

has been imposed on the Vietnamese nation. For all practical

purposes, this specter has been used to deprive the

Vietnamese people of all their human rights. And even today,

its overwhelming influence is evident in the spiritual as

well as the material spheres of the Vietnamese nation.

II. Universal Laws Affecting All Societies

1. History has demonstrated that under every totalitarian

regime, whether communist or non-communist, all democratic

rights and freedoms are mercilessly repressed, the difference

being only in the degree of repression. Unfortunately, to

this day the Vietnamese nation is still one of the few that

is under the rule of a totalitarian communist regime. This

fact is unabashedly declared in Article 4 of the Socialist

Republic of Vietnam (SRV) Constitution, which says: ``The

CPV. . . follows Marxism-Leninism and the thought of Ho Chi

Minh, and it is the leading force of the state and society.''

It is on the basis of this article that democratic rights and

freedoms of the Vietnamese people have been extremely

curtailed.

2. The power structure in Vietnam rejects competition and

totally minimizes the possibility of its replacement by

something else. This record has helped accelerate the

degeneration of government, and its transformation from what

it started out to be. Because there are no rules and

principles regarding fair competition in the current

political culture of the country, election after election,

people have not been allowed to choose the most deserving

individuals and political parties to represent them. For that

reason the leadership, management and operational set-ups

become ever more corrupt, and can now be compared to a creaky

piece of equipment from the center down to the localities. As

a result, Vietnam is now a nation that has fallen way behind

other nations in the region and in the world. In the

prevailing environment, this shameful national performance

and other nation-wide problems are beyond correction. The

problem of all problems, the source of all evils, resides in

the fact that the CPV is now the one and only political force

leading Vietnam! The realities of history have shown that

any country, once it has fallen into the orbit of

Communism, ends up in ruin and misery. The Soviet Union

itself, the very cradle of world communism, has, together

with other former Eastern European countries valiantly

overcome its own weaknesses to rediscover the correct path

leading them forward.

3. We all understand that no one can remake history, but it

is possible to redirect its course. What is even more

important is that through history's lessons, one can find the

correct orientation for the nation's future. The path chosen

by the CPV for the Vietnamese nation was designed in haste,

and

thoughtlessly imposed. That is why today, it is necessary to

choose once again a new path for our nation. And a path

chosen by the entire nation must necessarily be better than

the one chosen by just one person or one group of persons.

Given that the CPV is, after all, only one component of the

nation, it should not claim to speak on behalf of the entire

nation! Considering that for almost half a century, from 1954

to 2006, the ruling party in Vietnam has usurped the voice of

the nation, it is by no means a legitimate government! Why?

Because there had simply not been a single free election

during all that time in Vietnam.

On the basis of the above realities and the stated

universal laws, being fully conscious of our responsibilities

as citizens, and faced with the nation's fate, we would like

to declare the following to our compatriots both inside and

outside of Vietnam:

III. Objective, Methods and Significance of Our Struggle

1. The highest objective in the struggle to fight for

freedom and democracy for the Vietnamese nation today is to

make sure that the present political regime in Vietnam is

changed in a fundamental way, not through incremental

``renovation'' steps or, even worse, through insignificant

touch-ups here and there. Concretely speaking, it must be a

change from the monolithic, one-party, non-competitive regime

that we have at the present time to a pluralistic and

multiparty system; one in which there is healthy competition,

in accordance with the legitimate requirements of the nation,

including at least a clear separation of powers among the

Legislative, Executive and Judicial branches of government.

This would be in tune with international criteria and the

experiences and lessons Mankind has learned from highly

respected and successful democracies.

The concrete objective is to re-establish the following

fundamental rights of the people:

The Freedom of Information and Opinion as defined in the

United Nations' International Covenant on Civil and Political

Rights, ratified on December 16, 1966, and endorsed by

Vietnam on September 24, 1982, Article 19.2: ``Everyone

shall have the right to freedom of opinion; this right

shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart

information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of

frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the

form of art, or through any other media of his choice.''

This means that political parties, organizations and

individuals all have the freedom to express their opinions

through the printed media, radio, television and any other

mass media without having to wait for prior approval by

the government.

The Freedom to Assemble, form Associations, Political

Parties, Vote and Stand for Elected Offices as defined in the

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article

25: ``Every citizen shall have the right and the opportunity

(a) to take part in the conduct of public affairs, directly

or through freely chosen representatives; (b) to vote and to

be elected in genuine periodic elections which shall be by

universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret

ballot, guaranteeing the free expression of the will of the

electors.'' This means that political parties of every

orientation are allowed to fairly compete in a genuine

pluralistic and multiparty democracy.

The Freedom to participate in Independent Labor Unions and

the Right to Legitimate Strikes in accordance with the

International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural

Rights ratified by the United Nations on December 16, 1966,

Articles 7 and 8: ``The States Parties to the present

Covenant recognize the right of everyone to the enjoyment of

just and favorable conditions of work . . ., the right of

everyone to form trade unions and join the trade union of his

choice, subject only to the rules of the organization

concerned, for the promotion and protection of his economic

and social interests . . . [including] the right to strike .

. .'' These Labor Unions must be independent of, and in

practice, not subservient to the state.

The Freedom of Religion as defined in the International

Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 18:

``Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought,

conscience and religion. This right shall include the freedom

to have or adopt a Religion or Belief of his choice, and the

freedom, either individually or in community with others and

in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in

worship, observance, practice and teaching.'' These religions

must also operate independently; they cannot be made the

instruments of the state.

2. The method of this struggle must be peaceful and non-

violent. The Vietnamese nation must itself be actively

engaged in it. Of course, we are extremely thankful for the

warm and ever more effective support of all our friends in

the world. Using modern information media and through ever

larger international exchanges, we will seek in every way to

help our compatriot to fully understand the issues involved.

Once this has been achieved, they surely will know how to act

appropriately and effectively.

3. This struggle is meant to make the Right Cause triumph

over the Bad Cause, and, Progress over Backwardness. There

are popular movements that are currently trying to use the

laws of life and the tendencies of our time in order to

defeat those evil forces that are trying to go against these

tendencies and laws. Whether the CPV marches hand-in-hand

with the Nation or not will depend on whether it is

objective, fair, enlightened and modest enough to accept the

principle of equality in a fair competition. The one-party

political regime must be once and for all buried in the

dustbin of history. From such a departing point, the

Vietnamese nation will be able to find its best citizens and

the most capable political organizations after each election

to lead it. The ``total triumph of the right cause''

principle will be established, and one's individual life will

become better, our society more humane, and our Compatriots

will live together on more friendly terms.

We hope that this Manifesto would foster the positive

contributions of our compatriots living outside of Vietnam

and the support of our international friends. We are

sincerely grateful and call on the United Nations, national

parliaments, governments, international organizations and our

friends all over the world to continue supporting

enthusiastically and effectively this fully legitimate

struggle. This will soon help bring our Fatherland, Vietnam,

to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with civilized, moral,

prosperous and free countries in today's community of

Mankind--Unanimously declared in Vietnam on 8 April 2006.

Dr. Nguyen Xuan An, Hue; Teacher Dang Van Anh, Hue; Prof.

Nguyen Kim Anh, Hue; Writer Trinh Canh, Vung Tau; Teacher Le

Can, Hue; Teacher Tran Thi Minh Cam, Hue; Teacher Nguyen Thi

Linh Chi, Can Tho; Teacher Nguyen Viet Cu, Quang Ngai; Writer

Nguyen Dac Cuong, Phan Thiet; Teacher Tran Doan, Quang Ngai;

Teacher Ho Anh Dung, Hue; Dr. Ha Xuan Duong, Hue; Attorney

Nguyen Van Dai, Hanoi; Dr. Ho Dong, Vinh Long; Businessman

Tran Van Ha, Da Nang; Dr. Le Thi Ngan Ha, Hue; (Mrs.) Vu Thuy

Ha, Hanoi; Teacher Tran Thach Hai, Haiphong; Teacher Dang

Hoai Anh, Hue; Dr. Le Hoai Anh, Nha Trang.

Prof. Nguyen Ngoc Anh, Da Namg; Rev. F.X. Le Van Cao, Hue;

Rev. Giuse Hoang Can, Hue; Rev. Giuse Nguyen Van Chanh, Hue;

Prof. Hoang Minh Chinh, Hanoi; Dang Quoc Cuong, MA, Hue;

Businessman Ho Ngoc Diep, Da Nang; Ms. Le Thi Phu Dung,

Saigon; Prof. Truong Quang Dung, Hue; Ex-Col. Pham Que Duong,

Hanoi; Kt (Architect?) Tran Van Don, Phan Thiet; Rev. Phero

Nguyen Huu Giai, Hue; Teacher Le Thi Bich Ha, Can Tho;

Teacher Le Nguyen Xuan Ha, Hue; Eng. Do Nam Hai, Saigon; Kt

(Architect?) Tran Viet Hai, Vung Tau; Eng. Doan Thi Dieu

Hanh, Vung Tau; Teacher Phan Thi Minh Hanh, Hue; Writer

Tran Hao, Vung Tau; Teacher Le Le Hang, Hue.

Nurse Che Minh Hoang, Nha Trang; Teacher Le Thu Minh Hung,

Saigon; Rev. Gk Nguyen Van Hung, Hue; Teacher Le Thi Thanh

Huyenh, Hue; Mai Thu Huong, MA, Haiphong; Candidate Nguyen

Ngoc Ke, Hue; Nguyen Quoc Khanh, MA, Hue; Prof. Tran Khue,

Saigon; Writer Bui Lang, Phan Thiet; Mr. Le Quang Liem, Head,

Traditional Hoa Hao Buddhist'' Church, Saigon; Rev. G.B.

Nguyen Cao Loc, Hue; Teacher Ma Van Luu, Haiphong; Rev. Tadeo

Nguyen Van Ly, Hue; Teacher Cao Thi Xuan Mai, Hue; Writer Ha

Van Mau, Can Tho; Writer Le Thi Thu Minh, Can Tho; Teacher

Nguyen Anh Minh, Saigon; (Mrs.) Bui Kim Ngan, Hanoi; Rev.

G.B. Le Van Nghiem, Hue; Rev. Dominic Phan Phuoc, Hue.

Rev. Giuse Cai Hong Phuong, Hue; Eng. Ta Minh Quan, Can

Tho; Rev. Giuse Tran Van Quy, Hue; Dr. Tran Thi Sen, Nha

Trang; Eng. Hoang Son, Haiphong; Prof. Nguyen Anh Tai, Da

Nang; Dr. Ta Minh Tam, Can Tho; Pastor Pham Ngoc Thach,

Saigon; Teacher Van Ba Thanh, Hue; Tran Manh Thu, MA,

Haiphong; Writer Hoang Tien, Hanoi; Rev. Tephano Chan Tin,

Saigon; Writer Ton Nu Minh Trang, Phan Thiet; Dr. Nguyen Anh

Tu, Da Nang; Teacher Le Tri Tue, Haiphong; Businesswoman

Nguyen Thi Hanh, DaNang; Prof. Dang Minh Hao, Hue; Writer

Tran Manh Hao, Saigon; Rev. Giuse Nguyen Duc Hieu, Bac

Ninh; Teacher Van Dinh Hoang, Hue.

Prof. Nguyen Minh Hung, Hue; Teacher Phan Ngoc Huy, Hue;

Teacher Do Thi Minh Huong, Hue; Nurse Tran Thu Huong, Da

Nang; Prof. Nguyen Chinh Ket, Saigon; Teacher Nguyen Dang

Khoa, Hue; Ex-Major Vu Kinh, Hanoi; Teacher Ton That Hoang

Lan, Saigon; Dr. Vu Thi Hoa Linh, Saigon; Rev. Phero Phan Van

Loi, Hue; Teacher Nguyen Van Ly, Haiphong; Teacher Cai Thi

Mai, Haiphong; Teacher Nguyen Van Mai, Saigon; Teacher Phan

Van Mau, Hue; Teacher Ma Van Minh, Hue; Dr. Huyen Ton Nu

Phuong Nhien, Da Nang; Dang Hoai Ngan, MA, Hue; Teacher Le

Hong Phuc, Haiphong; Eng. Vo Lam Phuoc, Saigon; Pastor Nguyen

Hong Quang, Saigon.

Rev. Augustino Ho Van Quy, Hue; Dr. Vo Van Quyen, Vinh

Long; Hoa Hao Lay preacher Le Van Soc, Vinh Long; Rev. Phao

Lo Ngo Thanh Son, Hue; Eng. Do Hong Tam, Haiphong; Prof.

Nguyen Thanh Tam, Hue; Teacher Nguyen binh Thanh, Hue; Hoa

Hao Lay preacher Nguyen Van Tho, Dong Thap; Prof. Dr. Tran

Hong Thu, Saigon; Ex-Officer Tran Dung Tien, Hanoi; Teacher

Nguyen Khac Toan, Hanoi; Teacher Che Thi Hong Trinh, Hue; Dr.

Doan Minh Tuan, Saigon; Nurse Tran Thi Hoai Van, Nha,Trang;

Teacher Ngo Thi Tuong Vi, Quang Ngai; Ho Ngoc Vinh, MA, Da

Nang; Teacher Nguyen Le Xuan Vinh, Can Tho; Eng. Lam Dinh

Vinh, Saigon.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) who

has been a leader on global human rights for 27 years, and that especially relates to Vietnam.

Mr. Speaker, I just yield myself 2 final minutes to close.

First of all, let me thank Mr. Wolf, Chairman Wolf for his very eloquent and passionate statement. And I think by injecting China into this debate as well, there is a modus operandi by both of those countries to talk a good game about human rights while doing absolutely nothing, as a matter of fact, by doing just the opposite. It is doublespeak. It is Orwellian, and unfortunately, it is what is happening on the ground today.

Let me also say that when I visited dissidents, several of whom were under house arrest in Ho Chi Min City, Hue and Hanoi, I was struck by the heart breaking vulnerability of those individuals and their families, because the secret police don't just go after the individual. They target their families, their kids, their brothers their sisters- in-law, their nephews and nieces. It is widespread. The bullies inflict maximum, they being the communist regime, maximum pain on the individual and his or her family.

I'll give you an example of just how it works. One of the individuals who downloaded ``What is Democracy'' from the Internet, which was on the U.S. embassy Web site, translated and then resent it out, got 5 years in prison. He was recently let out. But his wife Vu, who I met in a Hanoi restaurant with at least three bully boys sitting about 5-10 feet away taking her picture, from the secret police, told me again and again how fearful she was that she would be targeted--and hit. She rides a motor bike; she feared that they would run her down. Modus operandi, again, of the secret police.

Sure enough, just a few weeks ago, she was hit on the road by the police. Would you say that was an accident? If you think that is an accident, I will sell you the Brooklyn Bridge.

Mr. Speaker, human rights abuse is getting worse in Vietnam. It is widespread. It is pervasive. And it has got to be stopped. We need to speak out with one voice. The administration needs to speak out with one voice.

This resolution has a number of action clauses in it. I hope it is taken seriously both in Hanoi as well as down at Foggy Bottom.

We need to help those suffering individuals. We are their last best hope. Let's work for them because they deserve our--and Vietnam's-- respect and protection.

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

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 rise in support of the amendment. I think it makes the bill stronger. Examining the number of children who are limited in English proficiency and monitoring the progress of these children is important to their mastery of the English language and will help determine future successes for these students in meeting the same challenging State academic content and student academic achievement standards that all children are expected to meet.

I support the amendment, and I encourage our colleagues to support the amendment.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, let's be very clear at the outset about why this amendment is being considered today: It's all about political cover. It has nothing to do with protecting the civil rights of faith-based providers. If that is what we are out to do today, we would be considering Mr. Fortuno's amendment right now. Instead, the majority has brought up a hollow, politically motivated attempt to have it both ways. On one hand, this amendment cheers the work of faith-based providers and recognizes their contributions to our Nation; but on the other hand, it leaves them completely unprotected when it comes to their right to preserve their identity while serving children in Head Start. Frankly, this is insulting to faith-based organizations as it is transparent. Let me elaborate.

With respect to hiring authority, section 702(a) of title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended in 1972, states, ``This subchapter shall not apply to a religious corporation, association, educational institution or society with respect to the employment of individuals of a particular religion to perform work connected with the carrying on by such corporation, association, educational institution or society of its activities.''

Mr. Chairman, does this amendment reaffirm the language from this statute? No, it does not.

Consistent with this language from the Civil Rights Act, former President Clinton signed four laws that explicitly allow religious organizations to retain their right to staff on a religious basis when they receive Federal funds. The 1996 welfare reform law, the Children's Health Act of 2000, the Community Services Block Grant Act of 1998, and the Community Renewal Tax Relief Act of 2000 each contain language that reflects the language offered to the Rules Committee yesterday by Mr. Fortuno.

Mr. Chairman, does this amendment reaffirm the language signed into law on four separate occasions by former President Clinton? No, it does not. The Fortuno amendment would codify a 2002 executive order protecting the right of a participating faith-based organization to display a cross or other religious symbols on its grounds. Mr. Chairman, does this amendment do the same? No, it does not.

This amendment may have been written in such a way that may run counter to that executive order, potentially endangering rights faith- based providers already enjoy.

In short, Mr. Chairman, in an attempt to play politics, this amendment is, at best, an attempt to provide political cover for Members who do not want to take a real vote on the issue; and at worst, a poorly drafted measure that may end up turning back the clock on the rights of faith-based providers to display religious symbols. Because of that, I urge my colleagues to oppose it.

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

Mr. Chairman, I would like to read an excerpt from the Family Research Council. ``This bill should help ensure that faith- based organizations with proven records of serving the neediest among us will be allowed the freedom to hire the best staff they see fit, free of burdensome regulation.''

Unfortunately, it does not. If we had been able to discuss the Fortuno amendment today, we would have been able to vote on ensuring what they are asking for here. Later on in the discussion, I will add these letters, along with several others I have in support of the Fortuno amendment and in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, with that, I urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment.

Mr. McKeon. Mr. Chairman, I submit the following letters

for the Record:

The Center for Public Justice.

April 30, 2007,

Hon. Nancy Pelosi,

Speaker, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Hon. John Boehner,

House Minority Leader,

Washington, DC.

Dear Speaker Pelosi and Minority Leader Boehner: The

Coalition to Preserve Religious Freedom, a multi-faith

a1liance of education, social-service, and religious freedom

organizations, asks for your support to make federal social

programs fully open to the participation of qualified faith-

based organizations. We are concerned that some federal

legislation does not adequately invite faith-based

participation, while ensuring the religious liberty of

beneficiaries. We are also concerned that other federal

legislation, such as the Workforce Investment Act and the

Head Start Act, has language excluding faith-based

organizations that desire to retain their freedom when hiring

to take account of the religious convictions of potential

employees.

We ask in particular for your support to make the Head

Start program hospitable to faith-based organizations when

H.R. 1429, the Improving Head Start Act, comes up for floor

action.

In the Education and Labor Committee's recent markup of the

bill, Resident Commissioner Fortuno's amendment to clarify

the eligibility of faith-based organizations to participate

in Head Start unfortunately was defeated. The amendment would

have added language making it explicit that faith-based

organizations are eligible to take part on the same basis as

secular organizations, without being required to minimize

their religious character. Such language reflects the U.S.

Supreme Court's turn in First Amendment interpretation to the

equal treatment or neutrality standard.

As part of the confirmation of the equal eligibility of

faith-based providers, the amendment provided that religious

organizations participating in Head Start would no longer be

required to waive their freedom under the 1964 Civil Rights

Act to take account of religion when making employment

decisions. We understand that some members regard such an

affirmation of the Civil Rights Act's standard as introducing

pernicious religious job discrimination into the federal

early childhood education program. Yet the Civil Rights Act

expressly provides that it is not to be regarded as

discrimination when a religious organization considers

religion when evaluating potential employees.

We believe that the Civil Rights Act got it right on this,

just as we believe that political and environmental

organizations must be free to assess job candidates on the

basis of ideological conviction. We see no reason why

religion (or political views or environmental convictions)

would suddenly become irrelevant to an organization's

internal life and commitments when it agrees to serve its

community in a partnership with government. Nor is it

unconstitutional for a religious organization that

receives government funds to continue to staff on a

religious basis. The federal judge in the major 2005

religious staffing case, Lown v. Salvation Army,

resoundingly affirmed the contrary.

We respectfully request that you disavow the

characterization made by some members of Congress that

religious staffing by faith-based organizations is invidious

``Job discrimination.'' ``We request that you support the

continuing effort in Congress to remove from federal programs

language contradicting the Civil Rights Act's affirmation of

the religious staffing freedom. We believe that programs such

as Head Start and the Workforce Investment Act should be

brought into line with the large majority of federal programs

that do not restrict religious staffing by faith-based

organizations that desire to collaborate with the government

to provide assistance.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Stanley W. Carlson-Thies,

The Center for Public Justice.

On behalf of the Coalition to Preserve Religious Freedom

and the undersigned organizations:

Organizations are listed for identification purposes only.

Dr. Robert C. Andringa, President Emeritus, Council for

Christian Colleges and Universities.

Anne R. Apodaca, Executive Director, New Mexico Community

FaithLinks.

Dr. Art Ayris, President, The Florida Bridge.

Greg Baylor, Director, Center for Law and Religious

Freedom, Christian Legal Society.

Richard Cizik, Vice President for Governmental Affairs,

National Association of Evangelicals.

Rabbi Abba Cohen, Director and Counsel, Washington Office,

Agudath Israel of America.

Paul Corts, President, Council for Christian Colleges and

Universities.

Lisa Cummins, Center for New Communities.

Rimmer DeVries, Camano Island, Washington.

Nathan Diament, Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of

America.

Barrett Duke, Ph.D., Vice President for Public Policy and

Research, Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty

Commission.

Mark L. Earley, President, Prison Fellowship Ministries.

Rev. Bill Emery, Director, Virginia Roundtable.

Dr. Bernard Fryshman, President, Association of Advanced

Rabbinical and Talmudic Schools, New York, New York.

Mr. Israel Gaither, National Commander, The Salvation Army,

United States.

Walter Gilbert, CEO, Open Door Adoption Agency, Inc.,

Thomasville, GA.

Dennis Griffith, Executive Director, Teen Challenge of

Southern California.

Rev. John Hughes, Metro United Methodist Urban Ministries,

San Diego, CA.

Andrea Lafferty, Executive Director, Traditional Values

Coalition.

Donna Long, President, The National Bridge Alliance.

John Long, President, The Georgia Bridge.

Rev. Paul Lundberg, Atwater Baptist Church, Atwater, CA.

Dr. Larry Martin, President, Kentucky Compassion Bridge.

Freddie John Martin, Teltech Development Consulting

Corporation, Silver Spring, Maryland.

Tom McClusky, Vice-President for Government Affairs, Family

Research Council.

Ellen McKinley, Child Development Education Alliance,

Orange Park, FL.

Stephen Monsma, The Henry Institute for the Study of

Christianity and Politics, Calvin College, Grand Rapids, MI.

Rev. James Ortiz, Senior Pastor, President, My Friend's

House, Assembly of God, Inc., Metro Impact Ministries. Inc.,

Whittier Area Evangelical Ministerial Alliance, Whittier,

California.

Rev. Carl Rehling, Diocesan Liaison for Justice and Peace,

Episcopal Diocese of Maryland.

Shari Rendall, Director of Legislation and Policy,

Concerned Women for America.

Amy L. Sherman, Director, Sagamore Institute Center on

Faith in Communities, Charlottesville, VA.

Dr. Ronald J. Sider, Evangelicals for Social Action,

Wynnewood, PA.

Dr. James W. Skillen, Center for Public Justice.

Taylor Smith, Jr., Vice President of Executive Support,

Association of Christian Schools International.

Dr. Robert Vickers, President, Artful Askers, The Missouri

Bridge.

David Winter, Chancellor, Westmont College, Santa Barbara,

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition, though I am not opposed to the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I think that this amendment makes it a stronger bill. Rural grantees are more likely to rely on home visits due to problems associated with staffing and transportation. Head Start in-home programs are required to make a minimum of 32 visits per year, or one per week. In addition, there must be a minimum of 16 group socialization activities per year.

For this reason, I rise in support of this amendment to provide additional training and support to rural Head Start programs facing these challenges to ensure that all children can access the skills necessary to succeed in school.

I urge my colleagues to support 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 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.

I thank the gentleman, and I rise in support of his amendment. I think his explanation is correct, that this will provide not only perhaps more uniformity in terms of the assessments, but also communications between programs as to which assessments are really working and which assessments are appropriate for this purpose. I think it is a good amendment, and I would hope that we would accept it. I thank the gentleman for offering it.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding and for offering this amendment.

It is interesting that the other side would now oppose this amendment, but all day long they have been citing us the executive order with the exact same language in it as the basis for the right of faith-based organizations to participate in this program, a right that they have exercised now for more than 40 years. What your amendment does is to take it from the regulations and put it into the statute to guarantee them that right in the law, not just in the executive order and in the regulations.

In my own district, the First Baptist organization runs the Head Start program. They do a marvelous job. The reason they are kicking up the smokescreen around Mr. Shuler's amendment is that they want to protect themselves, because they are going to come here with an amendment that is going to try to give people the right to discriminate against people based upon their religion, the right to discriminate with Federal dollars on religion.

What Mr. Shuler's amendment does is to make sure that we do not weaken

the ability of faith-based organizations to participate, as they have over their proud history. That is why the broadest array of religious organizations will oppose what is going to be offered in the motion to recommit, but strongly support, strongly support, the Shuler amendment to add this language to the statute to provide this protection and to provide this recognition of the historical service and the ongoing service that these faith communities have provided to the children that are eligible for Head Start to provide that quality education year after year after year after year.

That is what this amendment does. We should welcome it. We should adopt it overwhelmingly in this House and get on with the debate.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman and his cosponsors for offering this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for offering this amendment and for bringing this perspective to this legislation, along with Mr. Hare and Mr. Altmire and Mr. Welch, and for representing the rural communities and raising these issues during this debate and during the consideration of this legislation.

Sometimes issues get overlooked in the rush to reauthorize the bill and to reauthorize it from a single perspective, so I appreciate this information that they have brought to us. I think the direction to the Secretary to review and to look at these barriers and to see what we can do to remove them so that we can assure both the participation of the children in the program and of their families and their parents as is designed by the law is important.

Mr. Chairman, I urge the adoption of the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Smith, and for Mr. Smith's faithfulness to be over here.

This institution is frankly changing. It is changing before our eyes. This institution, on both sides of the aisle, almost doesn't seem to care anymore on these issues of fundamental human rights. This institution needs a little bit of Ronald Reagan.

Many of you voted to give this government PNTR. Read the letter. The conditions have changed dramatically. They're worse today than when you gave them PNTR. And yet this place is almost empty. Nobody seems to care anymore.

Father Ly is in jail. The American Ambassador ought to be fired. This administration has done a horrible job.

Let me just read some of the things that have gone on since we gave them PNTR and the President went over there. February 18, 2007, the second day of Lunar, Father Ly was banished to a remote secluded area. Does the Congress care? Does the administration care?

March 5, 2007, security forces in Saigon told Mrs. Bui Ngoc Yen that they had an order to arrest her husband.

March 8, 2007, Reverend Nguyen Cong Chinch were brutally assaulted by the security forces.

March 8, 2007, two prominent human rights activists and lawyers, Mr. Nguyen Van Dai and Ms. Le Thi Cong Nhan were arrested in Hanoi, told they would be detained for 4 months.

March 9, 2007 Mr. Tran Van Hoa, a member of the People's Democracy Committee, summoned by the security forces and threatened with ``immeasurable consequences,'' that's in quotes.

March 10, 2007, Do Nam Hai, an engineer writing under the pen name Phuong Nam, one of the leading members of the Alliance for Democracy told by security forces he could be indicted any time.

March 10, the same day, state security forces raided the home of Ms. Tran Khai Thanh, a writer.

March 12, 2007, do you get a pattern here? Can anyone see a pattern sort of developing here?

The Congress gave them MFN. Probably a majority on both sides gave them MFN. But do you see a pattern here?

March 10, state security forces.

March 12, lawyer Le Quoc Quan, a consultant on local government for the World Bank was arrested in his hometown.

April 5, 2007 the Vietnamese authorities in Hanoi rudely prevented Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez, from your side of the aisle, from meeting with several dissidents' wives at a gathering organized at the Ambassador's house.

Now this Ambassador, frankly, and Mr. Lantos, and we have a bill that's coming up, this Ambassador has failed to turn the American Embassy into an island of freedom. During the days of Ronald Reagan, one of the greatest presidents we have ever had, not only in modern times, but in all times, turned the American Embassy in Moscow into an island of freedom that dissidents felt comfortable coming, and they were invited.

This Ambassador is just the opposite. He's silent. Dr. Martin Luther King said silence is the real danger. You expect the silence of your enemies, but you don't expect the silence of our friends.

Furthermore, the Hanoi government still has a large number of dissidents that are in jail.

Lastly, and I'm going to read a letter that I'm going to put in the Record that we sent to Secretary Rice the other day. The Vietnamese American community, a young but energetic group comprised of more than 1 million citizens, should be included in future dialogues with U.S. government officials. They know the history, the culture and the values of Vietnam. They also scrutinize the history and the tactics of communism and the Communist government's habits at the negotiating table.

I sincerely believe that the history of Vietnam must inform our approach to this and all other aspects of foreign policy. And the Vietnamese American community is a tremendous asset in this regard. Quite frankly, this administration, when Ambassador Marine leaves, ought to put a Vietnamese American in who understands these issues. So I'm going to submit this in the Record.

But these are important issues. This Congress just can't give these people human rights. And frankly, there is a whole shift taking place. I saw the other day, and if I'm wrong, I'll correct it for the record, that Steven Spielberg is now representing the Chinese government for the Olympics. One of Spielberg's greatest movies was the movie that he did with regard to what took place by Nazi Germany, Schindler's List.

Well, now there's a Schindler's list operation going on in China. There are 42 Catholic bishops that are in jail with China, with priests. And for those who might think it might be amusing, China is the one that's trying to do nothing with regard to the genocide in Darfur. 400,000 people have died. The head of China goes to Khartoum 2 months ago with a bold announcement. The announcement is they are going to build a new palace for the Sudanese that are bringing about genocide. Genocide in Darfur.

There are 46,000 house church leaders, leaders, committed leaders, house church leaders that are in jail in China today. In Tibet, it's against the law to have a picture of the Dalai Lama, and the Chinese public security police sent three public security police to my district spying on Rebiya Kadeer. If you read the Washington Post editorial last week, spying on Rebiya Kadeer in Fairfax County. Her three kids have been arrested. She's a Muslim. Her three kids have been arrested. So I just see, and I want to thank Mr. Smith for doing this, but frankly, for the Congress just to grant MFN to this fundamentally evil government, and for us to just sort of move on and just kind of not care anymore, it just is really troubling. When we fail to speak out for the least, we fundamentally fail to speak out for everyone. And so let me just say, I didn't know this was coming up, and I just caught it and came over here. I want to thank Mr. Smith for his faithfulness in being involved. And frankly, any Member that voted to give these guys PNTR, on both sides of the aisle, man, you've got a great responsibility now to really do something on these people. These are dissidents that are in jail. They are being suffered.

And frankly, I end by saying we ought to do more the way that Ronald Reagan did in the 1980s. Speak out on human rights, religious freedom and those values. And with that, you ought to call a role call vote on this because, frankly, this government is so dense that if they see a voice vote they won't even think it it's important. There ought to be a roll call vote so we can send a message on behalf of Father Ly, a Catholic bishop, a Catholic priest who's done nothing, and all these other people. And frankly, this ambassador ought to be shown the door. And we ought to put somebody in who represents the values of this country. Quite frankly, it ought to be a Vietnamese American who can go over there and advocate on behalf of those who are being persecuted.

Dear Secretary Rice: I am writing to express my deep

concern regarding the worsening human rights situation in

Vietnam in recent months. After joining the World Trade

Organization in January 2007, the politburo of the Vietnamese

Communist Party (VCP) has carried out a large-scale brutal

campaign of arrest against the nascent movement for democracy

in Vietnam. Ignoring all international criticism and

strenuous protests of the Vietnamese people, inside Vietnam

and abroad, the communist regime in Hanoi has shamefully

pushed ahead with its crackdown. The following events were

particularly disconcerting to me:

On February 18, 2007, the second day of the Lunar New Year,

which is the most sacred time in Vietnamese culture, the

communist security forces raided Father Nguyen Van Ly's

office within the Communal Residence of the Hue Archdiocese.

Father Ly was later banished to a remote, secluded area in

Hue.

On March 5, 2007, security forces in Saigon told Mrs. Bui

Ngoc Yen that they had an order to arrest her husband,

Professor Nguyen Chinh Kiet, who is a leading member of the

Alliance for Democracy and Human Rights in Vietnam. Professor

Kiet was in Europe at the time campaigning for democracy and

human rights in Vietnam.

On March 8, 2007, Reverend Nguyen Cong Chinch and his wife

were brutally assaulted by security forces of Gia Lai

Province in the Central Highlands, who then arrested Reverend

Chinch on undisclosed charges.

Also on March 8, 2007, two prominent human rights activists

and lawyers, Mr. Nguyen Van Dai and Ms. Le Thi Cong Nhan,

were arrested in Hanoi and were told that they would be

detained for four months as part of an undisclosed

investigation.

On March 9, 2007, Mr. Tran Van Hoa, a member of the

People's Democracy Party in Quang Ninh Province, and Mr. Pham

Van Troi, a member of the Committee for Human Rights in

Ha Tay, were summoned by security forces and threatened

with ``immeasurable consequences'' if they do not stop

their advocacy for human rights in Vietnam.

On March 10, 2007, Do Nam Hai, an engineer writing under

the pen name Phuong Nam and one of the leading members of the

Alliance for Democracy and Human Rights in Vietnam, was told

by security forces that he could be indicted at any time for

activity against the State.

Also on March 10, 2007, state security forces also raided

the home of Ms. Tran Khai Thanh Thuy, a writer, on the

grounds that she advocated for ``people with grievances''

against the government. They took away two computers, two

cell phones, and hundreds of appeals that she had prepared

for victims of the government's abuses.

March 12, 2007, lawyer Le Quoc Quan, a consultant on local

governance for the World Bank, Asian Development Bank, UNDP,

and Swedish International Development Agency, was arrested in

his hometown, Nghe An, less than a week after he returned

from a fellowship at the National Endowment for Democracy in

Washington, D.C. His whereabouts are unknown at this time.

On April 5, 2007, the Vietnamese authorities in Hanoi

rudely prevented Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez (D-CA) from

meeting with several dissidents' wives at a gathering

organized at the U.S. Ambassador's home. The police

reportedly used very hostile and undignified manners to

intervene in the meeting.

Furthermore, the Hanoi communist regime is still

imprisoning many political dissidents and labor advocates

such as Nguyen Vu Binh, Huynh Nguyen Dao, Truong Quoc Huy,

Nguyen Hoang Long, Nguyen Tan Hoanh, Doan Huy Chuong, the

religious leaders of the Unified Buddhist Church of Vietnam,

Cao Dai, Hoa Hoa, and more than 350 lay people of the

Protestant churches in the Central Highland.

The Vietnamese-Americans in my district, as well as all

across the country, are very angered and distressed by what

they perceive as a new and aggressive plan of the Hanoi

government to reverse the progress of human rights in

Vietnam. They believe that Ambassador Marine and his staff

are not doing enough to stop these blatant violations of

human rights.

It seems to me that the Vietnamese government is conducting

this crackdown on advocates of human rights and religious

freedom because it believes that the U.S. has no further

leverage in the region. Now that Vietnam has been admitted to

the WTO, and met with the Holy See, they believe they can

respond in this brutal fashion to supporters of democracy and

freedom and we will not respond.

I hope that you will make clear to the Vietnamese

authorities that we will not stand by while this violence and

intimidation continues. I believe the State Department should

consider putting Vietnam back on the list of Countries of

Particular Concern, and perhaps also consider canceling the

planned visit of the Vietnamese president and prime minister

later this year if the human rights situation in Vietnam has

not improved.

I appreciate the recent comments by Sean McCormack at Voice

of America expressing deep concern about the March 30 trial

and sentencing of Father Ly. I ask that you continue pressing

these issues with the Vietnamese government, including the

need to respect the basic human rights of all Vietnamese

citizens, especially the freedom of information, freedom of

expression, and freedom of religion. The Vietnamese people

should be able to choose their own leaders through free and

fair elections and to use the Internet freely without any

censures or restrictions.

I also ask that you encourage the Vietnamese authorities to

release all political prisoners and religious leaders who are

currently imprisoned because of their peaceful expression of

their ideas or to fight for their religious beliefs. Among

these prisoners are Father Nguyen Van Ly, Pastors Nguyen Cong

Chinh and Hong Trung, lawyers Nguyen Van Dai, Le thi Cong

Nhan, Le Quoc Quan, Messiers Truong Quoc Huy, and Nguyen

Hoang Lon.

Lastly, I believe the Vietnamese-American community, a

young but energetic group comprised of more than one million

citizens, should be included in future dialogues with U.S.

government officials. They know the history, culture and

values of Vietnam. They also have scrutinized the history and

tactics of communism and the communist government's habits at

the negotiating table. I sincerely believe that the history

of Vietnam must inform our approach to this and all other

aspects of foreign policy, and the Vietnamese-American

community is a tremendous asset in this regard. I

respectfully request that you invite a small representation

of the Vietnamese-American community to join the U.S.

delegation in next month's human rights dialogue.

Best wishes.

Sincerely,

Frank R. Wolf,

Member of Congress.

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.