Michael Castle

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Isakson), who is the former chairman of the State Board of Education and a tremendous asset to the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes and 15 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers), who probably has had more to do with increasing the emphasis on math and science education than anybody in the Congress and has indicated this is one of the most misunderstood bills he has seen in 10 years here.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), clearly a person very concerned about Head Start.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, I listened to this argument all night, and there is some great success stories in Head Start, and there are a lot of us that are very devoted to what Head Start has done. But I hark back to about 15 or 16 years ago when I was Governor of the small State of Delaware, and we started welfare reform before anybody here in Congress had talked about it. We started it by having classes, mandatory classes. You had to go to classes, or you would not get your welfare. I went to that first class after they had been there for about 2 months. I walked in there; I remember there were 19 people there, one man and 18 women. I was stunned, because I thought they would want to run me out of the place. Instead, they thanked me for giving them an opportunity. We have done what you had to do with welfare in Delaware, and now in the United States. We have reduced welfare by 50 percent. The time has come in the United States of America to do more with Head Start. There are some wonderful success stories for Head Start, no question about it. But there are also in-bred problems that we need to deal with if we are going to make Head Start better, and some of those we need to talk about right now. First of all, I do appreciate the support for title I, because we did make a lot of changes. That is everything but the State demonstration and the faith-based business. Secondly, we have increased spending. Since 1995, we have doubled spending. But if you look at these results for just 1 year, and I showed these charts before, ironically, that was about an hour and a half ago, nobody has come forward to show me anything different, any study, any chart, any test whatsoever, to show that Head Start results are better than this. This shows that the increases are rather marginal, in fact, in some instances no increases at all as far as Head Start is concerned, averaging in the low twenties. This means these are kids that are going to have difficulty in school. Some are going to be higher and they are going to do all right; but for the most part, they are going to have difficulty in schools because we simply have not gotten them to where they should be, which is as close to the median level, 50 percent, as we can get them. We have to raise that. What does the State demonstration make? The State demonstration that people are so concerned about, what does it do with respect to this? Well, it fences in all of the Federal money, all of local money, it adds more local money to what we are doing here, and it makes sure that the State merges it in with all of the other programs and projects which they are trying to do to help children. Some of the comments which I have spelled out before from people on the outside, for example, the San Diego Union said: ``The strident opposition to President Bush's modest pilot proposal to fine-tune Head Start is nothing more than partisan sniping, pure and simple. Bush is looking to close the achievement gap for poor youngsters. He would do so by merging Head Start into often overlapping State programs and opposing new academic standards on the combined program.'' That is positive. That will help educate young people. Then the Des Moines Register said: ``The eight States selected for the 5-year pilot project just might do better. The eight-State pilot project is a chance to see what States can do on their own. Meanwhile, Head Start is working to improve early literacy and math preparation. When the 5-year experiment is over, Congress can decide whether a state-by-state or national framework better serves the interests of young children.'' That is not taking apart Head Start, that is not block-granting anything. That is affording opportunities to young people to be able to be educated. The Council of State School Officers has come forward and has indicated that they believe in this proposal and we need to do something about it. This is a council of State school officers which has done that, people who believe in education. The Brookings Institution, certainly a middle-of-the-road operation, has come forward and said that we need to do something. It said, given the immensity of the task and the modest success achieved thus far, new ideas are worth trying. This is a new idea. This is not dismembering anything. This is affording opportunity. This is taking eight States and saying, we are going to give you, the best States in the country, who are willing to put in extra money and who are already running programs that are going to help in early education with these young children, the opportunity to do more to lift the standards of where we are going with Head Start. Everything else will be done in Head Start. And Lord only knows, it does some wonderful things, and we have heard that said by a lot of people here tonight. But this is unacceptable; we have to do better educationally. That is what this is all about. Please support the underlying legislation and defeat the amendment.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne) who not only is extremely well known for his expertise in coaching, but is one of the leading experts on mentoring in this country.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I just want to take on the question of how well we are doing, at least educationally, in Head Start. This is really, really important, that everybody understands it. First of all, there are not that many studies with respect to how Head Start children are doing. There is a longitudinal study in the works right now which we should have pretty soon. This is a study, and I will show 2 charts, one from 1997 and one from 2000, which shows children in Head Start far below average. The average is 50 percent. That is the median that we are dealing with here. This study is by the Family and Child Experiences Survey, and it shows, and you cannot see it probably, but the blue is the fall of 1997 and the purple is the spring of 1998, so after they had been through a year of this. It shows the vocabulary of the kids had gone from the 16th percentile to the 23rd. In letter recognition they actually went down from the 27th to the 25th. In early writing, 16th to 23rd, and early mathematics, 17 to 19. Believe me, these are numbers which tell us that these kids are not going to make it in school. This is absolutely why we have to challenge Head Start. It is why we need to go to a State demonstration to make sure it is brought in with all of the other State programs which exist. Now, the numbers really are not a lot different for the year 2000, but there they are: 16 to 23 for early letter recognition; early writing went from 16 to 19; early mathematics, 21 to 23. This means that when these children reach kindergarten, we can almost predict that they are not going to make it out of school ultimately, and that, unfortunately, Head Start has not done all for them that it could. Head Start does a wonderful job in many ways that we have described here today in terms of helping with the well-being of our young children, but it is not doing what we need to do in education, and we need to challenge it. It is as we have seen and heard in some of the newspapers that have written about it. The Detroit News on July 9 said: ``Head Start advocates fear States will fritter away any Federal Head Start funds shifted their way, but proposals now in the House restrict States in how they spend earmarked money. The pilot program would be limited to eight States, and that would be a good test for proposed preschool reforms. If government can devise a better Head Start program, one which helps children more effectively, it should hurry to do so. The program's 900,000 children, the ones who need the help, deserve no less.'' That is absolutely correct. We need to take steps to help them academically. What we have proposed will do so. Please support this legislation.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert), a strong proponent for the children of our country.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra), head of the Subcommittee on Select Education in the Committee on Education and the Workforce and a strong force on our committee.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) for yielding me this time tonight and for all the tremendous work he has done in the committee and on this piece of legislation. There has been a lot of rhetoric about this legislation, and we are going to hear a lot more in the next 2 hours. Frankly, I would love to be able to stand and try to repudiate all that we are hearing, but perhaps we do not have time for that. So I thought I would take a little different tack in the time I have and that is to make sure that people who are really willing to listen understand what truly is in this title II, which is the State demonstration program of this bill. I think we can all agree on the reforms made in title I, or at least most of them anyhow. What has been the strongest point of contention is title II, which does create the eight-State demonstration program that would allow a select number of qualified States to better coordinate and to improve their early education programs. What title II does not do is seek to dismantle Head Start as we know it. It does not create a block grant, nor does it permit States to use this money as a bandage for their ailing budgets. Since H.R. 2210 was introduced, we have listened to the concerns raised by Members on the other side of the aisle as well as Head Start advocates across the Nation. What we have before us today is a carefully crafted bill which clearly addresses all of these concerns. I very strongly believe in the State demonstration project. Title II is critical, because today, unlike in 1965 when Head Start was created, Governors have a host of initiatives to serve disadvantaged citizens, including WIC, TANF, Community Services Block Grant, and state-run prekindergarten programs. Most of these programs are run through States, making coordination easy. In Head Start, however, grantees receive funds directly from the Federal Government, despite the fact that it may be more beneficial to coordinate with similar State initiatives. Those Governors who have demonstrated a commitment to early childhood education programs will now have an opportunity to fully coordinate all of those programs. By empowering those States that are committed to early childhood education to coordinate their existing patchwork of child care and preschool programs, we will produce improved results for all our children. In order for a State to participate in the demonstration program, they would have to meet a set of eligibility requirements. The State would then submit a plan to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services for approval by the Secretary. In order to be eligible, a State would need to show evidence that they are contributing to Head Start or State prekindergarten programs an amount in State and local dollars that is at least half of what the State receives in Head Start funding; existing State school readiness standards and demonstration of a willingness to allowing those State standards with K through 12 State standards, if they have not already done so; existing professional development criteria for early childhood educators; and an established means of interagency coordination. Once a State has been approved by the Secretary, there are a number of requirements and prohibitions attached to the State. For example, a State would be prohibited from using Head Start funds to pad their State budgets. Explicit in the legislation is a prohibition on supplanting, misdirecting, or misappropriating Federal or State early childhood education funds to other purposes. States are also required to continue to fund early childhood education at the same level as the 2003 fiscal year. Under this bill, it is illegal for States to reduce their complements to early childhood education. In order to participate in the pilot, States must be matching at least 50 percent of the Federal commitment with State and local dollars and contribute from any non-Federal sources an additional 5 percent of their Federal Head Start allotment. This good-faith money ensures that States make a strong commitment to early childhood education. Participating States must also have state-developed standards that generally meet or exceed the standards that ensure the quality and effectiveness of programs operated by Head Start agencies. Children in a Head Start program in a participating State will be receiving the same, if not better, services than if that State remained in the current structure. States must have standards that ensure children participating in a program demonstrate language skills, prereading knowledge, pre-mathematics knowledge, cognitive abilities related to academic achievement and social development. Finally, today, we require a State in a demonstration program to continue to fund all current Head Start grantees for the full 5 years of the project. Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to look at the details and the facts. This is good policy. Examining how State coordination will enhance the academic preparedness of pre-K children is something that will ultimately help all of the children in our districts. The School Readiness Act of 2003 builds upon the reforms of previous reauthorizations of Head Start as well as the requirements of the landmark No Child Left Behind and the vision of President Bush and Secretary Thompson. We all want to do the best for our children. I truly believe this bill does this. I have looked at the results that have existed in Head Start for a number of years, and they just are not what we need. We need to enhance the program and do even more. That is what this bill does. That is what it is all about. I would ask all of us to support the legislation when the time comes for it.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon), who is the chairman of the Subcommittee on 21st Century Competitiveness of the Committee on Education and the Workforce and who does a wonderful job.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time, and I thank all the members who took enough interest in Head Start to be here today to speak. Obviously, we do not agree on everything, but they are interested, and that is good. My view of this legislation is greatly influenced by the history of it. Looking back to 1965, in what was called the Great Society and the creation of this, many people say this is maybe the best program extant from that in terms of it being able to help children. We have heard the millions it has helped over the years. And, frankly, I believe that is accurate. I believe particularly in the areas of just well-being, in nutrition and medicine, it has been a tremendous amount of help. This program has been continued pretty much as is directly from the Federal Government to the local grantees who run the Head Start programs. It serves today about 900,000 students at about $7,100 a year. Most of the 4-year-olds that are eligible are served. Some 3- year-olds are served. And they go to school for roughly half the year for roughly half a day. I think all of this is in the interest of these children because we are dealing with children who are at 100 percent of poverty, or roughly $20,000 for a family of four. So for that reason, I think we can agree that Head Start does some good things. On the other hand, to suggest that Head Start is doing what it should do educationally for these young kids who need it as badly as anyone else in our society would be, in my judgment, a very inaccurate statement. Another inaccurate statement I have heard today are words like dismantling Head Start. This is not an accurate statement whatsoever; and also block grant, which is also not an accurate statement. I have had this argument so much I am almost tired of making it, but perhaps some people have not heard it. Essentially, the bottom line is that we are not block granting anything here. Forty-two States will be treated just as they were before and eight States would go through a demonstration program that would hopefully show us how better to educate these young people as far as Head Start is concerned. Is it a block grant? Let us take a look at it. First of all, the States would have to maintain or increase their fiscal year 2003 State funding levels. Then they would have to add 5 percent to that in order to be one of the eight States which qualify. They could only use Head Start funds for Head Start-related uses. All comprehensive health and nutritional services currently provided by Head Start would continue to be provided. Parental involvement strategies must be developed. State teacher quality standards would meet or exceed the new requirements for Head Start programs. This is hardly block granting or dismantling. It just simply is not that. This is an opportunity for improvement, as far as young people are concerned. A speaker from the other side said at one point that for the first it will reduce the number of children to be served. I do not know mathematically how anybody arrived at that. I have seen the authorization figures, and I have seen the appropriation figure for this year. The increases are there for that. The rule itself is fair. There will be a substitute certainly that is very significant in terms of what we are going to do. A number of other people have spoken to this legislation, Mr. Speaker; and I thought it would be interesting to go through what some other people are saying, since we are a little bit political on the floor, if you will. Today, in Roll Call, Mr. Morton Kandracke said, ``Children who were in the upper 25 percent of their Head Start class when they entered Head Start in 1997 showed no gains on any measure of cognitive ability over the course of the Head Start program year, and actually experienced losses in some measures in comparison to national norms. The report said that more recent 2000 data shows modest improvement in results of children, but overall progress is still too limited. Children continue to lag behind national norms when they exit Head Start. They also lag behind more advantaged children throughout their school years.'' And then it says, in conclusion, and this is, I believe, a fair man: ``Democrats ought to be urging, not fighting, upgrades in Head Start's academic rigor. Instead, they are denouncing the measure sponsored by Representative Mike Castle to give eight high-performing States leeway to improve the program.'' And that is my judgment as well. Because today, and we are in 2003 not 1965, all these States have early education programs, prekindergarten programs and other programs that help with this. Others have looked at this. The Brookings Institute has looked at it; and they have reached the same conclusions, that we should be doing this. So I think we need to be very cautious about what we are saying about what is in this program. I believe this affords kids an opportunity. Vote for the rule, support the legislation. It will be interesting to continue the debate through the evening.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I realize there is a very limited time here. I would like to reiterate what the gentleman has stated and then make it plain. The Delaware River basically serves three States in terms of what we would do here in deepening that river, Delaware, New Jersey and Pennsylvania. New Jersey is adamantly opposed to this. Delaware has serious questions about it. We have just gotten all of our reviews in. We have not even approved this yet. In fact, it is very doubtful if it is going to be approved in the State of Delaware. It is almost certain that this money cannot be spent in the course of this year. Pennsylvania has been adamantly for this. There are tremendous environmental questions that are being asked, but there are also significant economic questions which are being asked, such as who benefits from this and, in fact, whether there is a cost benefit that is remotely close to what the Army Corps came up with originally. I think to appropriate this full amount is wrong. We are not asking to close it out all together, but to reduce the amount of money that is involved here so that we can continue the necessary process to see if in another year we should be going forward with it. But this, frankly, is just a waste of money. This is something Congress should not be doing at this time in terms of putting additional money in it. My judgment is that the amendment makes all the sense in the world, and I strongly endorse it. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Let me just reiterate. We are all friends, we are neighbors; and, in most cases, we are together on these various issues. But I must say that it concerns me a great deal that there are two States out of three which are affected here that are very much concerned about going ahead with this project at this time. New Jersey is in adamant opposition to it, has been from the beginning. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) has done a wonderful job of requesting additional economic studies. GAO looked at this and found that the cost ratios are not $1.18, but 49 to 50 cents on the dollar. That is highly inefficient for going ahead with a project such as this. We in Delaware have still not given approval to this, either for economic or environmental reasons. There is a great deal of opposition in Delaware as well. We do not have anyone other than the port of Wilmington who believes that they may benefit from this. The oil companies who are involved in this, and there are six of them, I believe, along the Delaware River north of Delaware who would benefit from it, have not been willing to show any evidence of expanding their channels. If they do not do that, then it is of no advantage to them. So perhaps the Port of Philadelphia would benefit, and maybe this will go ahead. All we are asking for, frankly, is time to see if it should go ahead, and they have to work out a lot of problems between now and, say, a year from now before that can happen. But I would plead to the Members of Congress that the two States are being rather adversely impacted that are raising serious questions about this, and I think that we should revert to the smaller amount of money which is used to keep the studies going, but not to have the project go ahead. There is a lot more that could be said. We do not have the time to say it all today, except to say there is a lot of economic speculation about this, and we think it is wrong.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Slaughter- Shays-Dicks-Leach Amendment to increase funding for the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities. The arts and humanities are important both socially and economically to our nation as a whole. Studies have shown students benefit from exposure to both the arts and humanities. I have witnessed firsthand how rewarding arts and humanities programs can be to our nations' youth. For example, the Delaware Institute for the Arts in Education, which is partially funded by grants from the NEA, provides workshops and programs that encourage teachers to enrich classroom education for their students by utilizing the arts. They provide programs for students in dance, art, music, theater, and other skills essential to a well-rounded education. Because of funding by the NEA, the Delaware Institute for the Arts and other Delaware programs help give students lifetime skills of cultural appreciation, communication, critical thinking, and teamwork. While funding for the NEA encourages Arts education, part of the funds reserved for the NEH will support the important education initiative, We the People. We live in a country with a rich and rewarding history; a country where diversity helps create a uniquely American experience. It is vital that Americans understand our history in order to become more informed and civically minded citizens. Programs like the We the People initiative hope to do just that. It is important for us to remember, the collective benefits gained by not only our districts but also by the nation as a whole and that is why I rise today in strong support of increased funding for the NEA and the NEH.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, It is with great pleasure that I rise today to honor and pay tribute to a leader in the business and banking community--Wilmington Trust Company, one of the nation's principal providers of wealth advisory, banking, and corporate client services. Wilmington Trust is celebrating 100 years of business, a milestone few companies manage to achieve. This company has proved outstanding over the years and on behalf of myself and the citizens of the First State, I would like to congratulate Wilmington Trust on all of their accomplishments in the past 100 years and offer it continued success in the many years to come. Today, I recognize Wilmington Trust for their accomplishments in the State of Delaware as well as the rest of the nation. Serving clients in 60 countries demonstrates their strong loyalty and support from all their customers. Family, friends, and fellow Delawareans can now take a moment to truly appreciate everything Wilmington Trust has offered to the community. One hundred years ago, T. Coleman duPont recognized the need for secure financial resources in Delaware's growing business sector. The company has never had an unprofitable year and is currently only one of 159 public companies to have increased its dividend for over 20 consecutive years. July 8, 1903, marks the first day for the banking, trust, and safe deposit company, originally run out of the dining room of a private residence. Mr. duPont served with remarkable vision as President and Chairman of the company from 1903-1912. After being with Wilmington Trust for over 30 years, Robert V.A. Harra, Jr. was elected President in 1996 and is currently continuing at this position. The current Chairman, Ted T. Cecala, was elected in 1996 and has worked for Wilmington Trust for over 20 years. This centennial celebration signifies 100 years of service, growth, and commitment to the company's founding principles of integrity, stability, continuity, independence, and excellence. These core beliefs will help form the foundation for Wilmington Trust's promising future. Wilmington Trust's accomplishments and contributions cannot be commended enough. As the company celebrates their diamond anniversary, we can be sure their contributions will continue for many years. Their commitment to serving the community has earned Wilmington Trust a permanent place in Delaware's history.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce for yielding me time, and I have a great deal of respect for the gentleman from Maine, but the basic underlying concept of this amendment is very dangerous. No Child Left Behind was a very difficult act to pass. Each of our States has worked extraordinarily hard in the last year and a half in order to comply with No Child Left Behind. The Secretary of Education has certified that each of the States is now ready to deal with this. In each of our States, tests have been prepared. For the most part, they are starting to be given. Assessments are being made, standards are being set, we are beginning to move up education. I can tell you my State, which is the State of Delaware, which has been doing this for quite a long time, even before this, our test scores are starting to move up rapidly, we believe, as a result of setting standards and assessments and having testing in place, and I think to suspend it would be a sad error. But there is another component to all of this. If you look back over the funding of education, and I give a tremendous amount of credit to the Chair of this appropriations subcommittee as well as the ranking member, who certainly played a major role in what we are doing in helping education funding, you will see that nothing has increased in spending the way education has in the last 6 years or so. From fiscal year 1996, we have doubled funding for education at the Federal Government level. Just this year, we are going to put into IDEA an extra $1 billion. This is important, because that basically frees up State and local dollars. That is money in which the amount is not necessarily the increase that is needed, but the Federal share of it is increasing dramatically because we have stepped forward to do that. We are putting $769 million more into Title I dealing with the same children who are so very important for No Child Left Behind. So we have funded education in a way it has never been funded before. For all these reasons, because No Child Left Behind should be left in place, it is an amendment that should be defeated.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I congratulate all those who were involved with this, particularly the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson), the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon), the chairman, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee). Things have changed in education, and they have changed a lot because of what we have done right here, and a lot of people, frankly, do not like it. The No Child Left Behind is a tough piece of legislation. For those who do not believe it, just go talk to your school superintendents and hear some of the complaints they have about it. It is tough because we have standards and assessments, we are doing testing, we are making demands, and if you do not make the mark, then you will be penalized for that. And indeed, it has taken a lot of steps to educate kids better than we ever have before, and that is very commendable. One thing that has been missing in all of this has been identified in this legislation which we have before us is the fact that we need to have teachers, particularly in specialized areas, who will fill the niches of being able to teach in those areas and who are themselves prepared in those particular areas. This loan forgiveness in this excellent piece of legislation which we have before us which is going to give us, we hope, more science teachers, more math teachers, and more special education teachers and, perhaps, more reading specialists is of extraordinary importance to make sure that we are meeting the concerns and problems we have with educating all of our young people. And for that reason, I think we should all support it in every way we can. It adds to all that we have done in recent years in education. It is going to bring the best and the brightest to teaching. But by giving them loan forgiveness over a period of 5 years, first of all, they will be there for 5 years; and, secondly, it is my judgment that when they have taught for 5 years, they will look around and say, this is a good profession, and they will want to continue to teach after that. This does cost money, and quite frankly, we on this side should be very proud of the increases which we have had in education that we have pushed for in the last 6 or 7 years. A lot of mention has been made that we are not doing enough about the funding of education. We have done a lot about the funding of education, increases of 16 percent a year for the last 6 or 7 years in the Congress of the United States. The time has come to educate better. This legislation helps with that. Let us all support it.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2211, the Ready to Teach Act, which will strengthen teacher training programs to ensure teachers are highly-qualified and ready to teach when they enter the classroom. Eighteen months ago the President signed the No Child Left Behind Act into law and ever since, States and school districts across the country have been answering the call. The Ready to Teach Act follows the momentum of No Child Left Behind and meets its requirement to place a highly qualified teacher in every classroom--a requirement of great import, as the value of a qualified teacher on a student's ability to learn has been proven, over and over again. H.R. 2211 achieves this by making improvements to the Higher Education Act to help ensure teacher training programs are producing highly qualified teachers to meet the needs of America's students. All States and nearly all teacher education programs in the country are affected by general accountability provisions in this legislation. Schools receiving Federal funds must report annually on the quality of teacher preparation, including information on the pass rates of their graduates on initial certification assessments. Higher educational institutions enrolling federally-aided students in their teacher preparation programs must report annually, detailing, among other things, the certification pass rates of graduates. Unfortunately, this data has proven ineffective in measuring the true quality of teacher preparation programs. Current requirements have often been manipulated, leaving data skewed and often irrelevant. For example, if a student fails to pass the State certification exam, upon completion of the institution's program, the school will award them a degree in another field rather than in education. A school will only award students an education degree if that student has passed the state exam. That way, the school will always have a 100 percent pass rate. H.R. 2211 sets forth more useful information. This includes requiring a school to report on all students who have completed 50 percent of the program and requiring an average score of students rather than the pass rates. As in current law, H.R. 2211 will continue to award State, partnership and teacher recruitment grants. In doing so, H.R. 2211 has evolved with the teaching profession and places updated requirements on these grants. State grants will be used to increase the advancement technology in the classroom and increase the focus on rigorous academic content knowledge and scientifically based research. States will be given flexibility in identifying innovative methods for teacher preparation programs, such as charter colleges of education to provide an alternative gateway for teachers to become highly qualified. Partnership grants allow effective partners to join together, combining strengths and resources to train highly qualified teachers and achieve success in the classroom. Among other things, partnership activities will help to ensure that teachers are able to address the needs of students with different learning styles, and receive training in methods of improving student behavior in the classroom. Finally, teacher recruitment grants will help bring high quality individuals into teacher programs, and ultimately put more highly qualified teachers into classrooms. The Ready to Teach Act places a priority on applicants that will emphasize measures to recruit minorities into the teaching profession, providing a teaching workforce that is both highly qualified and diverse. We are fortunate in the State of Delaware to have the University of Delaware's Elementary Teacher Education program. In many ways the University of Delaware has already begun to address the need to have a highly qualified teacher in our classrooms. They have been innovative and forward thinking always recognizing the importance of providing their students with a strong academic base as well as a practical experience. In their freshman year at the University of Delaware, students participate in field experiences in the school setting. Freshmen have the opportunity to observe, tutor, and offer general assistance in the classroom. As sophomores and juniors, the experiences include planning, implementing, and assessing limited instructional units with small groups or an entire class. As seniors, students become engaged in an extended student teaching experience. Technology is integrated throughout the curriculum and all students will graduate with the skills necessary to utilize technology in their instructional planning. The Elementary Teacher Education program's goal is to prepare teachers who are reflective practitioners serving a diverse community of learners as scholars, problem solvers and partners. I am committed to ensuring No Child Left Behind is a success for America's children. The Committee and this Congress have been working since passage to ensure other laws in the education arena are aligned with No Child Left Behind. We have accomplished this with IDEA, Head Start and hopefully today with the Ready to Teach Act. I encourage my colleagues to support H.R. 2211.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the achievements of Dr. Barbara Benson upon her retirement as the executive director of the Delaware Historical Society. Dr. Benson has served as the organization's executive director for thirteen years and as staff librarian for ten years prior. She has left the history of Delaware on display for many future generations to cherish and explore our rich heritage. Dr. Benson is a recognized scholar in her field who set high performance standards for every task she undertook at the Delaware Historical Society. During Dr. Benson's tenure, the Delaware Historical Society grew in both its collections and membership. Furthermore, Dr. Benson led the organization's purchase of the old Woolworth 5 & 10 next to the town hall, which now proudly serves as the Delaware History Museum. Dr. Benson has challenged Delawareans to think, learn and grow. Delawareans have been called upon to connect Delaware's history with their own lives and relate their own experiences with the future of Delaware's history. Mr. Speaker, I commend Dr. Benson for challenging the residents of Delaware and for sharing her knowledge with us. The legacy Dr. Benson has left us through her work at the Delaware Historical Society is not one that will soon be forgotten.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Hunter for introducing this important resolution. Today, we recognize, support, and commend our brave service men and women for their dedication, for their sacrifice, and for their supreme love of country. We thank and honor those, including our allies, who serve on behalf of liberty and freedom, and remember those who have been wounded or died in the line of duty. Our Nation has committed our military to defend the world from grave danger and to assure the security for all nations. These men and women have risen to the highest level and have succeeded in overthrowing the Taliban in Afghanistan and the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq. While they are working diligently to bring peace, stability and prosperity to the people of Afghanistan and Iraq, our men and women of our armed forces continue to face danger each and every day. In the coming weeks and months, it will be critically important for our Nation to continue our support and pray for the safety of our troops. Their mission may not be completed for a long time, and it is important that we reiterate our strong support. At the same time, I would like to commend the military families, the employers and the communities around the United States for their sacrifices and patriotism. Our focus must be on working with the world community to fight the war against terrorism, and to rebuild Afghanistan and Iraq following the military actions. As we move forward in Iraq, and in other crisis spots around the world, I am hopeful that the United States will continue to strengthen its unity with the international community and provide hope to those nations that have been trapped under dictatorial regimes. Today, we stand firmly behind our armed forces and our allies. We thank the brave men and women who risk their lives to keep our Nation free and safe. We offer our respect, our utmost gratitude, and the promise that we shall not forget your bravery and your sacrifice. We are proud of you. May God bless you and keep you safe.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, in my career as Governor and as a Member of Congress, I have been fortunate to spend time in schools all across the State of Delaware. During my visits, I have recognized a growing and frightening trend where more and more children are becoming obese. Health, nutrition, and physical exercise professionals indicate that childhood obesity has become a national problem which is reaching epidemic proportions. For that reason, I am introducing the Obesity Prevention Act which aims to curb the rise of obesity among our nation's children. The statistics are alarming: According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) there are nearly twice as many overweight children and almost three times as many overweight adolescents as there were in 1980. Based on the agency's 1999-2000 data, the percentage of children who are overweight has nearly doubled (from 7 to 13 percent) in the past two decades, and the percentage of adolescents who are overweight has almost tripled (from 5 to 14 percent.) Dr. Nancy Krebs, chairwoman of the American Academy of Pediatrics' Committee on Nutrition found that over 60 percent of overweight children between 5 and 10 years of age already have at least one factor for cardiovascular disease. The Surgeon General indicates that overweight children and adolescents are more likely to become overweight or obese adults. The Surgeon General's Call To Action To Prevent and Decrease Overweight and Obesity 2001 found that overweight and obesity are increasing in both genders and among all population groups. In 1999, an estimated 61 percent of U.S. adults were overweight or obese. A recent analysis, underwritten by the CDC, found that the treatment of illnesses related to obesity costs America $93 billion a year, rivaling the financial toll of smoking-related disease. Health care for overweight and obese individuals costs an average of 37 percent more than for people of normal weight, adding an average of $732 to the annual medical bills of every American. We know a lot of children who are overweight grow up to be overweight or obese adults, and thus a greater risk for some major health problems. For the vast majority of individuals, overweight and obesity result from excess calorie consumption and/or inadequate physical activity. Thus, a healthy diet and regular physical activity, consistent with the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, should be promoted. Although obesity- associated problems occur most frequently in adults, important consequences of excess weight as well as antecedents of adult disease occur in overweight children and adolescents. It seems to me that we should be finding ways to help our children be healthy and fit. The Obesity Prevention Act, which I am introducing today, encourages activities to educate our nation's children about nutrition and promote physical fitness. This is accomplished with: State Nutrition and Physical Fitness Projects--This title amends the National School Lunch Act to provide 20 state demonstration programs for the creation of model nutrition education and fitness programs for students. States may use funds, after consulting with others in state government and industry who have an interest in obesity treatment and prevention, for a variety of purposes. Unlike other programs, which function as national activities of the CDC and USDA, these grant programs will give a few states the opportunity to think comprehensively about the problem of childhood obesity--not just from a health or food perspective. Local Nutrition and Physical Fitness Project--This title creates a new pilot program for 100 school districts--at least one in each state--to promote healthy eating habits and increase physical fitness. Local Education Agencies may use funds, after consulting with individuals who represent public health, nutrition and fitness organizations, for a variety of purposes. State Children's Health Insurance Program Incentive--This section creates an incentive for states that have, as part of their state health insurance plan, activities to treat or prevent childhood obesity. This is an effective way to intervene early with an at-risk population. Commission on Obesity Treatment and Prevention--The Commission will facilitate coordination between federal agencies and identify ways to streamline the process through which federal departments can aid in the treatment and prevention of obesity. Members include representatives from US Health and Human Services, USDA, US Department of Education, Center for Medicaid and Medicare Services, CDC, the President's Council on Physical Fitness and Sports, National Institute of Health, and Surgeon General as well as representatives from private sector nutrition and public health organizations and food, fitness, and other appropriate industries. In addition, they must consult with state and local government, educators and community based organizations. They will meet at least twice annually and prepare a report on actions taken to treat and prevent obesity and make recommendations for legislative and regulatory action. President's Health and Fitness Awards--This is a new section to recognize schools for overall fitness and demonstrated improvements in student fitness and nutrition awareness. In this way, we're not simply awarding athletes who are already fit but rather schools and students that are making progress toward fitness and health. Also, it provides an award for teachers or coaches who create innovative and effective fitness and nutrition programs. Afterschool Programs--Finally, the bill adds nutrition and health education programs to the list of allowable activities for afterschool programs. The time for action is now. We need to promote innovative ideas to help our children stay healthy and fit. Children are the future of America, and we must help to ensure they understand the importance of healthy living. I am confident that the Obesity Prevention Act is a positive first step to help reduce and prevent obesity among children, and I ask my colleagues to cosponsor.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the School Readiness Act of 2003, which reauthorizes the Head Start program. This legislation improves the Head Start Act by emphasizing that every child, regardless of their economic status, should have the best chance possible to succeed. I would like to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the Chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, for his assistance in developing this legislation. In 1965, Head Start was created to give economically disadvantaged children access to the same educational, health, nutritional, social, and other services that were enjoyed by their more affluent peers. The goal of the program was, as it remains today, to provide children a solid foundation that will prepare them for success in school and later in life. As the centerpiece of the Federal government's efforts to support quality early childhood education for our nation's most disadvantaged youth, Head Start has served nearly 20 million low-income children and their families. Currently, Head Start serves over 900,000 children every day and has nearly 1,500 grantees across the United States. In my home state of Delaware, Head Start programs serve 1,594 children, with an additional 464 four year olds receiving assistance through state government funding. We all can agree on the need for Head Start and its astounding successes. We must also recognize that Head Start can produce even greater results for children. Students who attend Head Start programs do start school more prepared than those with similar backgrounds that do not attend Head Start. However, Head Start students continue to enter kindergarten well below national norms in school readiness. By moving to close this school readiness gap, this bill will improve results for almost a million Head Start students across the nation. The School Readiness Act of 2003 strengthens Head Start's academic focus while maintaining its comprehensive nature, eliminates out of date requirements and unnecessary demands on local grantees, improves teacher quality, demands grantee accountability while providing assistance to those that are underachieving, increases funding for Head Start, requires collaboration between early childhood education and care providers, and creates a demonstration project allowing some states to further coordinate state early childhood programs with Head Start. Under this bill, Head Start children will enter school with demonstrated prereading, language, and pre-mathematics skills, as well as the benefits from the nutritional and health services that Head Start has always provided. Children's progress will no longer be based on arbitrary and out of date performance measures, but on scientifically based and clear criteria that will enable parents and teachers to accurately view a child's progress. This bill will also require Head Start teachers to be more prepared to equip young children for school. By 2008, 50 percent of all Head Start teachers must have a baccalaureate degree, and after three years no new teachers will be hired without an associate degree. This bill also improves the accountability of Head Start programs. As under current law, local grantees will be responsible for their use of the federal funds. Those that are identified as underachieving, however, will receive additional assistance. This bill demonstrates our commitment to Head Start by authorizing a $202 million increase, making it a $6.87 billion program. Additionally, Head Start centers will now increase the likelihood of children starting kindergarten at the same level. This will be done through the efforts of Head Start programs to coordinate and reach out to other early childhood education and care providers, local school districts, local museums and libraries, and community and faith-based organizations. These efforts will be focused on the improved instruction and school readiness of children, as well as teacher training and quality improvement. For some states, this bill will also provide the opportunity for increased integration of preschool programs with Head Start. This opportunity will only be available to states that have exhibited a substantial dedication to early childhood education and care through financial investment, the creation of statewide school readiness standards, professional development requirements for early childhood teachers, and have demonstrated inter-agency coordination. States that take advantage of this opportunity will be required to maintain their current investment, thus protecting Head Start from state budget cuts. In addition, Head Start grantees that have not exhibited any egregious or uncorrected deficiencies on Health and Human Services evaluations over the last five years would continue to receive funding during the first year of the state demonstration program. The School Readiness Act of 2003 builds upon the reforms of previous reauthorizations of Head Start, as well as the recommendations of President Bush. I would like to take this opportunity to thank President Bush, and First Lady Laura Bush, for their leadership on this issue. The success of the White House Summit on Early Childhood Cognitive Development, which brought together hundreds of educators, researchers, librarians, business leaders and federal officials to help us better understand the issues surrounding early childhood learning, is a credit to this Administration. I look forward to working with the members of the Education and Workforce Committee and other members of Congress as we work to craft this legislation that will improve the school readiness of disadvantaged children. I urge my colleagues to join me and the other original cosponsors in support of the School Readiness Act of 2003.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2185, the ``Unemployment Compensation Amendments.'' I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this important measure and I thank Chairman Thomas and the House leadership for bringing this to the floor. Sadly, we have watched many Americans become unemployed and struggle to find wok in today's economy. Today, Congress is taking a much needed step in extending unemployment compensation for our Nation's workers. Figures show the U.S. unemployment rate is at 6 percent and nearly 9 million people are unemployed. This legislation provides a safety net for men and women who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own. We must assist workers during these times of hardship so they can successfully make the transition back to the workforce. The legislation before us helps accomplish this goal and coupled with existing job training and networking programs we can return Americans to the workforce. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report on H.R. 2, the Jobs and Economic Growth Reconciliation Tax Act of 2003. This bill is a responsible effort to address the economic needs and concerns of all Americans. This bill is a dramatic improvement over the tax legislation previousl considered by the House, which I opposed. It is more targeted to help American workers and families now and it is lower in cost and more fiscally responsible. This bill will provide $330 billion in tax relief to American taxpayers and $20 billion in fiscal aid to the States. More than 272,000 households in Delaware will receive tax relief and hundreds of millions of dollars will be pumped into the Delaware economy to create jobs. To complement this effort, at my urging, Congress has also just voted to extend unemployment benefits for an additional 13 weeks bringing another $16.5 million to our State and much needed relief to Delawareans looking for work. The final agreement is a fair compromise that reduced the overall cost of the legislation to a level that is fiscally responsible. This final tax relief legislation meets the key tests that I urged the House and Senate to achieve. First, I urged that this tax relief be better targeted to provide an immediate boost to the economy. The final compromise will provide immediate relief to working Americans to put more money in their pockets now to help strengthen the economy this year. As soon as this legislation is enacted, American workers will have fewer taxes withheld from their paychecks, giving 88,000 Delaware households more money for the daily needs of their families. In addition, this bill will increase the child tax credit from $600 to $1,000 giving 77,000 Delaware families with dependent children a rebate check this summer of up to $400 per child. This additional disposable income spent by families will in turn help our businesses, communities and the economy this year. The legislation will provide tax relief to all working Americans. It speeds the reduction in tax rates for all Americans to give them more income as soon as possible. By expanding the 10 percent tax bracket immediately, this legislation will benefit 212,000 Delaware households, including low and moderate income workers by taxing the first $14,000 of income for couples and $7,000 for single people at a lower 10 percent rate. In addition, it accelerates relief from the marriage penalty tax to 105,000 Delaware marriaged couples. The bill will help small businesses by immediately increasing the amount they can deduct for new equipment and other expenses. That will encourage business owners to buy equipment now and make other investments that will build their businesses and create new jobs. The tax relief provisions in this revised legislation are geared to have the most immediate impact in the next 2 years. I had urged that these changes be made to help boost the economy now without adding unnecessary long-term costs to our government. Second, the final bill also recognizes that there are other pressing needs in our Nation that must be addressed in addition to tax relief. This compromise will provide our states with financial assistance that will support programs to help individuals in need. Most states, including my home State of Delaware, are experiencing difficult budgetary times that has caused them to limit spending on important programs. This legislation will provide $20 billion in aid to the States over the next 2 years. This aid includes $10 billion for essential government services, of which Delaware is estimated to receive $50 million, and $10 billion specifically for Medicaid, the federal-state partnership to provide important medical care to low-income individuals. Delaware's share of the Medicaid funds could be as high as $28 million. This $78 million in aid to Delaware was not included in the original House-passed bill and I am pleased it was added in this final version. Third, I had urged that the original proposal to eliminate the double taxation of dividends be modified to have a greater immediate economic stimulus and to limit the impact of this tax cut on the federal budget deficit. This issue has been addressed. I opposed the original proposal to eliminate the taxation of dividends because I did not believe we could afford the original $395 billion cost of that single proposal at this time. This compromise would not eliminate the tax on dividends, but it would reduce the rates on capital gains and dividends through 2008. This will provide an incentive for investment, at a much lower cost than the original proposal. With new investment in business ventures, new jobs will be created. Finally, I am pleased that the cost this final legislation has been significantly reduced from earlier proposals and represents a more fiscally responsible effort to provide tax relief to create jobs and strengthen our economy. This was a top priority for me because I am a strong advocate of balancing the federal budget, and I believe that any effort to stimulate the economy must be weighed against other needs and the importance of returning the federal budget to balance. I opposed the original House Budget Resolution which called for $750 billion in tax relief because I did not believe it was affordable at a time when we have critical new national security requirements and other needs. That budget plan called for a $750 billion tax cut as well as unfair and unsustainable reductions in important programs like health care, education and the environment. I opposed those and was pleased that the final budget plan did not include those cuts. I also opposed the first tax relief bill passed by the House because its cost of $550 billion was still too great for our current budget limits. In response to the concerns expressed by me and others in the Senate and House, a fair compromise has been reached that will provide $330 billion in tax relief to all working Americans, as well as $20 billion in direct aid to the States. Some of the tax relief in this bill is temporary, to stimulate the economy now and reduce the long-term cost of the legislation. Those provisions are part of the compromise and are certainly not a perfect solution. Some argue that if future Congresses extend these provisions, the long-term costs of the tax relief to the government are far higher. The sunsets act as a budget trigger that will force Congress to revisit these issues with new information and debate the best course of action on whether to extend the tax cuts beyond the years contained in this bill. Earlier this month, I called on Congress to put together a bill that would provide tax relief now to individual Americans, families and small businesses in a fiscally responsible manner. I stressed that a package could be assembled that did not exceed $350 billion. Those tests have been met. As I stated, effective governing requires careful decisions and painful compromises. All of us involved in the debate have had to make compromises. That effort has produced a bill that will return more of their hard-earned money to working Americans, create jobs for unemployed Americans, and help our state governments meet the budget challenges they are facing. I am proud to have worked hard to ensure that this bill fairly addresses the need to provide tax and financial relief now, while recognizing that we must not jeopardize our efforts to maintain fiscal responsibility in our government in the future. This bill is a fair effort to meet those tests and I support its passage to help all Americans and our nation.