[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 48 (Thursday, April 28, 1994)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: April 28, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                   HEAD START REAUTHORIZATION OPPOSED

                                 ______


                               speech of

                         HON. RICHARD K. ARMEY

                                of texas

                    in the house of representatives

                        Tuesday, April 26, 1994

  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the reauthorization of the 
Head Start Program as currently written. No reliable studies exist to 
show that Head Start has long-term positive effects, while all the 
available evidence indicates Head Start's effects wear off within a few 
years. Removing all spending restraint on the program, as this bill 
would do, seems an intellectually untenable response to this evidence.
  The Education & Labor Committee, on which I sit, has moved with undue 
haste to reauthorize and expand a program of questionable value. The 
bill would cast aside the current $8 billion authorization cap and 
instead authorize ``such sums as may be necessary''--legalese for ``the 
sky's the limit.'' This puts Head Start on the slippery slope to 
becoming an entitlement, with all the enormous cost problems associated 
with entitlements.
  Head Start's virtually unquestioned positive reputation turns out to 
be based on exaggerated reports of one study of one 1960's, non-Head 
Start Program, the Perry Preschool in Ypsilanti, MI. More recent and 
reliable research suggests Head Start's academic benefits wear off 
after about 2 years, calling into question the very premise of the 
program, while its non-academic benefits, meals and vaccinations, 
duplicate other Federal programs. Thus there would appear to be no need 
for Head Start. Yet we are greatly expanding it.
  A more reasonable policy, it seems to me, is to freeze the 
authorization at the current level until its value can be 
scientifically demonstrated. This would still enable Head Start to more 
than double in size, from the current appropriation of $3 billion up to 
the authorized $8 billion. Restoring such a generous spending cap would 
not cut a penny from Head Start, but it would help to protect our 
intellectual, and fiscal, integrity.

                          ____________________