[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 85 (Wednesday, June 11, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H5257-H5263]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         SUPPORTING HEAD START

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 7, 2003, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to talk about a most 
important successful program that young children have been able to 
participate in from very needy communities for a long time now. But 
first I would like to thank the chairman of the Congressional Black 
Caucus for organizing this Special Order this evening.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Head Start programs, and 
I would urge all of my colleagues to oppose the radical changes that 
are being proposed by the Bush administration.

                              {time}  1845

  I have taken time out this evening to be here with whatever 
colleagues will join me to talk about this program because it is a 
program that I love. I love the Head Start program. I love this program 
because I got involved with the Head Start program early on. I got 
involved at the inception of the Head Start program under the war on 
poverty. The country was very excited about the fact that under the war 
on poverty there was going to be this program, an early childhood 
education program, for people in poor communities and working 
communities that had not been able to send their young children to 
preschool programs.
  At one time in this country, preschool programs were only available 
to people with money, to the wealthy, to people who were earning good 
incomes, but Head Start was envisioned under the war on poverty as a 
program that could help children in poor communities and working 
communities get a jump, get a head start so that they would be prepared 
for kindergarten. They would be prepared for school and education.
  The researchers and the educators that came up with this idea 
understood that for young people to be successful or more successful in 
school, if they had this preschool experience, it would not only 
prepare them for reading and learning, but it would also build other 
kinds of qualities. Building self-esteem was an important idea of the 
Head Start program.
  I went to work for Head Start as an assistant teacher. I went into 
the Head Start program, and little did I know that Head Start was not 
simply to be a place of employment for me, it changed my life. In Head 
Start, not only did I learn how to work with young people, to build 
self-esteem, I later became the supervisor of parent involvement and 
volunteer services where I worked with families, with mothers and 
fathers and grandparents, bringing them into the Head Start program and 
helping them to understand that they certainly could be in control of 
their children's destiny.
  Head Start was a program that not only dealt with early childhood 
education, a preschool experience for young people, but it was a 
program that helped to deal with parenting and helping parents to 
understand how they could, in fact, get more involved and give more 
support to their children.
  Also, this program spread out into the community, and it helped 
parents to understand how not only they could be involved with their 
children's early childhood education, but they could be involved in the 
community and helping the community to understand how to be supportive 
of education, interacting with the school boards and with other 
educators, talking about their children's experiences and what was 
going on in the homes and helping educators to be more in tune with how 
they could better give young people a head start.
  Head Start is very special because it takes into consideration the 
whole child. This program understood early on that if we are to be 
successful with our young people in education, we must give them every 
advantage and every opportunity to learn. Before Head Start, children 
were going to school. They could not hear well, could not see well, had 
learning disabilities, had never had a physical examination, had never 
had an examination to determine some of the problems that were so 
obvious when one interacted with these young people.
  When we opened Head Start, we brought in the families and the 
children, and they had full physical examinations. They had an 
opportunity to talk with counselors. If psychiatrists were needed, they 
had that, also. So we discovered that there certainly were learning 
disabilities; dyslexia, and other kinds of problems were discovered and 
they were worked on.
  Health care opportunities and preventive care was available to these 
parents for the first time. So we were able to attend to these health 
needs so that the children could certainly be prepared for learning, 
and that is what happened in the Head Start program.
  The Head Start program not only dealt with the health care needs and 
preventive health care for families, it helped families to understand 
how they could build self-esteem. We learned a lot about self-esteem 
and how parents and families could be involved in building that self-
esteem. We talked to parents how to place the work of their children on 
their walls at home, the paintings and the drawings and all of those 
things that children felt proud about, but oftentimes parents and 
families did not know how important it was. We taught them how to 
display the work of their children, but we also taught them how to take 
materials in

[[Page H5258]]

their homes and materials from in the environment, in the neighborhood, 
from the trees and from the shrubbery, and use them as art tools and 
how there could be art projects and children could learn to use the 
various skills that they had that they had not discovered.
  Head Start not only took care of the health care needs, expanded the 
learning for parents to help them to build self-esteem with their 
children, Head Start went further than that. The Head Start program 
opened up opportunities in the classroom where children were introduced 
to books for the first time. Children in Head Start are taught to love 
books. They are taught that you never tear up a book; that you never 
throw a book around; that you take care of the books, that they are 
very important; and that one of the first steps in learning is to 
introduce kids to books and tell them how important it is, get them to 
respect the books and want to know what is in the books. Head Start 
opened up all of these opportunities to prepare children in that 
classroom for going into the public schools.
  Mr. Speaker, Head Start has proven to be successful. When Head Start 
children first went to kindergarten, the teachers wanted to know who 
are these children and why are they so prepared. Head Start children 
went into the classrooms for the first time asking questions and 
participating. This program has worked. Someone has said, it was not 
me, if it is not broken, what are you doing trying to fix it?
  Head Start does not need to be fixed. Head Start is a good, solid, 
sound program of early childhood education that brings in the parents 
and the community, and this idea of this administration to block grant 
the Head Start, throw it into the States, is an idea that we have to 
resist. We resisted the part of the first idea of this administration 
that wanted to take it out of Health and Human Services and place it 
into the Education Department.
  We fought them back on that, but now they are intent on block 
granting the program to the States. I do not know about other States, 
but I know the State of California has a $38 billion deficit. We do not 
want to throw this program into a State that could easily take funds 
from Head Start to help make up for the lack of funds in other areas. 
We know what happens when we block grant programs. We give the States 
the opportunity to do what they want to do with the money, and so we 
are opposing that. We are strenuously opposing block granting this 
program.
  For those of us who have had the experience of working in the Head 
Start program, of working with parents in the Head Start program, for 
visiting the Head Start programs, interacting with the children, the 
families and the teachers, we say no to the Bush administration, you 
cannot have Head Start. We will not let you undermine this program with 
these ideas that you have about throwing it into the States and giving 
it to the States under a block grant.
  With that, I am going to yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Payne) to share his thoughts on Head Start.
  (Mr. PAYNE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentlewoman from California 
for framing the argument. I think she did an excellent job, the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), a person who helped organize 
Head Start parents and who for many years has held the importance of 
children as our most valuable possessions and has seen the success of 
this program, as have all of us, and that is why we stand here this 
evening, the Congressional Black Caucus, with our chairman the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings), to discuss this question of 
Head Start.
  I commend our chairman for organizing these Special Orders on issues 
that impact on the poorest of our people, the people with no voice, 
people in Appalachia and delta regions and in urban centers that are 
not represented by lobbyists, and so we are their voice. We are their 
spokesperson. We speak for those who have no voice, and so I am proud 
to say that Head Start should not be tampered with.

  In 1964, President Lyndon Johnson gave his State of the Union address 
before Congress and our Nation with an announcement to declare war on 
poverty. This was a great declaration which caught the imagination of 
our Nation. In his declaration, he believed for the first time in 
history that poverty could be eradicated and offered his proposal, the 
Economic Opportunity Act, EOA, of 1964. Despite opposition that 
believed poverty was on the decline from the highs of the Great 
Depression, Johnson was undaunted.
  He declared, ``The Act does not merely expand old programs or improve 
what is already being done. It charts a new course. It strikes at the 
causes, not just at the consequences of poverty,'' and that is where 
the Head Start program is so important. It strikes at the causes of 
poverty to deal with poverty elimination in this country. ``It can be a 
milestone in our 180-year search for a better life for our people,'' 
said Lyndon Baines Johnson.
  After the bill was signed into law that very year, the Office of 
Economic Opportunity was created to fulfill its mission. At the same 
time, a pediatrician by the name of Dr. Robert Cooke was asked to head 
a new office to lead a steering committee of specialists in all fields 
to discuss what should be done for young people to bring them out of 
poverty and to assist them in their early lives. Their recommendations, 
known as the Cooke Memorandum, outlined what we now know today as the 
Head Start program.
  Launched as an 8-week summer program, Head Start was designed to help 
break the cycle of poverty by providing preschool children of low-
income families with a comprehensive program to meet their emotional, 
social, health, nutritional and psychological needs. That is why this 
program is so important. Head Start is to break the cycle of poverty 
because it deals with emotional, social, health, nutrition and 
psychological needs.
  Since its inception, Head Start has served over 20 million children. 
Today, it is a full-day, full-year program providing preschool children 
of low-income families, working families, with a comprehensive program 
to meet their emotional, social, health, nutritional and parental 
support. Head Start focuses on the whole child, extends to recognizing 
the importance of strengthening the family, not necessarily the 
institution but the family.
  Throughout its inception, Head Start has included parents. Parents 
sit on committees to select teachers. They help with the curriculum, 
this is the participation, and parents learn through this program. Head 
Start has included parents in both their child's education and in their 
membership to the Head Start Policy Council, which serves as a vital 
link between the community and public and private agencies.
  Parental involvement is a critical and integral part of this program. 
Economically disadvantaged families are no longer seen as passive 
recipients of service but, rather, as active, respected participants 
and decision-makers, and many of them have moved on to complete their 
education, and they have become leaders, and they have become elected 
officials, and they have become stalwarts in their community. That is 
why Head Start is so good because it takes the total family.

                              {time}  1900

  Today we stand here to support our Head Start program, and oppose 
H.R. 2210, a bill which will dismantle the program as we know, hurting 
the very ones we should be helping, our Nation's children. If the bill 
were enacted today, it would mean changing the current Federal to local 
partnerships to a State optional plan. As indicated by the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Waters), a State optional plan is another way of 
saying block grants.
  The Federal Government would give States the authority to create 
their own preschool programs without the same performance standards as 
Head Start and without additional funding. Nationwide, States' 
commitment to preschool is $2 billion. It is much less than the Federal 
contribution of over $6 billion. In light of the $38 billion shortfall 
in the State budget in California, $5 billion in New Jersey, in excess 
of $70 billion in shortfalls in State budgets across the Nation, we 
cannot leave the fate of our children in the hands of States struggling 
to meet their other needs.
  The impetus of this bill, the administration's Head Start proposal, 
states a

[[Page H5259]]

need to better coordinate preschool programs in the States. But Head 
Start already coordinates with child care and prekindergarten programs. 
According to research done by the Center for Law and Social Policy, 
many Head Start agencies have formal agreements with school districts 
around the country to coordinate transitional services for children and 
families. Coordinating will not help the fact that Head Start is 
severely underfunded. You can coordinate all you want; you cannot get 
more with a limited amount of funds. So the problem is not 
coordination; it is the lack of funding.
  There are a half million children in the country that are eligible to 
attend Head Start today. That is three out of five children, and they 
are not all being covered today.
  In conclusion, I have offered a resolution, H. Res. 238, a resolution 
expressing support for the Head Start program which has had a positive 
impact on the lives of millions of children nationwide. The resolution 
not only recognizes the contribution of Head Start; it also supports 
maintaining its current designation at the Department of Health and 
Human Services. With the average child care cost in New Jersey at over 
$5,000 a year, thousands of children across my State and others would 
not have access to an exceptional program that has them ready to learn 
by the time they enter kindergarten if Head Start were not there to 
serve them. Terms of such State options and coordination will mean a 
shortfall and this 38-year program does not need to have this fate. We 
need to move towards full funding of Head Start, furthering the quality 
of this program, preserving the focus of comprehensive services to 
children and their families. We need to support Head Start as it is 
today.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for 
that brilliant presentation on Head Start, and I yield to the gentleman 
from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) for this important discussion on the 
floor, the esteemed chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Waters) for her passion on this issue and so many other issues.
  Just the other day, the gentlewoman stood in the meeting of the 
Congressional Black Caucus and poured her heart out with regard to her 
concerns for our children. I think everybody in the room could feel 
that passion.
  One of the things that I think hit us real hard was we all realize, 
and I know the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), who has been 
standing up for these kinds of issues over and over again, time after 
time, we all realize that our children are the living messages we send 
to a future we will never see. So tonight the Congressional Black 
Caucus joins together, and I want to thank all members of the caucus. 
We come to stand up for our children. As the gentleman from New Jersey 
(Mr. Payne) said, they are not just children that may be found in South 
Baltimore or West Baltimore, but they are the children that will be 
found in Appalachia and poor regions throughout our country; and when I 
say poor, I mean economically poor.
  Since 1964, Head Start has given nearly 19 million American children 
the educational, nutritional health, and related services that are 
essential to early childhood development. The ongoing Family and Child 
Experiences Survey has consistently documented the success of this 
national partnership for America's future. If Head Start did not exist, 
we would have to invent it. This year the survey again reported that 
teachers in Head Start centers are effectively preparing our children 
for school.
  I note this fact because some critics would have us believe 
otherwise. Throughout this country, Head Start is a bridge to the 
future being constructed by local communities with help from their 
national government; and that is what we should be all about, 
communities coming to the aid of their children, those children that 
come from their womb and whose blood is running through those 
children's veins, trying to lift them up so they can be all that God 
meant for them to be. That is what the national Family and Child 
Experiences Survey tells us. I can validate the survey's conclusion 
because Head Start funding is making an important and positive 
difference in the lives of more than 10,000 Maryland children this 
year.
  Many of these children live in my hometown of Baltimore. Some attend 
a wonderful Head Start program at Union Baptist Church just down the 
street from my home. Every time I pass that Head Start center, I feel a 
warmth and I see a beacon of light in a very, very depressed area. When 
I visit these children and their teachers and parents in Head Start 
programs throughout the Baltimore area, I am reminded of the fact that 
they are looking at our children and seeing all of the wonderful things 
that are within. And these teachers are just like a sculptor who looks 
into a piece of wood and sees a wonderful, wonderful piece of art and 
understands that he has to use his tools to carve and bring out that 
piece of art. It is the same thing with our wonderful and very 
dedicated Head Start teachers.

  I am deeply gratified that this year more than $76 million in Head 
Start funding will give Maryland children a head start in life. It is a 
moral and practical investment in our future.
  Nationally, we know that every dollar we spend on Head Start saves 
taxpayers between $4 and $7 down the road. For all the good that Head 
Start is doing, however, we must not lose sight of the fact that Head 
Start could be doing so much more if the program were adequately 
funded.
  This is what the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) has been 
talking about over and over again. Today Head Start only serves 
approximately 60 percent of the children who are eligible. Funding was 
raised to almost $6.7 billion for fiscal year 2003; and for fiscal year 
2004, the administration has proposed another small increase to just 
under $6.8 billion.
  These small increases in funding that we have achieved in recent 
years represent positive and important steps forward. Nevertheless, as 
we consider reauthorization this year, we should step up to the plate 
and finally give Head Start the funding that would allow every eligible 
child to participate. We should guarantee a head start in life to every 
American child who needs our help.
  The Nation's teachers, through their National Education Association, 
stand full square behind this vision. I realize that extending a head 
start to every deserving child would be very expensive. But I say to 
Members that when I visit the jails in Baltimore and I see our children 
in shackles and handcuffs and I look at their reading levels and the 
average reading level is less than a fifth-grade reading level, that 
tells me something.
  So we must ask the question is it better to pay later when our 
children are locked up and not achieving the things that they should be 
achieving, or is it better to invest in them when they are growing up 
in their formative years? The estimated cost would be an additional $29 
billion over the next 5 years. Think about all this Nation would 
receive in return for additional investment in our future. We would be 
living in a country that made a meaningful commitment to truly leaving 
no child behind. We would be saving money in the long run because of 
reduced costs for special education, social services, teen pregnancy, 
juvenile crime, and other problems down the road, a true head start for 
every American child. This is a vision that all Americans can support.
  We have been working hard during my years of service in the House to 
make Head Start even better. We have set strong national standards for 
Head Start that complement the power of Head Start's local Federal 
partnerships. We have maintained our traditional emphasis on 
substantial parent involvement. We are succeeding.
  That is why we should resist Republican efforts to transfer 
management of Head Start to the States. The bill proposed by my 
Republican colleagues with the supposed purpose of enhancing the 
schools' readiness of low-income and disadvantaged students is grossly 
misleading. The supposed demonstration project being proposed will 
block grant funding of Head Start to certain States. I maintain this 
will not enhance the school readiness of students, but is instead a 
thinly veiled attempt to weaken and dismantle this very powerful and 
significant Federal program.

[[Page H5260]]

  When I think of the Republican proposal, a certain quote by Reverend 
Joseph Lowery comes to mind. Reverend Lowery once asked, ``Will America 
lose her soul for political chicanery? Would you give a balanced budget 
on the backs of the poor? Would you have welfare reform for the poor 
while the rich corporations continue to enjoy tax exemptions and 
subsidies? America, what would you give in exchange for your soul? 
Would you reduce school lunches for poor children in exchange for your 
soul?''
  Well, Mr. Speaker, I would ask one more question in addition to those 
posed by my friend, Reverend Lowery. Tonight I ask America if she would 
dismantle one of a few Federal programs that gives poor children a 
hand-up in exchange for her soul. Facing crippling budgetary crises, 
the States should be concentrating on their traditional K-12 education 
role. Let us help the States succeed in K-12 education first before we 
consider turning early childhood education, nutrition, and all of the 
other services Head Start provides over to State governments.
  Local leadership has always been the foundation of Head Start's 
success. Local leadership, high standards, and increased Federal 
support can assure every American child a head start in life. Our 
children are indeed our living message that we send to a future we will 
never see, and it is our duty in this Congress to assure that the 
living messages this generation sends to America's future are filled 
with competence, confidence, and hope.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her leadership.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Cummings) for his passionate plea to our colleagues not to allow this 
program to be dismantled, and I yield to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lee).
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, first, I want to thank the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Waters) for her leadership and really for her guidance 
based upon her remarkable experience with Head Start and for her 
passion and for her commitment to children who really otherwise would 
have very few opportunities to succeed.

                              {time}  1915

  I also want to thank the gentleman from Maryland, chairman of the 
Congressional Black Caucus, who once again is demonstrating his 
enormous leadership by sounding the alarm in terms of this 
administration's assault on children.
  We have come together tonight to talk about an issue really that is 
about our future. It is about the future of our children. So what else 
could really be more important? Head Start has been an enormously 
successful program since its inception in 1965 because it continues to 
offer comprehensive programs for children and families. Head Start has 
enabled these children to enter kindergarten on an equal footing with 
students who were really born into wealthier socioeconomic 
circumstances. Over the last four decades, Head Start nationwide has 
reached an unbelievable number of students. Since 1965, over 20 million 
children across the country have participated in Head Start programs. 
Last year alone, Head Start and Early Head Start programs worked with 
more than 900,000 children in 2,590 local programs. In my own hometown 
of Oakland, California, over 1,600 children are part of our area Head 
Start programs. But we are still not really reaching enough kids. On 
any particular day, 300 to 400 children are on a waiting list for the 
Oakland Head Start centers. In fact, all 30 centers have children on a 
waiting list, meaning that all areas are being affected; 300 to 400 
children, as I said, are far too many to have to begin school already 
behind. In fact, one child on a waiting list is really one too many, 
one too many in terms of a young person not afforded access to early 
participation in such an enormously successful program.
  Yet again the Bush administration is dismantling another excellent 
domestic program by trying to reduce the effectiveness, and that is 
what this is going to do, reduce the effectiveness of Head Start. They 
are trying to radically change what has really been a radically 
effective program. President Bush's plan to reform Head Start would 
systematically, basically, and probably will really gut Head Start. For 
instance, the President has called for moving Head Start from the 
Department of Health and Human Services to the Department of Education. 
The administration wants to move Head Start from HHS because they 
believe preschoolers should be judged solely by academic standards. 
President Bush wants to begin a national reporting system of literacy 
testing, mind you, literacy testing for our 4-year-olds. How ridiculous 
and how sinister this is.
  Administrators in the city of Oakland's Head Start program tell me 
that moving Head Start to the Department of Education will mean the end 
of all of the support services and the component services that make 
Head Start so successful. When parents and children in Oakland and 
throughout my own congressional district heard of this proposal a 
couple of months ago, several hundred people participated. These were 
men, women and children, families, participated in a rally, all of them 
saying in no uncertain terms, ``If it ain't broke, don't fix it.'' This 
will be, and I heard this over and over again, the end of health 
services; and in a country where our health care system is totally 
broken, to eliminate health services for young people which they 
receive through the Head Start program is really, really wrong. It is 
wrong because, again, the President and the administration's view is 
that it should be only a literacy program.
  By turning Head Start into a block grant program, the President 
claims that Head Start will be more flexible while ignoring the fact 
that one of Head Start's virtues is that it already has a great deal of 
flexibility on a local level. Yet Head Start is, and should continue to 
be, a national program. We really do not need 50 different 
administrations in 50 different States. We do not need these 
bureaucracies that will take money from children to go to State budgets 
and overhead costs. Block granting Head Start funds is really a 
particularly bad idea this year because our States are experiencing 
such huge budget deficits. It will be especially tempting for Governors 
and State governments to really try to tap into this money. That is not 
to say that State governments will misappropriate money, it is just a 
real acknowledgment that State officials will be tempted to use this 
money to offset their deficits. How do we know that this money would be 
used for Head Start? This really puts our children's future at risk at 
the whim of State budgets. This is just downright wrong.
  With these proposals, the Bush administration is demonstrating once 
again their disregard for our children and our families, those that do 
not have a lot of money. They are demonstrating their real contempt for 
working families struggling just to make it on wages that are not 
enough to raise them up above the poverty level. While the 
administration devastates Head Start, they simultaneously sign a tax 
cut primarily for the wealthiest in this country. They spend billions 
of dollars on war, at the same time not fully funding education, 
cutting child care, health care, job training programs and housing. We 
cannot let the President and this administration dilute what has been 
one of the most successful programs over the last four decades. We must 
stop the President's assault on Head Start. We must stop this Congress' 
assault on Head Start.
  I encourage our colleagues to join all of us, the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Waters), the Congressional Black Caucus, all of us in 
this resistance. Our children deserve us to stand up for them at least 
this one time.
  Ms. WATERS. I thank the gentlewoman from California for her longtime 
concern and actions on behalf of children. I thank her for taking time 
out of her schedule to be here this evening.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Corrine 
Brown).
  Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding 
and to the members of the Congressional Black Caucus, I thank them for 
hosting these educational hours to educate the American public as to 
what is going on in the people's House.
  To me, the cold-hearted attitude of the House Republicans can be 
summed up in a statement made last week by

[[Page H5261]]

the House majority leader. When asked about bringing up the child tax 
credit bill, he said, and I quote, ``There are a lot of other things 
that are more important than that.''

  I humbly ask my colleague on the other side of the aisle, what 
exactly on your agenda is more important than the protection of the 
children in this Nation? In my State of Florida alone, the child tax 
credit package benefits over a million children. Once again, the 
Republican leadership is catering its agenda to the rich, after 
deciding just today that the only way they would agree to take up the 
child tax credit bill is by adding on an $80 billion tax credit for the 
rich in the bill. Even though their selected leader, George W. Bush, is 
urging them to take up a clean bill and even though they follow his 
leadership in everything from tax cuts for the rich to foreign policy, 
when it comes to funding children's programs, they ignore even the plea 
of the White House. In addition, the House Republican leadership is 
planning to dismantle Head Start, one of the best educational programs 
for children of working-class families, by block granting program 
funding.
  There was $900 million sent down to Florida Governor Jeb Bush. Yet he 
put the money in the bank as opposed to helping the people of Florida. 
Block grant money is not the way to go. In the past, everyone was 
telling me, just send the money to the State. In the area of 
transportation, just send the money to the State. Education, just send 
the money to the State. They will know best what to do with it. I can 
tell you, they are singing a different tune now. When I talk to the 
mayors or the county commissioners, they tell me, Whatever you do, 
don't send that money to Tallahassee, because we will never see a dime 
of it. Whatever you do, don't block grant the money and send it to 
Tallahassee. It is a deep hole and they never see a dime of the dollars 
that come from the Federal Government down to the State.
  The Republican Head Start block grant plan will end Head Start as we 
know it, one of the most successful programs in the history of this 
country. Even the new limited eight-State block grant is a risky deal. 
Why risk turning a successful program over to States with unproven 
expertise and without the Federal program quality standard requirements 
and oversight that are demonstrated to increase school readiness?
  My colleagues, there is an old expression which really applies to 
this issue: If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Head Start kids are very 
prepared to do better in school than low-income children who do not 
receive Head Start. In addition, it has been proven that Head Start 
narrows the readiness gap between Head Start kids and kids from the 
more affluent side of the tracks. Head Start should help children 
arrive at school more ready to learn, and it does. But for the 
administration to expect Head Start to completely protect children 
against the effects of poverty is just plain stupid. Moreover, block 
grants do not work. Block grants gut the quality of comprehensive 
services. And this block grant plan is particularly bad and requires 
States to provide a bunch of services but does not require the same 
nature, extent or quality of them. None of the 13 areas of Head Start 
performance standards that lay out the comprehensive services and high 
level of quality that have made Head Start successful are even 
mentioned in the block grant. In fact, the block grant emphasizes 
comprehensive services being met through referrals of families to 
outside service for assistance, which would end up encouraging States 
to provide a much lower level of service.
  In addition, the block grant does not specify any minimum 
requirements for teacher education levels, for child-staff ratios or 
for curriculum content. It simply calls on each State to come up with 
their own school standards and their own ways of measuring progress 
against those standards. I can go on and on and on as far as Head Start 
is concerned. I will submit my statement for the Record. But I do have 
a question for the gentlewoman from California.
  When we passed, when the House passed--I did not vote for it--the 
$350 billion, $20 billion was earmarked to the States. Can you explain 
what was the purpose of the $20 billion that went to the States? Was it 
to put in the bank and use for a slush fund next year to, I guess, 
enhance the chances of the Republicans to continue to practice reverse 
Robin Hood, stealing from the working people to give tax breaks for the 
rich? What was the purpose of that $20 billion?
  Ms. WATERS. I thank the gentlewoman for her presentation this 
evening, not only on Head Start but the discussion about the child tax 
credit and helping to unveil what is really going on in this 
administration. The question that you raise is one that I am sure many 
of our colleagues would like to respond to this evening, and if they 
were here, they would tell you that many folks worked very hard to get 
some assistance to the States because many of the States are in deficit 
positions. They are cutting programs. They are cutting health and 
education. They are cutting the school week in some States. In 2003 in 
the United States of America, the school week has been cut down from 5 
days to 4 days.
  Members of this Congress are shocked on both sides of the aisle about 
the kind of cutbacks and the deficits that we have in the States. That 
money is not meant to be banked. It is meant to offset the debt and the 
cuts that are being experienced by these States, and certainly though 
we did not support that tax bill for good reasons, that part of that 
bill that sends the money to the States is a part that many of us do 
support because we want to make sure that we do not have these 
hardships experienced by our constituents because of cutbacks.
  Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. That is an example of what is wrong 
when you send a block grant to the State and you do not specify.

                              {time}  1930

  nderstanding in talking to the different committees, it was specified 
that this money would be used to help the States in their struggle.
  I do not know whether the gentlewoman saw it, but last week on the 
national news, on ``Dateline,'' they discussed the number of students, 
hundreds of thousands of students that are failing the tests in 
Florida, third graders who were being held back, thousands of students 
not graduating, because we came up with additional educational 
standards. And I must quickly say that many of the schools, the ``F 
schools'' or the failing schools, have been the schools on the other 
side of the railroad tracks, the schools on the other side of the 
bridge, that have never gotten adequate funding.
  So when we set standards, and the support was not there to work with 
the schools, many of the children do not do well. We look at the State 
of Florida as we speak. We do not have summer school programs in place. 
Could some of that money be used for summer schools, for some of the 
cuts that have occurred in the school system to augment the cuts in the 
programs for educational support for the school system?
  Ms. WATERS. I would certainly think so. Again, we talk a lot about 
education being our number one priority, about children being our 
number one priority. But there are some States that are not putting the 
money where their mouths are, and we are not giving the children of 
this Nation the kind of support that certainly a rich Nation such as 
ours should be giving.
  I think this is a prime example of what we are talking about this 
evening, the Head Start Program. It is underfunded, children on waiting 
list, only a 2 percent increase; and it is a proven program of success 
that not only helps to prepare our kids for kindergarten and for 
school, but it also helps to make parents stronger in their support for 
their children. The gentlewoman is absolutely correct; that money could 
be used for educational purposes.
  Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. I thank the gentlewoman once again for 
bringing this subject area to the American public.
  Wake up, America.
  To me, the cold hearted attitude of House Republicans can be summed 
up in a statement made just last week by the House majority leader. 
When asked about bringing up the Child Tax Credit bill, he said, and I 
quote: ``There are a lot of other things that are more important than 
that . . .''
  Now, I humbly ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, 
``what exactly, on your agenda, is more important than the protection

[[Page H5262]]

of the children of this nation?'' In my state of Florida alone, the 
Child Tax Credit package benefits over a million children.
  And once again, the Republican leadership is catering its agenda to 
the rich. And after deciding just today that the only way they will 
agree to take up the Child Tax Credit bill is by adding on an $80 
billion tax credit for the rich to the bill. And even though their 
selected leader, George W. Bush, is urging them to take up a clean 
bill, and even though they have followed his lead on everything from 
tax cuts for the rich to foreign policy, when it comes to funding 
children, they ignore even the plea of the White House.
  In addition, the House Republican leadership is planning to dismantle 
Head Start, one of the best education programs for children of working 
class families, by block granting program funding.
  You know, there was $900 million sent down to the Florida governor 
Jeb Bush, yet he put the money into the bank, as opposed to helping the 
people of Florida. Block grants is just not the way to go. In the past, 
everyone was telling me, send transportation dollars to the states, 
send the education dollars to the states, the states can best figure 
out how to use it. They're not telling me that now, when I talk to the 
Mayors in Florida, or to the County Commissioner, they tell me that, 
``whatever you do, whatever you do, don't send the money to 
Tallahassee, because we will never see a dime of it.'' That is what 
they tell me, they say it gets lost in Tallahassee, and it never 
trickles down to the areas, to the first responders, to the Head Start 
programs, it is just an empty hole.
  The Republican Head Start block grant plan will end Head Start as we 
know it. Even the new limited 8-state block grant is risky. Why risk 
turning a successful program over to states with unproven expertise and 
without the federal program quality standard requirements and oversight 
that are demonstrated to increase school readiness.

  My colleagues, there is an old expression which really applies to 
this issue here: if it ain't broken, don't fix it. You know, Head Start 
kids are very prepared and do better in school than low-income children 
who don't receive Head Start. In addition, it's been proven that Head 
Start narrows the readiness gap between Head Start kids and children 
from the more affluent side of the tracks. Head Start should help 
children arrive at school more ready to learn--and it does; but for the 
administration to expect Head Start to completely protect children 
against the effects of poverty is just ridiculous.
  Moreover, block grants don't work. Block grants gut the quality of 
comprehensive services. And this block grant plan is particularly bad, 
and requires States to provide a bunch of services, but doesn't require 
the same nature, extent or quality of them. None of the thirteen areas 
of Head Start performance standards that lay out the comperhensive 
services and high level of quality that have made Head Start successful 
are required or even mentioned in the block grant. In fact, the block 
grant emphasizes comprehensive services being met through referral of 
families to outside services for assistance, which would end up 
encouraging States to provide a much lower level of services.
  In addition, the block grant does not specify any minimum 
requirements for teacher education levels, for child-staff ratios or 
for curriculum content. It simply calls on each State to come up with 
their own school standards and their own ways of measuring progress 
against those standards. But the problem is that those standards are 
not clearly defined in the block grant and vary greatly in content and 
quality among the States. As it is now, Head Start education standards 
are thorough and strongly based in standards of education, and having 
States come up with their own standards with no direction and no 
requirements will only serve to weaken education standards.
  Lastly, block grants weaken oversight and evaluation. States that 
meet the eligibility criteria have their applications deemed approved 
by the Secretary by default--which means that there won't be any 
oversight or evaluation of the quality of the State plan. In addition, 
there is no minimum threshold required by States' internal evaluations 
of their programs--they can just go ahead and define it on their own. 
No States monitor their programs as closely as Head Start is monitored. 
And under the block grant, outside evaluations of the State programs 
will likely not happen very often. Under the Republican plan, there 
will be no more compliance reviews with regard to national performance 
standards. Gone will be meaningful Federal oversight and monitoring.
  Why, why, why, the Republicans are changing something that works, 
just does not make sense. Once again I repeat: if something isn't 
broken, don't bother fixing it.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I would now like to yield to the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Watson), an educator with a background in 
education, to make her presentation.
  Ms. WATSON. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from 
California for allowing me time in this hour to raise my concerns about 
the current dismantling of Head Start.
  The plan to block grant Head Start will damage the integrity and the 
efficiency of the program. This recent tax cut does little to safeguard 
our children's well-being. We must make better investments in our 
children and our future instead of stuffing the pockets of 
millionaires.
  An investment in our children equals an investment in our Nation's 
strength, security, and future. The economic plans and focus of the 
administration must be balanced between future consequences and 
immediate gain. We must also continue to keep the facts at the 
forefront of the debate so that the administration and Congress can 
make policy decisions based on the facts, rather than on misguided 
interpretations and subjective judgments.
  Head Start is one of the most successful anti-poverty programs ever 
created. It has helped millions of children prepare for school, become 
productive students, and improve their lives. However, drastic changes 
proposed by the Bush administration will erode the effectiveness of 
this program.
  One proposal, to provide funding in block grants, will actually 
result in less money for Head Start. Changing the funding formula to 
block grants creates a daunting scenario for Head Start. Faced with the 
unceasing pressure of balancing their State budgets, some Governors 
already have indicated that they are willing to accept the 
administration's offer to opt in the block grant proposal. Governors 
may be able to use this money to cover budget deficits in their States; 
but overall, it will do serious damage to the program.
  My home State of California receives over $800 million for Head 
Start. There is a $38 billion budget deficit. With the block grant 
proposal, California has the option to use that $800 million to close 
this gap.
  There are other scenarios. Assume that six to eight States, 
representing 10 to 15 percent of Head Start dollars, elect to opt in 
and set up their own programs. That puts 148,931 current Head Start 
children at risk. If an additional eight to 10 States follow this lead, 
another 394,150 children will be placed at risk. It goes on and on, 
until all of the children are left behind without the Head Start 
program.
  At present, only three States provide all the services needed to get 
at-risk children ready to learn. These States provide the same set of 
eight comprehensive services required of Head Start through state-run, 
prekindergarten programs.
  Mr. Speaker, 30 States have such programs, yet only three are able to 
meet the standards that they created in order to prepare our children 
for school. Now it appears we want to give all 50 States this 
responsibility, knowing full well that these States have not proven 
that they are able to do so.
  States will be able to lower teachers' standards; they will not be 
required to involve Head Start's 800,000 parent volunteers; and, above 
all, States will be forced to reduce the overall number of Head Start 
children served. States have already been forced to cut early childhood 
programs outside of Head Start due to the budget crunch. This will be a 
great disaster and disservice to our Nation's youth.
  Another proposal, to remove Head Start from the jurisdiction of the 
Department of Health and Human Services and place it under the 
Department of Education, will undermine the core philosophy of Head 
Start. Since its inception, Head Start was designed to help the whole 
child. Current services offered through DHHS cannot be carried out as 
effectively as under the Department of Education.
  There is no need to change a program that has proven to be so 
successful. In 1998, Head Start supporters sought to ensure that at 
least 50 percent of all Head Start teachers have an associate's degree 
or better by 2003. The program has met this goal. The Heads Up Reading 
Network was established to train Head Start and other early childhood 
teachers across the Nation. These are improvements that we hope to 
establish through the No Child Left Behind Act. We have not yet met 
these goals, but Head Start has met its goals internally.
  Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to maintain Head Start as it 
is.

[[Page H5263]]

It is a success story. It is the duty of Congress to protect the 
current and future security of our Nation, and we must start with our 
children. And we must help the children of our migrant workers that are 
at risk, our youth and their parents. By supporting Head Start in its 
present form, we will be doing just that, securing our Nation by 
securing our children as they start their educational program.
  I thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California.
  In closing, Mr. Speaker, you have heard brilliant presentations, 
comprehensive presentations from the members of the Congressional Black 
Caucus here this evening who have identified the value of Head Start: 
the fact that Head Start provides nutrition, the fact that it provides 
physical examinations, the fact that it prepares young people for 
education, the fact that it involves parents and gets them involved in 
helping to determine the educational destiny of their children, the 
fact that Head Start gets communities involved.
  Mr. Speaker, this cannot be taken lightly. Head Start is indeed a 
successful program that has been in this country now for 38 years. Many 
children and families have benefited from this program, children from 
all over America, from communities all over this country. We value Head 
Start, and we appreciate all of those who had the vision to bring this 
valuable program to this Nation.
  Again, we think that this program should not be tampered with. There 
is no reason to want to block grant this program. We would like to 
think that it is just a misunderstanding, that this administration 
really does not understand the risk that they are creating by tampering 
with this program and block granting it to the States.
  Let me just tell you, Mr. Speaker, in addition to not having the 
requirements to go along with block grants, the one thing that strikes 
me as extremely detrimental to this program is the fact that nowhere in 
this block granting does it require that the parental involvement 
component remain with Head Start.
  Many of us wax eloquently about parent involvement and family values 
and what it means for parents to be involved with their children and 
their education, but yet we see an attempt to change a program that has 
a strong component of parental involvement, an attempt to dismantle a 
program that has worked.
  Mr. Speaker, Head Start will be reauthorized this year. It will not 
have all of the money that it needs. It will only have a small 
increase. There will still be children waiting to get into Head Start. 
But one way or the other, I know that this program is going to be 
reauthorized. I hope that it is done in the traditional, bipartisan 
fashion in which our children are not left behind.
  However, H.R. 2210 suggests that we are off to a very bad start. It 
would be a tragedy if the Republican leadership chooses to try and 
force this bad bill through for partisan political purposes. We can and 
must do better than H.R. 2210. I urge the Republican leadership to heed 
the will of the American people and produce a bipartisan bill that both 
sides of the aisle can support. Millions of lives depend on Head Start, 
and we cannot afford to let them down.
  This Congress has been criticized, Members on the opposite side of 
the aisle, who somehow cut out the poorest and most vulnerable families 
from the tax bill. We cannot afford to continue to have the kind of 
criticism and distrust that is mounting of this Congress over what 
appears to be an assault on families and children.
  We have the issue of the child tax credit before us. It is shameful 
what has been done. I do not think that all of the Republicans on the 
other side of the aisle support what has been done. I do not think that 
they believe in what some of the leadership is saying about poor people 
not deserving to have this tax break.

                              {time}  1945

  I believe that there are those on the other side of the aisle that 
will join with us on this side of the aisle and put an end to this 
attempt to undermine our Head Start program.
  Mr. Speaker, I am so blessed, and I feel so blessed, to be able to be 
here tonight to speak on behalf of the children and to stand up for 
Head Start. I feel so blessed to have been a part of Head Start and to 
have learned what it means to invest in our children. I feel so blessed 
to have learned that we can indeed make our children successful in 
their education experience.
  Many of those children who are being left behind are being left 
behind because they do not have the value of an early childhood 
education. I am delighted to have been a part of this evening.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I have come to the 
floor this evening to express my concern about the lack of funding by 
this administration's to our nation's education programs and I wanted 
to share with my colleagues how this budget matches up with the 
priorities of the people I represent.
  On yesterday, in a beautiful ceremony in the Rose Garden, President 
Bush hosted an event marking the progress, significant progress toward 
making sure every child in public schools gets a quality education.
  Now, I am sure that made a great story on last evening's news, but 
Head Start is more than just news for the nearly 20 million families 
who have benefited from the program. It is real life. Head Start 
provides the most comprehensive program for children of low income, 
working families. In a recent study by the Family and Child Experiences 
Survey, the findings concluded that children are ready to learn. 
Another study concluded that Head Start narrowed the gap between 
disadvantaged children and their peers in vocabulary and writing skills 
during the program year.
  I am here today because of this Administration's plans to dismantle 
this vital program by turning it over to struggling states. It baffles 
me why such a move would be necessary. Currently, the program provides 
federal grants directly to community organizations, allowing for local 
flexibility and strong federal oversight of Head Start's quality. If 
Head Start is turned over to states' during this time of economic 
uncertainty, it is very likely they will use Head Start funding to fill 
gaps in their own programs.
  Mr. Speaker, the Head Start program not only involves the child but 
also recognizes the importance of the family. Head Start has included 
parents in both the child's education and their membership in the Head 
Start Policy Council. I have received numerous letters from teachers, 
parents, and other employees of the Sunnyview and Greater Head Start 
locations in my district of Dallas, Texas. Each one pleading for 
additional funding and urging the program to be kept in its current 
structure. One parent writes, ``they teach them how to write, count, 
their ABC's, to draw, to be responsible . . . . . Many families feel 
comfortable with this program because they can come in and volunteer in 
the classes and see what the children are learning.''
  Mr. Speaker, in closing I would hope my colleagues on the other side 
of the aisle would consider listening to the countless voices of 
children that Head Start prepares for the foundation of their critical 
learning years. How can we deny them a chance at a decent future? I 
submit to you, that we cannot. It is our duty as federal lawmakers, 
that every child is prepared with a quality education so they can be 
productive citizens of this nation.

                          ____________________