Deborah Pryce

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 338 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 338 is an open rule which provides 1 hour of general debate, equally divided between the chairman and ranking minority member. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2861, the Fiscal Year 2004 Department of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development and Independent Agencies Appropriation Act we are hearing today. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill and against provisions in the bill, except as specified in the resolution. After general debate, any Member wishing to offer an amendment may do so as long as it complies with the regular rules of the House. The bill shall be read for amendment by paragraph and the rule authorizes the Chair to accord priority in recognition to the Members who have preprinted their amendments in the Congressional Record. Finally, the rule permits the minority to offer a motion to recommit with or without instructions. Mr. Speaker, there is much to be said about what is good in this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time at this point, and will speak about it later.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.

Mr. PRYCE of Ohio

Mr. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, by the direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 336 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 5 minutes to my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from the great State of Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce from which this bill arose.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purposes of debate only. Mr. Speaker, House Res. 336 makes in order the bill H.R. 2210, under a structured rule. The rule provides 1 hour of debate to be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce. The rule provides that in lieu of the amendment recommended by the Committee on Education and the Workforce, it shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment, the amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in part A of the Committee on Rules report accompanying this resolution and provides that it shall be considered as read. The rule waives all points of order against the amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in part B of the report. It makes in order only those amendments printed in part B of the Committee on Rules report, which shall be considered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for a division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of order are waived against the amendments printed in part B of the report. Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit with or without instructions. Mr. Speaker, there are many things in this world that I can be content with, fully satisfied. Watching a beautiful sunset, eating a good piece of chocolate cake, or reading a great ending to a nail- biting suspense book. But there are other things in this world with which we should never be content; ideals which we should never tire of championing, that we should never stop striving for. And the quality of our children's education is one of those items with which we should never be content. We should always want more for them. Mr. Speaker, the debate today is in many ways a vote on the status quo. Do we keep the existing system as it is, or do we demand more for our children? More specific to our debate: Are we completely satisfied that the quality of our children's education is fine, or do we demand more? The bill before us today, the School Readiness Act, strengthens the Head Start program, the Federal Government's largest effort to prepare the Nation's most disadvantaged children for school. An immensely popular program, Head Start provides a range of services including education, nutrition, health, and parent training to over 20 million preschool children and their families who are living in poverty. But Head Start can do better. The legislation before us aims to reform and improve Head Start so that disadvantaged children hold the same level of academic preparedness as all of their peers before entering kindergarten. Specifically, this plan aims to enhance school preparedness, improve teacher quality, and close the ``readiness gap'' that exists between Head Start and non-Head Start children. First, this education package will help enhance each school's effectiveness by providing certain select States with more flexibility and control over the operation of prekindergarten initiatives through a measured pilot program. Currently, States lack the ability to fully coordinate their State's early childhood programs with Head Start. This inefficiency results in the duplication of programs and services, underenrollment, gaps in services, and missed opportunities. With this pilot program, however, States and local communities will be able to tailor their programs and services to best meet the needs of local families. It is important to note that this pilot program in no way eliminates basic programs and services, nor is the program an unfunded mandate or a loophole for States to cut early childhood education programs. Let us be crystal clear: this bill in no way cuts funding for any of Head Start's education, nutrition, or health services. Quite the opposite, Mr. Speaker. This package provides safeguards to prohibit participating pilot program States from making funding cuts. In addition, the Head Start package authorizes a $202 million increase in funding for the program, an amount that has nearly doubled in the past 7 years. This legislation will also ensure that more Head Start teachers are adequately trained and educated in early childhood development, particularly in teaching the fundamental skills of language, prereading, and premathematics. These provisions will help to meet a goal set recently by the National Head Start Association itself, which calls for 75 percent of the Head Start teachers to have at least an associate degree by the year 2005 and for all Head Start teachers to have at least an associate degree by 2008. And, finally, for our country's most, most disadvantaged children, this education plan will help close the Head Start readiness gap and ensure that all children achieve academic parity. Most children entering Head Start hold academic skills far below national standards. That is very sad. And while most children make improvements in these schools while enrolled in Head Start, the average Head Start child still lacks many of the premathematics and prevocabulary skills that their peers attain. Head Start students are learning, but they are not learning enough. In fact, for the brightest 25 percent of Head Start kids, there is no evidence of academic progress while enrolled in the program. This bill makes significant improvements to the program, fine-tuning its focus on a strong curriculum and academic excellence. And so we find ourselves faced with the same questions I asked just moments ago: Is Head Start better and more effective than it was yesterday or last year? It is a worthy question, especially when faced with the long list of studies that shows the sad truth, that Head Start children simply do not begin kindergarten with the same level of academic preparedness as their more fortunate peers. So I ask the opponents of this legislation, are you satisfied with this readiness gap? Are you comfortable with the status quo? Well, I am not. Parents are not. And neither are the supporters of this bill. The level and quality of our children's education is something with which we can never be completely content. It is an on-going struggle, an area where we must be willing to constantly demand more. There is no rest when it comes to fighting for a better education and a brighter future for the youngest in our society. There is no such thing as a perfect classroom, a perfect teacher, or a perfect student. There is always room for improvement. Mr. Speaker, this plan raises the bar on our standards and our expectations. It closes the readiness gap between disadvantaged and more affluent children, and it will enhance teacher quality and school effectiveness. In short, Mr. Speaker, it is a bill that demands the best for our children, and I urge my colleagues to pass the rule and agree to the underlying bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield four minutes to my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne), a member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4\3/4\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), a member of my very own class in Congress.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), the distinguished colleague of mine and the dean of our delegation, a former elementary school teacher and principal himself, and, most importantly, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee on Health and Human Services that funds this bill.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Education Reform, the chief sponsor and author of this legislation.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I would inquire of the gentleman as to how many speakers he has?

Mr. PRYCE of Ohio

Mr. PRYCE of Ohio. The gentleman may as well go ahead then, please.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton), a very thoughtful member of this conference.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. It is time to demand the best for our children. The gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) are offering us that opportunity this evening. I urge my colleagues to pass this fair rule and agree to the underlying legislation. It is time to improve our children's chances.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from the State of Florida (Mr. Foley).

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham).

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 additional minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham).

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am most pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), my distinguished colleague, the dean of the Ohio delegation, and the chairman of the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, who has done such great work to bring this bill to the floor of the House.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, in closing, this really is the Hope Act. This bill will provide the needed funding to supply people with new skills and new opportunities, hope for a better job. It will lay the groundwork for new medical cures, hope for the gift of life, and it will provide for stronger schools and a better education, hope for a brighter future. The message is clear and our commitment is unwavering. Quality education and health care, safe work environments and secure jobs, these are our goals and are reflected in this funding package. I urge my colleagues to support this open rule and adopt this important legislation.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 312 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 312 is an open rule which provides for 1 hour of general debate, equally divided between the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) and the ranking member, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), on H.R. 2660, the fiscal year 2004 Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related agencies appropriations bill. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill and against provisions in the bill, except as specified in this resolution. After general debate, any Member wishing to offer an amendment may do so, as long as it complies with the regular rules of the House. The bill shall be read for amendment by paragraph, and the rule authorizes the Chair to accord priority in recognition to Members who have preprinted their amendments in the Congressional Record. Finally, the rule permits the minority to offer a motion to recommit, with or without instructions. Mr. Speaker, we have before us today the Labor, Health and Human Services appropriations act for fiscal year 2004, a funding package that makes good on our promises to America's children, workers and families. Before I summarize the main components of this package, a larger context must be established so that Members of both sides of the aisle fully understand what we are debating here and what is at issue today. When Members of Congress met in subcommittee and in committee to write this appropriations package, planning the most effective and efficient way to fund many of these domestic programs for education, for health care, for labor, they did not pick random funding levels. Setting funding levels was not decided by a game of darts or ``eenie, meenie, minie, moe.'' A war in Iraq, a slowly recovering economy, and limited government revenues placed very clear and very real limitations on the resources, and the need to be fiscally responsible with the taxpayers' dollars was great. Despite these challenges, the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) and the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Regula) and their colleagues created a funding plan that reflects our priorities, meets our goals, and places the greatest funding in the areas we need it most. So when they drafted a plan to fund teacher quality grants, they thought of the millions of students who learn something new each day when they are taught by well-qualified teachers; and when they created a package to give assistance and training to dislocated workers, they thought of the many unemployed men and women who diligently search for a new job, but always seem to meet a dead end; and when they thought to craft a plan to help critical agencies such as the Centers for Disease Control and the National Institutes of Health, they thought of America's communities, which need increasing assistance in fighting the growing threats of terrorism, especially those of bioterrorism. As a result, we have seen dramatic increases in both agencies, even after NIH's funding has doubled over the past 5 years. When they considered the significance of programs, such as the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, they thought of all the families who are forced to forego other needs in order to afford heat for their homes during cold winter months; and when they created a plan to provide comprehensive nutrition programs for women, infants and children, they thought of the thousands of soon-to-be and new mothers who wanted to provide the best possible care for their children and themselves by eating right and living healthy lives. Mr. Speaker, I mention these things at the risk of sounding repetitive, because the debate over this appropriations plan is likely to turn quite heated. These Members of Congress that I have mentioned, the ones who have worked so hard under the constraints of very finite resources, may not be rewarded here today. Instead, they may very well be maligned by many of our colleagues from the other side of the aisle who will suggest that this plan is cruel and that those that have created it are uncaring. So when these opponents begin to suggest that the amount of money is indicative of the size of a person's heart, I would ask them to ponder a quote by one of our former presidents, Ronald Reagan, who said, ``The size of the Federal budget is not an appropriate barometer of social conscience or charitable concern.'' And that is so true. Do we have limited resources to spend? Yes. Can we still meet America's needs with those limited resources? Absolutely. And is more money always the best answer or the only answer? Absolutely not. For example, in 1994, when my colleagues from the other side of the aisle controlled Congress, the Labor-HHS appropriations plan increased education spending by a mere 2 percent, and even then there were no additional education reforms. The message of their plan was more spending equals better education; more dollars equals better education. Now, fast forward to 2002 when the Republican-controlled Congress increased funding by 18 percent: 2 percent when they had it, 18 percent when we have it. And we also implemented the landmark No Child Left Behind plan to allow local school districts more flexibility in exchange for greater accountability and for student achievement. Our message: more efficient and effective spending equals a better education. Mr. Speaker, funding America's priorities can be both generous and responsible, and this appropriations package is proof positive of that fact. It provides significant increases for vital programs and services while maintaining wise stewardship over taxpayers' dollars. One issue that I have championed for many years, greater funding for children's medical hospitals, received significant increases in this bill, and I want to thank both the chairman and the ranking member for recognizing the need for continued support for those working to improve children's health and end critical and deadly diseases. But all Americans are touched in one way or another by this legislation. The gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Regula) has provided tremendous leadership, working tirelessly to assure that Congress spends generously, but wisely. As a result of that fact, as the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Regula) says, we should call this legislation the Hope Act, because it provides hope for nearly every single person in America it touches. Hope for new medical cures, hope for stronger schools, hope for a new job. Whether you are an at-risk youth who will be able to attend an after-school program, or whether you are a senior who will benefit from increased efficiency and improved service in receiving your Social Security benefits, or whether you are a child who will receive better care from the extra assistance for children's hospitals and the teaching that goes on in them, the message that this appropriations plan sends out is very clear. Our priorities are the same, and our commitment is unwavering: quality education, adequate quality health care, safe work environments, and secure jobs. These are our goals, and they are reflected in this funding package. I urge all of my colleagues to pass the rule and approve the underlying bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield such time as he may consume to my very distinguished colleague from the grand State of California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of our Committee on Rules. (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, we reserve our time on this side for the time being.