[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 176 (Wednesday, November 14, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H13867-H13873]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 1429,
IMPROVING HEAD START FOR SCHOOL READINESS ACT OF 2007
Ms. CASTOR. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 813 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 813
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider the conference report to accompany the
bill (H.R. 1429) to reauthorize the Head Start Act, to
improve program quality, to expand access, and for other
purposes. All points of order against the conference report
and against its consideration are waived. The conference
report shall be considered as read.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Tauscher). The gentlewoman from Florida
is recognized for 1 hour.
Ms. CASTOR. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart). All time yielded during consideration of the
rule is for debate only.
I yield myself such time as I may consume.
General Leave
Madam Speaker, I also ask unanimous consent that all Members be given
5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House
Resolution 813.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Florida?
There was no objection.
Ms. CASTOR. Madam Speaker, House Resolution 813 provides for
consideration of the conference report for H.R. 1429, the Improving
Head Start for School Readiness Act of 2007. This is the standard rule
for a conference report. It waives all points of order against the
conference report and against its consideration. It also provides that
the conference report shall be considered as read.
Madam Speaker, for over 40 years Head Start has served as the premier
educational and developmental program for America's children, more than
20 million American children and their families. Head Start works. Head
Start works because it is a well-researched, comprehensive initiative
that combines all of the children's educational needs, their health
care needs, and it requires parental involvement. Years later, after
four decades of Head Start, the research shows that children that
participate in Head Start are
[[Page H13868]]
more likely to graduate from high school than their peers.
Head Start is a comprehensive approach to child health nutrition and
learning, and it is one of our best tools in the struggle to close the
achievement gap. The achievement gap for children in poverty in America
must be tackled, and Head Start tackles the achievement gap through
cognitive social and emotional child development, each of which is a
key contributor to entering elementary school ready to succeed.
Today, 20 percent of America's 12 million children under the age of 6
unfortunately live in poverty. We know that a family's income level
greatly affects their child's access to educational opportunities. The
reality of poverty for so many American children in poverty is tied to
their low success rates in schools.
But in America, family income simply should not impede a child's
educational opportunities, and this is where Head Start comes in to
level the playing field. Back home in Florida in my community in the
Tampa Bay area, over 5,300 children are served by Head Start. But we've
got thousands of children that are eligible and are on the waiting
list. Why are they on the waiting list? Because previous Congresses
have failed to properly support our Head Start kids, and this White
House has flat-lined budgets over the years; so our kids merely have
been treading water.
{time} 1045
There have been no improvements or increases in funding since 2003.
And with inflation, it has been very difficult to maintain the well-
known, high-quality elements in Head Start. But the good news is that
this Congress will change that today and make the smartest investment
in our country's future workforce. And the research statistics bear
repeating; children that participate in Head Start are more likely to
graduate from high school.
We're going to put more children on a path to success today when we
pass this bill and this rule. We're going to improve teacher and
classroom quality. We're going to strengthen the focus on school
readiness. We're going to expand access so children that are on the
waiting list can enter Head Start classrooms. We're going to strengthen
those all-important comprehensive services of health care and
nutrition. We're going to increase the number of children in early Head
Start because the research also shows that it is critical for child
brain development that they have interaction by the age of 3, when
their brains are developing. We're going to focus on allowing more
homeless children to enroll and do a better job for children who are
just learning English.
This year marks four decades of success for this holistic wraparound
initiative that empowers all of us. These children are eager and ready
to learn if we give them the tools.
The administration's slow-motion cuts to Head Start will now be
reversed because this Congress, in a bipartisan way, but led by
Democrats, is committed to raising strong and healthy children, and
Head Start prepares our children to succeed in school and in life.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, I would like to
thank my friend the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor) for the time,
and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
It's important for the future of our children that they develop the
skills and receive the education necessary to make them a success later
in life. Unfortunately, many children begin their education without a
proper foundation, putting them at a disadvantage that has long-term
effects on their education. We must do all we can so that low-income
children do not begin their education at a disadvantage, and that is
why Head Start was created.
In order to give the children the proper foundation they need to
begin their education, the Head Start program provides comprehensive
early child development services to about 900,000 children from low-
income families. These services prepare children to enter kindergarten
with a proper educational foundation for their continued educational
success to hopefully break the chain of poverty. The underlying
bipartisan conference report builds on the success of the program and
alleviates some of its shortcomings.
The bill authorizes over $7 billion in fiscal year 2008. For fiscal
year 2009, it authorizes a 4.1 percent increase. And for fiscal year
2010, there's an additional 4.5 percent increase.
It is important that the children in Head Start receive the best
education possible. There are several provisions in the conference
report that will help with that goal. First, the legislation seeks to
ensure that a greater number of early Head Start teachers are better
trained and educated in early childhood development, with a focus on
infant toddler development, no later than September 30, 2012.
Additionally, the conference report requires that at least 50 percent
of Head Start teachers nationwide in center-based programs have a
baccalaureate or advanced degree in early childhood education or
related field by September 30, 2013.
Madam Speaker, competition encourages better quality. As recommended
by a 2005 GAO study, this legislation seeks to increase competition
among Head Start grantees to help weed out poor performers and foster
stronger programs.
There is also a need for greater oversight of the program grantees.
This legislation requires Head Start agencies to create a formal
structure of program governance for assessing the quality of services
received by the Head Start children and families, and for making
decisions related to program design and implementation.
The bill also seeks greater transparency and disclosure regarding how
Head Start funds are spent. This will help prevent abuse and further
ensure that Federal Head Start funds reach the disadvantaged children
that they are meant to reach.
The conference report kept the House's unanimously passed motion to
instruct language limiting the compensation of a Head Start employee to
Executive Level II, which equals $168,000. This is to prevent Head
Start employees from receiving excessive salaries and bonuses, like in
some past experiences.
With regard to a child's eligibility in a Head Start program, the
conference report allows Head Start agencies to serve children whose
parents earn 130 percent above the poverty level. The conference report
caps the amount of participants that can be served at the increased
level to 35 percent of all participants, and only if the agency can
prove that they are serving all eligible participants at the poverty
level.
Other important provisions included in the conference report are to
continue the eligibility of faith-based organizations as Head Start
agencies. Head Start has a proud history of inclusion of faith-based
organizations. Approximately 80 grantees have religious affiliations.
With regard to our children's safety, the conference report requires
background checks for those who transport children to Head Start
centers.
I wish to thank both Chairman Miller and Ranking Member McKeon for
their bipartisan work on this important legislation. This important
legislation goes to show, Madam Speaker, that when we are willing to
work together and compromise, we can bring forth good legislation with
bipartisan support.
I urge my colleagues to support the conference report, which I
believe is instrumental to the educational success of many children.
At this time, Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. CASTOR. Madam Speaker, at this time I am very pleased to yield 3
minutes to the gentlewoman from California, a member of the Education
and Labor Committee and an outspoken advocate for America's kids, Ms.
Woolsey.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Speaker, today we're going to reauthorize Head
Start and reaffirm, through this conference report, our commitment to
this very, very valuable program.
When I came here 15 years ago, I was insisting that my married
children make me a grandmother, and they told me it was just none of my
business. But since then, I now have five grandchildren among my four
families of young adults, and all of my grandchildren go to preschool.
And they are lucky because they have working parents who are
professionals who can
[[Page H13869]]
pick out very good schools for them and make sure, the oldest child is
7\1/2\, and he's the only one in school, he is a second grader, but
ensure that when my grandchildren enter grade school, elementary
school, that they know what's going on. I mean, I'm telling you, I
can't believe it. These kids read, they write, they know their numbers,
they know their alphabet, they can play Monopoly, and they aren't even
in kindergarten yet. That's what every kid in America deserves, and
that's what Head Start does.
Head Start evens the playing field so that the fortunate children in
my family aren't the only ones that enter elementary school having read
books, having understood that you sit down in a classroom, that you
have social needs that you have to learn to deal with when you're a
young person and you're going to be dealing with other young people in
a classroom situation.
I feel so fortunate, but I also feel so thankful that in a very
bipartisan way, under the chairmanship of Mr. Miller and the good
leadership of Mr. McKeon, we were able to pass legislation that will
finally bring to this floor a Head Start bill.
We need to increase the Head Start funding, of course. We aren't
covering every eligible child in the United States, and we must do that
over time. It's hard to do when you're spending $1.5 trillion in Iraq.
But we must get our priorities in order, and one of our top priorities
must be our children. Our children are 25 percent of our population,
but guess what? They are 100 percent of our future.
We must support programs like Head Start that ensure that our future,
when we become really old people and these young people are running our
world and running our Congress, they know what they're doing.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure
to yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished ranking
member of the Rules Committee, Mr. Dreier.
(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this
conference report, and I want to join in commending first the managers
on both sides of the aisle, our friends from Florida, Ms. Castor and
Mr. Diaz-Balart, and of course Mr. Miller, Mr. McKeon, and Mr. Castle,
and all those who have been involved.
The Head Start program is a very important program. It has proved to
be successful. And I'm pleased that we have a measure that is going to,
I believe, become law and ensure that we are able, as we look towards
preparing children for that very critical K-12 education, which we all
know is facing very serious challenges, the Head Start program can help
as they launch into that challenge.
Madam Speaker, I want to take my time, and Mr. Diaz-Balart and I were
just talking about an op-ed piece that was written by the former staff
director of the Committee on Rules, Don Wolfensberger, and it got a
response in today's Roll Call that I think is a very important one. And
I think that, in light of the fact that we're debating rules here, this
is a debate on the rule, and we've seen some real challenges when it
has come to ensuring that the American people have their right to be
heard here on the House floor. I think that I will share an article.
And at this time, I would like to insert this article into the Record,
Mr. Wolfensberger's op-ed piece.
[From Roll Call, Nov. 12, 2007]
Minority's Motion To Recommit Should Not Be Curtailed
(By Don Wolfensberger)
It is the height of political arrogance for the majority
party in the House of Representatives to dictate which
minority party motions are legitimate and which are not. Yet
that is exactly what the Democratic leadership is threatening
through possible House rules changes governing the motion to
recommit.
The motion to recommit a bill to committee with
instructions to amend it was originally used primarily as a
majority party device to make last-minute, minor corrections
before final passage. All that changed in 1909 when Speaker
Joe Cannon (R-Ill.) temporarily headed off a bipartisan
effort to amend House rules and remove him as chairman and a
member of the Rules Committee. Cannon recognized conservative
Democratic Rep. John Fitzgerald (N.Y.) to offer a substitute
amendment that, among other things, guaranteed the minority a
final opportunity to get a vote on its position using the
motion to recommit with instructions. (Cannon would still be
booted from Rules in a bipartisan revolt the following year.)
The minority's right was slowly chipped away when Democrats
last ran the House. Beginning in the early 1980s, Democratic
Speakers and their Rules Committee majority minions used an
obscure 1934 precedent to justify not only limiting the
contents of the minority's instructions but also eventually
denying them the right to offer any instructions. Republicans
fiercely fought these limits at every turn and vowed that if
they came to power the minority's right to offer its
alternative in a motion to recommit with instructions would
be fully restored. They fulfilled that promise upon taking
control of the House in January 1995, and the Democratic
minority enjoyed the right unimpeded over the 12 years of
Republican control.
Nothing in the guaranteed right limits the minority to a
motion that immediately adopts an amendment--the
``forthwith'' motion. The minority also may move to send a
bill physically back to committee with instructions to hold
more hearings, conduct a study or make specified changes in
the legislation. This latter device, to recommit with
instructions to report back an amendment ``promptly''
(instead of ``forthwith'') has been unnerving Democratic
leaders every time Republicans have used it to raise
politically sensitive issues. In two instances the majority
withdrew bills from the floor rather than risk having them
sent back to committee.
The most recent example was the leadership's decision to
pull the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act amendments in
the face of a likely GOP motion to recommit with instructions
to ``promptly'' report back an amendment to exempt from FISA
court coverage any surveillance of al-Qaida or other
terrorist groups.
Democratic Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (Md.) argues that
such motions are offered simply for ``political purposes''
rather than for the ``substantive purposes'' of ``trying to
change policy.'' At the same time he concedes that Democrats
used such tactics when they were in the minority. The only
apparent difference is that Republicans have had a higher
success rate with their recommit motions (though the only
ones to succeed so far have been ``forthwith'' motions).
The majority is attempting to impose its notion that the
only ``legitimate'' role of the minority party is to offer
substantive policy alternatives in their recommit motions for
instant incorporation in a bill. One way Democrats might try
to enforce this concept is to only allow the minority to
offer ``forthwith'' motions to recommit so that legislation
can move immediately to final passage after the motion is
voted. This ``amend it now or forever hold your peace''
approach overlooks one important role of an opposition party,
and that is to oppose.
Opposing legislation does not carry with it the obligation
to offer responsible policy alternatives that conform to the
majority's timetable for passing a bill (especially when the
minority is being blocked from offering any amendments on a
record-breaking 35 percent of major bills). Opposition may
include not only trying to defeat a bill, but also to slow it
down, including sending it back to a committee for more work.
Yes, a straight motion to recommit without instructions
would accomplish this same purpose. But who is to say that
the minority should not be able to score its own political
points by sending a bill back to committee with a message
attached? After all, the majority routinely gets plenty of PR
mileage out of reporting and passing bills on its political
agenda. To assert that the minority is playing politics with
its motions to recommit while the majority is somehow above
such things in advancing its bills is laughable.
The difference, the majority would have us believe, is that
it is achieving a serious public policy purpose for the
betterment of humankind while the minority is merely engaging
in ``cheap shot'' political tricks with no redeeming social
value. That may be true at times, but the minority should be
allowed to stand or fall on public and media perceptions of
its actions--whether they be seen as foolish or heroic. The
majority also will stand or fall on public perceptions of the
quality of its legislative enactments and may well look just
as foolish if well-intentioned bills produce bad results.
At a time when Congressional Democrats are under heavy fire
and record low public approval ratings for a lackluster
performance (including their inability to put even one of the
12 regular appropriations bills on the president's desk over
a month after the start of the fiscal year), they would do
well to spend more time honing their governance skills and
less trying to control minority party behavior.
This paper, Roll Call, which we all get around here on the Hill, has
been very critical of whichever party has been in control. I will say
that when we were in the majority, this paper was often very critical
of us. And today they have an editorial. Again, this is not Republicans
speaking. It's not Republicans whining. It's not Republicans claiming
that their rights are being trampled on. This is from the editorial
page of today's Roll Call, and the editorial is entitled as follows,
Madam Speaker, it's entitled ``Let 'Em Move.''
``Embarrassed though House Democratic leaders may be by Republican
[[Page H13870]]
success in proposing, and, often, passing politically loaded motions to
recommit, it would be an outrage for the majority to limit the
minority's right to do so.
``Despite promises to manage the House on a more open basis than
Republicans did during their 12-year rule, Democrats have been every
bit as authoritarian, prohibiting any floor amendments, for instance,
at more than double the rate of the previous Congress.'' I'm going to
repeat that, Madam Speaker, ``more than double the rate of the previous
Congress,'' the number of closed rules that they've had. ``Motions to
recommit legislation to committees with instructions on how to alter it
are often the only opportunity the minority has to affect the
legislative process.
``When they actually win a majority on the House floor, because a
number of Democrats vote with Republicans, they constitute a huge
embarrassment to Democratic leaders. This has happened 21 times this
year, versus practically never during Republican rule, and each time
Republicans have crowed that Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her team `have
lost control of the floor.' '' And let me remind you, Madam Speaker, I
am simply reading from the editorial page of today's Roll Call.
They go on to say, ``Democratic leaders routinely fume at the
practice, as when House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer accused the GOP of
using the motion `for political purposes, not substantive purposes . .
. not to change policy, but to try to construct difficult political
votes for Members,' meaning potentially vulnerable Democrats.
{time} 1100
``As Roll Call reported last month, Democrats are searching for ways
to change House rules to limit the minority's right to propose motions
to recommit. They have done so before, so far without success--once,
because Republicans halted proceedings on the House floor to protest
the attempt. We suggest that Democrats just drop the idea and learn to
live with the GOP motions as a legitimate part of legislative work in a
democracy.
``It's certainly true that many of the Republican motions have been
politically designed, especially repeated motions to deny government
benefits to illegal immigrants. Any Democrat who cast a vote against
the measure, even if government aid was already barred by law, might
well fear that it would be used by a potential opponent in a political
commercial.
``At the same time, many of the GOP motions have been substantive and
have gained majority support because they contained popular ideas or
posed politically difficult choices.'' Roll Call goes on to write,
``Examples include a ban on Federal funding to colleges that prohibit
military recruiting on campus and an increase in funding for missile
defense.''
Madam Speaker, this Roll Call editorial reads, ``On two occasions,
GOP motions were so threatening to the Democrats' purposes that they
actually pulled legislation on terrorist wiretapping and voting rights
for the District of Columbia.
``Rather than limit one of the minority's few rights to affect
legislation, we suggest that Democrats expand those rights by allowing
Republicans to offer amendments on the floor. Would some of them be
`purely political'? Of course. But more open and democratic debate also
might produce better policy and reduce partisan rancor.''
Now, again, Madam Speaker, those are not my words. Those are the
words of the editorial board of the Roll Call as printed in today's
paper. I want to say again, this paper was often critical of us when we
were in the majority, and they have now, I believe, been right on
target in pointing to the fact that the notion of trying to deny the
American people their opportunity to be heard through this motion to
recommit would be a horrible thing. I believe the Democratic majority,
Madam Speaker, should, in fact, follow this encouragement from Roll
Call and allow more amendments to be made in order.
I also want to say that I will join with my friend when he seeks to
defeat the previous question on this rule so for the 11th time, we will
be seeking to bring assistance to our veterans to the floor. This is
Veterans Week. We marked Veterans Day Monday. I will say that it is
absolutely imperative that any Member of the House who wants to ensure
that we have the resources necessary for our veterans should vote
``no'' on the previous question so that we can, in fact, get that
assistance that they so desperately need.
Ms. CASTOR. Madam Speaker, I always enjoy hearing the ranking member
from the Rules Committee, because 1 year ago, the American people
demanded a new direction, to make America safer, to help restore the
American Dream, to restore accountability and fiscal responsibility to
the people's government. This 110th Congress has brought new faces, new
energy and a steadfast commitment to a new direction.
In January, the first female Speaker of the House in American history
gaveled open the Congress in honor of America's children, and we will
keep that commitment today by acting on the Head Start bill in this
rule.
Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. CASTOR. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. DREIER. I would simply say to my friend, I joined in heralding
the selection of my fellow Californian, Ms. Pelosi, as the first woman,
the first Italian American Speaker of the House of Representatives. It
was a great day for this institution. I should say she was the first
Californian as well. But I will say this, the record that was outlined
in today's Roll Call is one which can't be denied by either the Members
of the majority or the minority.
I thank my friend for yielding.
Ms. CASTOR. I am happy to debate the record of this Congress under
Democratic leadership. The Congress is focused on a new direction,
first, to make America safer. We have already taken action to implement
the 9/11 Commission recommendations to protect America from terrorism.
This Congress has passed the largest veterans health care funding
increase in the history of the VA. We have adopted energy security
legislation that will reduce the threat of global climate change. We
continue to hold the White House accountable for this unending war in
Iraq.
In addition, this Congress is restoring the American Dream because
now the law of the land is the largest college age expansion since the
GI Bill in 1944, where we raised the Pell Grant and we cut the interest
rate on student loans. It has been this Congress, and this is important
if you are keeping track of the record of this Congress, it was this
Congress that raised the minimum wage for millions of Americans. We
have also adopted an innovation agenda promoting 21st century jobs in a
global economy. We have sent aid to the gulf coast for Hurricanes
Katrina and Rita and for the millions of Americans that continue to
struggle day to day with the impact of those disasters. And we are
fighting for health care, to expand health care to 10 million more
American children.
Madam Speaker, we have also adopted a widely acclaimed and landmark
lobby and ethics reform bill. And it has been this Congress that has
returned to financial sanity and fiscal responsibility by adhering to
pay-as-you-go discipline, no new deficit spending.
So I am very pleased to debate the record of this Congress on the
floor of the House. We will work in a bipartisan way to build
consensus. More than two-thirds of this legislation has passed in a
bipartisan manner. We will strive to find common ground where we can,
like here on the Head Start bill. But where we cannot, we will stand
our ground, like on the Iraq bill that we will bring later today.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, the record brought
out today by the Roll Call editorial, that I am very pleased, by the
way, that our ranking member brought forth and read into the Record, I
think is important for a number of reasons.
Again, I was also here when the distinguished Speaker was elected in
January. I recall the promises at that time and during the campaign,
the electoral campaign that preceded that ceremony in January. The
promises were, and I am sure they will be recalled, to have a more open
process, a more transparent House. So the reason why I think it is most
appropriate now to bring out the record that Roll Call in
[[Page H13871]]
an editorial has outlined is that instead of seeing, during this year,
this first year of this Congress, a more open process, a more
transparent process, a more democratic process, what we have seen is a
more than doubling of the closed rules, of the gag rules, if you will,
the gag rules that don't permit any amendments on legislation.
Since we are discussing the rule, by the way, on legislation that is
an example of bipartisanship, the Head Start program is one that has
been supported from its inception in a bipartisan manner, but we are
discussing the rule, the means to debate this legislation, the
procedure, if you will, to debate the legislation, I think it's
appropriate to bring out the more than doubling by a majority that
promised more transparency and more democracy in the running of the
House, a more than doubling of gag rules that prohibit debate, that
prohibit any amendments for debate. So I think that is appropriate to
bring forth. And I commend Roll Call that, yes, was very critical when
we were in the majority of many of the things that happened at that
time. But a doubling, more than doubling of the impropriety, of the gag
rules by a majority that promised more transparency is not only
important to bring out but I think it is most unfortunate.
At this time, Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 3 minutes to a
distinguished colleague who has worked so much on this legislation in
an admirable way, as he has on many issues of great importance to the
American people, Mr. Castle of Delaware.
Mr. CASTLE. I would like to thank the gentleman from Florida for
yielding, and I apologize for returning to such a mundane subject as
the rule before us, but that is what I am here to do.
I do rise in support of this rule, and I would like to thank Chairman
Miller along with Mr. McKeon and Mr. Kildee, as well as their staffs,
for the work they have done over the last several Congresses to
strengthen and improve the Head Start program.
Since 1965, the Head Start program has given 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.
Although we can agree on the need for Head Start and its successes,
we must also recognize that the Head Start program is capable of
producing even greater results for our children. Students who attend
Head Start programs do start school more prepared than those with
similar backgrounds who do not attend Head Start. Head Start students
continue, however, to enter kindergarten well below national norms in
school readiness. By moving to close the school readiness gap, the
bipartisan Improving Head Start for School Readiness Act will improve
results for almost a million Head Start students across the Nation.
I believe strongly in the Head Start program, particularly because of
how the program helps children later in their academic lives. Despite
the positive reputation of Head Start overall, however, there have been
reports which have unfortunately uncovered the fact that some
individuals have taken advantage of the taxpayer dollars that fund the
program to line their own pockets. Along with the expertise of the
Government Accountability Office and through reforms made in this bill,
changes will be made to avoid these issues in the future. I feel this
is the right step to take for the benefit of the program, and I thank
everyone for finding what I hope will be a resolution to the pockets of
abuse.
As I said at the outset, Head Start is an important and very popular
program. The importance of early childhood education and services
cannot be overstated. I believe strongly that the reforms sought with
this bill will go a long way to institute needed reforms to an already
successful program.
I support passage of this rule and the conference report to H.R.
1429.
Ms. CASTOR. Madam Speaker, at this time, I am pleased to continue the
debate on this important rule, the bipartisan Head Start conference
report, by recognizing for 1 minute a member of the Education and Labor
Committee, my good friend and colleague from Iowa (Mr. Loebsack).
Mr. LOEBSACK. I thank the gentlewoman from Florida for yielding.
I want to commend Chairman Miller, Mr. McKeon, Mr. Kildee and Mr.
Castle on their impressive work on this truly bipartisan legislation.
This conference report is proof positive that in spite of the rancor
evident this morning, when we put our minds to it and work together, we
can, in fact, get things done in this Congress.
Head Start offers comprehensive early childhood development services
to our Nation's neediest children. These comprehensive services are key
to the program's success. Head Start engages parents and the community
in students' lives and provides important nutritional, health and
social services.
Studies show that children who enroll in Head Start excel
academically, they have fewer health problems, and adapt better both
socially and emotionally. I am proud to say that over 9,600 children
are enrolled in the program in Iowa.
I grew up in poverty, and I know firsthand how important programs
like Head Start are to low-income families. I urge my colleagues to
support this conference report and this rule, and I hope it will be
quickly signed into law.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, it is my privilege
at this time to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished ranking member of
the Education Committee, Mr. McKeon of California.
Mr. McKEON. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I am pleased to
rise in support of the rule on the conference report for the Improving
Head Start for School Readiness Act. This rule will allow the House to
give final endorsement to a bill that will strengthen and improve the
Head Start early childhood education program.
I would like to begin by recognizing members of the Education and
Labor Committee for their efforts to produce this bipartisan conference
report. Representatives Castle and Kildee, along with Chairman Miller
and our staffs, have done great work to strengthen and improve this
critical program.
In more than 50,000 Head Start classrooms around the Nation, nearly 1
million disadvantaged children are being given the tools and resources
to help put them on a path to success which is a win-win for the
country.
We have spent a great deal of time this year working to strengthen
the No Child Left Behind Act. That law is, at its most basic level,
about closing the achievement gap in our Nation's schools. However, the
gaps between disadvantaged students and their peers do not begin in
elementary school. That's why we have Head Start. This program is
designed to help close the readiness gap in children before they ever
enroll in school. The health, developmental and educational services
offered through this program truly do give a head start to those
children than they otherwise enter school already lagging behind.
{time} 1115
Some studies have shown that children enrolled in Head Start do make
progress, but there's significant work yet to be done in closing that
readiness gap. I also believe it's critical to strengthen the financial
controls in Head Start so that we can prevent the types of waste, fraud
and abuse that have been uncovered over the past 5 years. Republicans
acted aggressively to root out cases of financial abuse and
mismanagement. We sought the expertise of the Government Accountability
Office to identify weaknesses in the financial control network of the
program. Through this bill, we will institute structural changes to
prevent future breaches in the program's trust.
Our committee has been working to strengthen and reform this program
going on 5 years, and I believe that dedication has paid off. Certainly
this
[[Page H13872]]
bill is not perfect, but on issues where there were disagreements, I am
pleased that we have forged compromises. Head Start is a good program,
capable of achieving even greater results. With this bill, I believe we
can make that happen.
Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on behalf of
this rule, and I look forward to House passage of this conference
report so it can go to the President for his signature.
Ms. CASTOR. Madam Speaker, I am the last speaker for our side, so I
will reserve the balance of my time until the gentleman from Florida
has made his closing remarks.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield myself
such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, I will be asking for a ``no'' vote on the previous
question so that we can amend this rule and move toward passing a
conference report on the bipartisan Military Construction and Veterans
Affairs appropriations act. The House passed this veterans affairs and
military funding bill on June 15 by a vote of 409-2, with the Senate
following suit and naming conferees on September 6. Unfortunately, the
majority leadership in the House has refused to move the Military
Construction and Veterans Affairs appropriations bill. They have even
refused to name conferees.
Why has the majority decided to hold off on moving this bill that has
such bipartisan support? Well, according to several publications,
including Roll Call, the majority intends to hold off sending
appropriations bills to President Bush so that they can use an upcoming
anticipated veto, actually, the veto of the Labor-HHS appropriations
bill, to serve as ``an extension of their successful public relations
campaign on the SCHIP program.'' Fortunately, that purely political
move failed last week when the Senate removed the Military Construction
and Veterans Affairs appropriations bill from the Labor-HHS bill.
Recently the Republican leader, Mr. Boehner, took a step toward
naming House Republican conferees. Now the Speaker must follow suit and
take the steps necessary to ensure that work can begin on writing the
final veterans funding bill that can be enacted into law.
Madam Speaker, every day that the majority chooses not to act on this
bill, our Nation's veterans lose $18.5 million. Our veterans deserve
better than that; they deserve better than partisan gamesmanship
holding back their funding. I urge my colleagues to help move this
important legislation and oppose the previous question.
Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the
amendment and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the
previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Florida?
There was no objection.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield back the
balance of my time.
Ms. CASTOR. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, by passing the Improving Head Start for School
Readiness Act of 2007 and this rule, we will build on the great success
of Head Start for America's hardworking families. I would like to
salute the chairman of the Education and Labor Committee, George
Miller; subcommittee Chair, Dale Kildee; the ranking member, Mr.
McKeon; and Congressman Castle from the committee, and all the
committee members from Education and Labor for their wonderful work on
this Head Start bill.
I would also like to thank the parents across America who are
struggling to provide all that they can for their children. We are on
their side. This Democratic Congress is charting a new direction with
wise investments in education and health care for our kids, which are
certain to pay dividends in the years to come.
Madam Speaker, this is an important day for America because Congress
is going to keep the promise that it made four decades ago to children
who are born with the same potential but, because of their life
circumstances, are in need of a little extra attention, health care,
nutrition and the guiding hand of a knowledgeable and talented teacher,
which together provides them with a true ``head start.'' I urge a
``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of
Florida is as follows:
Amendment to H. Res. 813 Offered by Mr. Diaz-Balart of Florida
At the end of the resolution, add the following:
Sec. 3. The House disagrees to the Senate amendment to the
bill, H.R. 2642, making appropriations for military
construction, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and related
agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and
for other purposes, and agrees to the conference requested by
the Senate thereon. The Speaker shall appoint conferees
immediately, but may declare a recess under clause 12(a) of
rule I for the purpose of consulting the Minority Leader
prior to such appointment. The motion to instruct conferees
otherwise in order pending the appointment of conferees
instead shall be in order only at a time designated by the
Speaker in the legislative schedule within two additional
legislative days after adoption of this resolution.
(The information contained herein was provided by
Democratic Minority on multiple occasions throughout the
109th Congress.)
The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means
This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous
question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.
A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote
against the Democratic majority agenda and a vote to allow
the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an
alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be
debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of
Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the
previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or
control the consideration of the subject before the House
being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous
question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the
subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling
of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the
House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes
the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to
offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the
majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated
the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to
a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to
recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:
``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman
from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to
yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first
recognition.''
Because the vote today may look bad for the Democratic
majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is
simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on
adopting the resolution . . . . [and] has no substantive
legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is
not what they have always said. Listen to the definition of
the previous question used in the Floor Procedures Manual
published by the Rules Committee in the 109th Congress, (page
56). Here's how the Rules Committee described the rule using
information from Congressional Quarterly's ``American
Congressional Dictionary'': ``If the previous question is
defeated, control of debate shifts to the leading opposition
member (usually the minority Floor Manager) who then manages
an hour of debate and may offer a germane amendment to the
pending business.''
Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives,
the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a
refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a
special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the
resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21,
section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: ``Upon rejection of the
motion for the previous question on a resolution reported
from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member
leading the opposition to the previous question, who may
offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time
for debate thereon.''
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does
have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only
available tools for those who oppose the Democratic
majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the
opportunity to offer an alternative plan.
Ms. CASTOR. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, on that I demand
the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule
XX, this 15-minute vote on ordering the
[[Page H13873]]
previous question will be followed by 5-minute votes on adoption of H.
Res. 813, if ordered; motion to suspend the rules on H. Res. 812;
motion to suspend the rules on H.R. 3320; motion to suspend the rules
on H. Res. 811.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 224,
nays 190, not voting 18, as follows:
[Roll No. 1086]
YEAS--224
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Castor
Chandler
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Edwards
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Giffords
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Tsongas
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
NAYS--190
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastings (WA)
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Jindal
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Saxton
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--18
Carson
Cubin
Davis, Tom
Doyle
Garrett (NJ)
Hastert
Hayes
Jefferson
Johnson (IL)
Larsen (WA)
Marchant
McMorris Rodgers
Moore (WI)
Oberstar
Paul
Sessions
Sestak
Weller
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised 3
minutes remain in this vote.
{time} 1145
Mr. PETRI changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________