Improving Head Start Act Of 2007

Floor Speech

IMPROVING HEAD START ACT OF 2007 -- (House of Representatives - May 02, 2007)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Delaware for allowing me to come and chat on a little different topic, a topic that we tried to bring to the floor today on this bill, and a topic that I think would truly expand and protect children in the Head Start program, but a topic that wasn't allowed to be brought to the floor because an amendment wasn't allowed. I think this issue truly demonstrates where the priorities of the majority party are.

This issue that I attempted to bring to the floor would have resulted in significantly greater safety for the children who are transported in Head Start programs.

In 1992, Mr. Chairman, Congress required the issuance of regulations that related to rear-door emergency exits and safety restraints on Head Start transportation. That was in 1992. Since the final rule for these new regulations was published, the effective date has been delayed three times.

Last week, buried deep in H.R. 1591, the emergency supplemental for Iraq, was language that delays these transportation safety requirements for Head Start programs once again. The fine print reveals that the rear emergency exit requirements are delayed for another year, and a seat belt safety requirement is delayed until another study is done.

Well, Congress required these regulations to ensure the safe operation of vehicles by Head Start agencies; and currently, the leading cause of death for children ages 3 to 7 is motor vehicle, traffic crashes. The reason why these transportation requirements were put forth is that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not approve of the use of vans or cars or vehicles of other types for the purpose of providing planned transportation services. School buses are the safest form of transportation because they include many special features. Further delaying these requirements means authorizing that Head Start grantees can transport children using vehicles that are not designed specifically for the purpose of the safe transportation of children.

My amendment, which wasn't allowed, would have ended this delay and make the regulations for emergency rear-door exits and seat belts on vehicles used to transport children effective immediately.

Mr. Chairman, as you know, on the first day of this Congress, children were paraded in front of the American people, and the new majority claimed that the House would come to order for the children. Well, today, if it is truly about the children, then the majority would have allowed this amendment to be entertained. Any further delays endangers lives of children.

So I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the hypocrisy of this process is telling, and that if we truly are interested in making certain that our greatest resource, our children, the future of our Nation, are protected, then we would have allowed this amendment, and I am distressed it wasn't allowed. I encourage through the process the majority party make certain that we address this as this bill moves forward.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to offer this amendment. I would urge my colleagues to support it. This is an amendment of expansion and educational opportunities for our young children.

In 1965, when Head Start was implemented, State-run early childhood development programs didn't exist. Since then, and most recently, and in the past 15 years, States have invested considerable resources into early childhood initiatives. This amendment seeks to provide an incredible opportunity for eight States to participate in a 5-year demonstration program and leverage their resources and experience to improve school readiness.

It would allow eight States to coordinate Head Start and early childhood State-run programs, thus improving coordination, preventing duplication and expanding the number of children that can be served by the early childhood services. To carry it out, safeguards would be put in place. States would have to ensure that participants receive services that are as good or better than those in the Head Start program, including health, nutrition, mental health services on top of the educational services.

Enacting a demonstration program will result in expanding the number of children that can be served, which is not possible in Head Start or just a State-run program alone. This is an innovative program that would help more children in our Nation, and I urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment.

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time remains.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Georgia has 3 1/2 minutes remaining.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. The gentleman from California?

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California has 30 seconds remaining.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the chairman's passion on this, but his testimony bears little resemblance to reality. I would urge him to read the amendment which states clearly on page 11, ``Head Start services furnished in a State program under this section shall include all Head Start services.''

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the perspective of the other side, but I would suggest, respectfully, that that's an old argument. It's an old argument about a block grant. This is not a block grant. This is a demonstration program that would allow States to serve more children, not fewer children, more, more than is currently possible than just with Head Start or with State-run early childhood development programs.

Economies of scale, it works. Funding levels for Head Start and early childhood services would be protected. Demonstration program States will be able to eliminate overlap, eliminate duplication of services, and participants must have access to services that are as extensive or greater than those found in Head Start. That's what the amendment states.

I urge my colleagues to read the amendment. I appreciate the fact that they have had previous amendments in legislation before them, but I urge them to read this amendment. I think they will find the common-sense aspect of it.

I appreciate the opportunity to offer it, and I urge my colleagues to adopt the amendment.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price).

The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes appeared to have it.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, isn't it true that under the rules adopted by this House, the number of votes allowed in the Committee of the Whole is different than the number of votes allowed when the House sits?

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is correct.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, further parliamentary inquiry.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his inquiry.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Isn't it further true, Mr. Speaker, that because of the rules, any re-vote in the House on an amendment that passed in the Committee of the Whole with full participation, the total votes cast would be different?

The SPEAKER pro tempore. That is correct.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I thank the Speaker.

Source