[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 23]
[House]
[Pages 31404-31410]
[From the U.S. 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 4 
decades of Head Start, the research shows that children that 
participate in Head Start are 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

[[Page 31405]]

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 4 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 5 grandchildren among my 4 
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 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

[[Page 31406]]

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. 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 31407]]

 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.

[[Page 31408]]

  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 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

[[Page 31409]]

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 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

[[Page 31410]]

     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 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.

                          ____________________