[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 104 (Tuesday, July 15, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H6851-H6858]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
FUTURE OF HEAD START
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 7, 2003, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) is
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
General Leave
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their
remarks on the subject of this special order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Maryland?
There was no objection.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, the Congressional Black Caucus and the
Congressional Hispanic Caucus have come together tonight to address
issues that confront our children, and when I say our children, I mean
all children who unfortunately may not have the funds to get off to a
good start before they start school officially in the kindergarten.
I will have a lot to say about this subject as we go through this
hour, Mr. Speaker, but I want to yield first of all to the gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. Scott), who has been at the forefront of addressing
issues with regard to Head Start and faith-based issues and
constitutional issues that confront us and has made it his business and
has vigilantly stood guard with regard to making sure that programs
that are put forth are ones that do not discriminate against people
with our own tax dollars.
[[Page H6852]]
Mr. Speaker, I yield to my colleague from the great State of Virginia
(Mr. Scott).
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from
Maryland for yielding.
The gentleman from Maryland is an outspoken advocate for education
and knows the value of the Head Start program, so I rise in support of
the Head Start program but in opposition to the Republican Head Start
bill.
In 2002, the Head Start program served nearly 1 million children,
over 62,000 infants and toddlers in early Head Start. Unfortunately,
however, Mr. Speaker, only 60 percent of the qualified 3- and 4-year-
olds are currently enrolled in Head Start, and early Head Start is only
funded to serve 3 percent of the eligible infants.
We need to make a commitment to fully fund the Head Start program,
and this is because money spent on Head Start is money well spent. For
every dollar we spend on Head Start, $4 to $7 are saved in future
expenses because children who participate in Head Start need fewer
services in elementary and high school, and they are less likely to go
to prison or end up on welfare.
During the Clinton administration, Head Start funding grew from $2.8
billion in 1993 to $6.2 billion in 2001. That is an average of
approximately $425 million per year. Over the past 2 years, the
President's administration has proposed only a total increase of $300
million, about $150 million per year. That is about one-third of the
average annual increase over the prior 8 years.
There are a lot of problems with the Republican Head Start bill, but
as the gentleman from Maryland indicated, one of the most glaring is
the fact that it permits programs run by faith-based organizations to
discriminate in their hiring practices with the Federal money; that is,
it permits employment discrimination with Federal money, not the church
money, but with Federal money.
Sixty-two years ago, on June 25, 1941, President Roosevelt signed an
executive order that banned discrimination by defense contractors based
on race, creed, color or national origin. Executive order 8802 was the
first law prohibiting employment discrimination and marked the
beginning of fair employment practices in the United States.
These protections against employment discrimination were expanded by
subsequent Presidents. For example, Executive Order 11246, signed by
President Johnson in 1965, expanded the prohibitions against employment
discrimination to all government contractors, not just defense
contractors.
Every President of the United States since 1965 has enforced these
executive orders. Over time, various civil rights laws were passed that
contained similar prohibitions against discrimination and employment
based on race, creed, color, national origin or sex.
However, on December 12, 2002, President Bush issued an executive
order that for the first time since 1941 actually rolled back the
prohibitions against employment discrimination.
{time} 2115
Under his executive order 13-279, religious organizations which
received Federal funds would be permitted to discriminate in employment
based on religion unless there is a specific prohibition.
Now, when the President says that we should remove barriers to faith-
based organizations serving as sponsors of federally funded programs,
he does not explain what the barriers are. Even without new laws, many
faith-based organizations have sponsored federally funded programs for
decades, and they administer these programs just like any other
sponsor, including compliance with fair employment practices, and that
is with positions paid with Federal funds.
Now, in fact, any program which can be funded under this
administration's faith-based initiative can be funded without that
initiative, without new legislation, and without executive orders if
the sponsoring organization agrees not to discriminate in hiring with
the Federal money. Not the church money, the Federal money. And today,
in fact, 8 percent of the Head Start programs are sponsored by faith-
based organizations. If the sponsor insists on discriminating on
employment, a barrier exists and the faith-based initiative removes
that barrier and allows the sponsor to administer the program and
select employees paid with Federal money based on religion.
Now, there was a time in America when people of certain religions
were routinely denied jobs solely because of their religious beliefs,
but we passed laws to end that invidious discrimination. So when this
administration talks about restoring publicly funded religious
discrimination, let us remember the old adage that you can put lipstick
on a pig, but you cannot pass it off as a beauty queen. Likewise, you
can use poll-tested semantics and euphemisms, but you cannot pass this
off as anything but ugly discrimination.
And let us take a look at the Head Start program. If the Republican
Head Start bill passes, thousands of today's Head Start teachers could
lose their jobs if they fail their employer's religious tests. Tens of
thousands of already at-risk 3- and 4-year-old children could lose
their Head Start teachers if the teachers happen to be of the wrong
religion or do not contribute enough to their church. Tens of thousands
of parent volunteers could lose their privilege of serving as volunteer
teacher aides in their own children's Head Start classrooms based on
their religious beliefs. These parent volunteers would be blocked from
the opportunity to become trained and paid Head Start teachers solely
because they do not share the federally funded employer's religious
beliefs. And 29 percent of today's Head Start teachers started off as
volunteers.
Now, exactly what kind of head start will children be getting when
they see their parents denied the opportunity to become a teacher
solely because of their religion? And because 11 a.m. Sunday morning is
still the most segregated hour of the week, religious discrimination in
Head Start programs will often mean that teachers of the wrong race
will not be hired, thereby threatening 33 percent of the Head Start
teachers who are African American and nearly 23 percent of the Head
Start teachers who are Hispanic.
The result of the Head Start bill sponsored by the Republicans will
be that in many federally funded Head Start centers all of the teachers
may end up being of one religion and one race and one ethnicity. This
is a return to the old days of segregation. If this bill passes, it
will be done with Federal money.
I urge my colleagues to strongly consider just what they are voting
for when the Head Start bill comes to the floor later this week. We
should preserve decades of fair employment practices and reject
Republican attempts to allow the most qualified employees to be
rejected solely because they fail a religious test.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for his
statement, and certainly I think we could summarize it by saying that
the Congressional Black Caucus and the Congressional Hispanic Caucus do
not want the government to use our tax dollars to discriminate. It is
as simple as that. So I thank the gentleman for being so vigilant on
that issue consistently.
Mr. Speaker, I yield now to my colleague, the gentlewoman from the
Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen).
Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to
me.
Mr. Speaker, later this week, the House is poised to reauthorize one
of this country's most significant programs. For over 3 decades, this
program, Head Start, has given more than 20 million children a chance
to succeed in school by providing quality comprehensive services and
early education to our Nation's poorest children and families.
Like Medicare and Social Security, as well as other safety net
programs that help people overcome poverty and become more productive
members of society, the Head Start program is now under attack from
Republicans. This is nothing less than an attack on our children, on
their chance to realize their potential, and on our communities'
futures. Like any mother who will fiercely defend our children against
any attack, and also as the representative of the Virgin Islands
community, which has not only relied on Head Start but also utilized
this program efficiently and to maximum effect, I join my colleagues of
the Congressional Black Caucus and the Hispanic Caucus, as well as the
Children's Defense Fund and the National Head
[[Page H6853]]
Start Association, and others, to fight tooth and nail for the best
start for our children.
The changes to the Head Start program, if passed, would especially
have a detrimental effect on minority populations. In fiscal year 2002,
32.6 percent of children served in Head Start were African American and
29.8 percent were Hispanics. Though touted as a bill to improve school
readiness of disadvantaged children, it is another one of those good-
sounding bills that hides a bad intent. H.R. 2210 would harm the very
individuals it says it proposes to help.
Head Start is a unique program because of its comprehensive nature.
It provides academic, nutritional, social, and medical services that
foster the overall well-being of the child. It helps uncover treatable
medical conditions that might otherwise go unnoticed and provides
important support to the families of its enrollees.
Head Start currently operates under the direction of Federal
performance standards that ensure quality comprehensive services for
children and prepares them for school. None of this would be guaranteed
under the administration's proposal, and standards are essentially
undefined and undermined in the proposed block-grant approach.
Giving Head Start to the States without performance standards and
without additional funding, as proposed by the administration, would
encourage States which are facing budget deficits to divert Head Start
dollars to fill gaps in other programs, and thus spread the dollars
more thinly, not adequately serving the needs of the children.
I am glad that thus far those of us who have been committed to Head
Start have been able to rid the bill of one of their more terrible
ideas, which was to move Head Start from the Department of Health and
Human Services into the Department of Education. This would have
restricted Head Start to a narrow classroom approach without the broad
set of social services which are so important.
This raises another concern, the proposed Head Start Reporting System
in Child Outcomes. Such required testing of 4- year-olds is
developmentally inappropriate. Further, Head Start programs are very
culturally diverse, thus making it next to impossible to develop one
test that adequately addresses all cultures. Such testing being added
to the current child outcomes requirement would also overburden
classroom staff with new and unwise assessment requirements.
Dismantling a program that already works is not the way to improve
the Head Start program. Improvements to Head Start can be done under
the existing structure. H.R. 2210 is meant to lead to the demise of
Head Start. We cannot and must not let that happen.
We in the Congressional Black Caucus and the Congressional Hispanic
Caucus know firsthand the value of Head Start, and we are committed to
that best start for all of this country's children. We ask the people
of this country to voice their opposition to their congressional
representatives, and we call on our colleagues to join us and to keep
this proven and valuable program intact for yet another generation of
children.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentlewoman for
her statement. In considering some of the things that she said, Mr.
Speaker, I cannot help but just look at and quote a portion of the
National Head Start Association's Report entitled, ``Dismantling Head
Start, The Case for Saving America's Most Successful Early Childhood
Development Program,'' which is dated April 16, 2003.
What they say in that report, the National Head Start Association,
is, and I quote: ``A hodgepodge of inconsistent and untested State
government programs that either will serve fewer children than Head
Start does now or will provide less comprehensive services to those
children served will be the outcome if this legislation is passed.''
The interesting thing is, as I listened to the gentlewoman from the
Virgin Islands, I could not help but think about a school where for the
last 12 years I have spoken as the graduation speaker, which is
basically a high school for children who are in special education. Two
or three years ago I noticed, and I was mentioning to the principal of
the school that many of the children who came to participate in the
program and who were graduating, many of them had speech defects, some
of them seemed to be a bit slow in their reading abilities, and many of
them suffered from all kinds of what appeared to be crippling ailments.
The thing that the principal pointed out to me is that if, when these
children were little, these things had been corrected, they would not
have to go a lifetime having to suffer with certain ailments.
Head Start has always been about a comprehensive program providing
nutrition, making sure that our children got dental examinations,
making sure that they have mental health referrals, and making sure
that those things that could be corrected at an early age and be
corrected quite easily and at a reasonable price, Head Start has been
about the business of doing that. And with this effort to shift Head
Start to a block grant-type program and take away standards, it
certainly goes against our children.
With that, Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to yield to the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the distinguished
gentleman from Maryland for his leadership, as well as the members of
the Congressional Black Caucus for their leadership on this issue.
Mr. Speaker, we will be debating this question over the next 2 days.
I hope as we are presenting our concerns tonight that my colleagues and
the constituents of my colleagues, frankly, will be made aware of that
such that the gallery during the time of the debate will be standing
room only. Because this is a spear being thrown in the hearts of
Americans who have come to understand and love the value of the Head
Start program.
The one thing I like about the Head Start program is that it is not a
respecter of race or religion, it is an opportunity for children who
are in need with respect to their economic status to be able to do
better in life. It is a well-proven program. It is a program that is
grounded in the fixing of the health condition of young children, the
nutrition condition of young children, the psychological condition of
young children, and the intellectual aspect of young children.
{time} 2130
It is a holistic program which deals with the embracing of the family
member, the parent, who gains self-esteem and understands how to be an
advocate for their children. It has love intertwined amongst its values
so that the children who come know there is love both in the place of
learning, but as well from an adult to a child.
This legislation which will go on the floor of the House will
literally end Head Start as we know it. This block grant program is
risky. My State has just gotten rid of, and I like to use that
terminology because it is true, 170,000 children off the SCHIP's
program. Right now, parents are receiving letters that there is no room
at the inn, there is no opportunity for your children to have good
health care.
States across the Nation are finding themselves in bad economic
times. Because of that, they will be looking for the dollar anywhere
they can find it. When we start sending block grant dollars to these
States, clearly we will find that the State's special interests will
have the upper hand and the children will be standing outside the door
with a sign on the door: No room at the inn.
This bill we will be debating is a classic bait and switch. The GOP
claims credit for improving the academic content of Head Start in title
I of the bill, but it excludes all but one of those improvements to be
implemented by block grants in title II. What we have is a shell game
and a shell of a bill, and I am disappointed and disgusted that we find
ourselves getting rid of a program that has proven itself well.
But, more importantly, the national head of Head Start has begged the
leadership of this Congress, working with the chairpersons of the
committee and the author of the bill, to listen to us and sit down and
work through this process, and yet we have failed in getting the other
side of the aisle to see the light.
Head Start works because children arrive more prepared and they do
better in school than low-income children who do not receive Head
Start. In addition, Head Start narrows the readiness
[[Page H6854]]
gap between Head Start kids and their more affluent peers. Experts say
that to expect Head Start to eliminate that gap is totally unrealistic.
Poverty is devastating to children, development and success, but it has
worked. Head Start has helped children arrive and to be more ready.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that the process that we are using now will
clearly take a process that has been successful, and I do not know what
more to say, throw the spear in the heart or rip it to shreds. I am
confused and absolutely outraged that we have a system that does not
listen to the people who are using the system.
Did we have large numbers of parents who are in this system now come
and argue for a block grant process, or was it the States who were on
their knees as it relates to a budget because we give them a lot of
unfunded mandates, including Leave No Child Behind because we have a
$550 billion tax cut, and so monies coming from the Federal Government
are diminishing and going down and down. That is one of the reasons
that States have cut children off the Children's Health Insurance
Program. Now we come through the back door to be able to dismantle a
program which has made education holistic.
One of the very valuable points of the Head Start program is how they
embrace the parents. I have heard parents say Head Start is as good for
me as it is for my child. It gives me the opportunity to have input in
my child's education. The counselors listen to me if there are problems
at home.
I know there are some who are well-endowed, who are financially able
and laughing and thinking this is a funny issue, but it is not. It is a
serious issue. It is a serious issue because our children are going to
be hurt. It is a serious issue because children went to Head Start and
had an opportunity to get a meal when they could not get a meal at
home, had an opportunity to be immunized, had the opportunity to
develop their own self-esteem and self-confidence, had the opportunity
that if there were counseling needs that they could secure counseling
needs in order to prepare themselves to go to school.
Yes, those teachers that the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott)
spoke of that could be hired without the wall put up or litmus test:
What is your religion? What are your beliefs? We now have a program
riddled with problems, constitutional violations and separation of
church and State and riddled with problems in terms of taking away from
the program the very infrastructure that made it right and made it
real.
I hope, Mr. Speaker, that we will have a vigorous debate. I have
offered amendments that would ensure that the proposal that is going
forward does not take the new Federal funds and diminish the funds that
are already being used. I hope that is not the case. I hope we will
have the kind of debate that will cause my colleagues on the other side
of the aisle to vote down this legislation and leave Head Start as it
is in order to ensure that we will continue a plan that will be
effective for our children. We should be fighting for the betterment of
our children.
I am pleased to join the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) and
the Congressional Black Caucus to speak for those who cannot speak. I
hope that the Chamber is full of Members who are debating this issue,
and I hope that the gallery will be filled with parents and children
who realize that any vote against the Head Start program that we know
and love will be a vote to undermine the futures of our children,
today, tomorrow and into the very far future.
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I wish to express my outrage
and my disgust at the Majority party's effort to destroy the Head Start
Program. The Republican's plan is a sword through the heart of this
effective educational program and an insult to America's children.
The Majority party's plan shreds the Head Start Program. The
Republicans plan to establish a block grant that will amount to the
demise of head start. Specifically, Title II of this bill will end Head
Start as we know it. The block grant provisions in the Republican bill
are a risky experiment that turns 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. This bill is a classic ``bait and switch.'' The GOP
claims credit for improving the academic content of Head Start in Title
I of the bill but excludes all but one of those improvements to be
implemented by block grant states in Title II.
The Republican's demolition of Head Start is deplorable because the
Head Start program works. Children in the Head Start program arrive at
school more prepared and perform better academically than low-income
children who are not enrolled in the Head Start program. In addition,
although experts say that to expect Head Start to eliminate that gap is
``totally unrealistic,'' the Head Start program narrows significantly
the readiness gap between children in Head Start and their more
affluent peers.
Head Start helps children arrive at school more ready to learn.
However, to expect Head Start to be a cure for the devastating impact
of poverty is unrealistic. The idea that the block grant is the
solution to closing the school readiness gap if flawed and illogical.
State preschool programs are untested and unproven. Not only is there
no research showing that state preschool programs produce better
results than Head Start, there is no research demonstrating the
effectiveness of state preschool programs at all.
The ``No Child Left Behind'' program was developed because the
solution to the achievement gap in students between kindergarten and
the 12th grade was the establishment of stronger standards and more
federal oversight. Why, then, is the Republican's solution to the same
achievement gap in young children to eliminate standards and oversight
in Head Start?
The Block Grant Program in the Republican proposal is also damaging
to the Head Start Program because it slashes quality comprehensive
services. The block grant requires states to provide an array of
services but doesn't require the same nature, extent or quality of
those services. Under the block grant program, none of the thirteen
areas of Head Start performance standards (e.g., ``education and early
child development,'' ``health and safety'') that lay out the
comprehensive services and high level of quality that have made Head
Start successful are required.
In fact, the block grant emphasizes comprehensive services being met
through referral of families to outside services for assistance,
essentially encouraging states to provide a lower level of services.
The Republican's Head Start bill is also damaging to our children
because it weakens educational performance standards. The block grant
specifies no minimum threshold on school readiness standards, child-
staff ratios or curriculum content. It calls on each state to derive
their own school readiness standards and their own ways of measuring
progress against those standards. But those standards are undefined in
the block grant and vary greatly among the states. Head Start education
standards are thorough and strongly based on education performance
research.
Having States develop their own performance standards with no
direction and no requirements will weaken educational standards
overall. Block grants diminish educational oversight and evaluation.
States meeting the eligibility criteria for participation in the Block
Grant program have their applications approved by the Secretary by
default. This means there is no oversight or evaluation of the quality
or appropriateness of the state plan. Additionally, there is no minimum
threshold requirement of States' internal evaluations of their
programs. Meaning a school may define their own success regardless of
their actual performance. Under the Head Start program, on the other
hand, schools must report annually on their progress, and each school
is subjected to a thorough on-site evaluation every three years under
the direction of the Department of Health and Human Services. This is
meaningful evaluation that provides a better education for our
children.
Perhaps the most tragic impact of the Republican's Head Start
proposal is that it reduces the role of parents in their children's
academic success. Parent are children's most important teachers.
Studies have shown that teaching parenting strategies and involving
parents in their children's education is strongly related to children's
achievement in school. That's why a cornerstone of the Head Start
program has been the involvement of parents in their child's
development and education, health, nutrition, mental health, community
advocacy, and transition activities from preschool to kindergarten.
Family partnership agreements have been critical in getting families
to recognize what it takes to promote their child's positive
development and early education. But the block grant proposal developed
by the Republicans requires minimal parental involvement. No reference
is made whatsoever to parent policy councils, or similar provisions,
which makes Head Start a local program addressing local needs. Parents
have been, in essence, eliminated from the bill.
Finally, the Republicans' Head Start proposals allow decreases in
Early Education Services across the State. The block grant
[[Page H6855]]
supplantation restrictions permit a decrease in the total expenditures
in the State on early education. The block grant bars States from
supplanting ``non-Federal funds that would otherwise be used,'' a
restriction the Government Accounting Office concluded is almost
impossible to enforce because of the difficulty in proving what would
have otherwise been used. The block grant also permits supplanting
federal funds (for example ESEA Title I preschool funds or surplus TANF
funds). So nothing bars States from diverting ESEA or TANF funds to
other purposes and using the block grant funds to fill in the holes.
This would allow an overall decrease in early education spending within
the State.
Mr. Speaker, our Head Start program is under attack, and therefore
America's children are under attack. The Republican's Head Start bill
is the equivalent of taking an axe to valuable and effective education
programs. I implore all Americans and all members of the House of
Representatives to speak out against this attack on our children. We
must protect our children and we must save the Head Start program.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, the Head Start program, if we did not have
one, we would have to invent it, because it has been so effective in
preventing so many problems that children quite often develop after
they get a little older.
The question has often been asked, why is the Congressional Black
Caucus and the Hispanic Caucus so concerned about a Head Start program?
And I think it is coming out very clearly as Members have spent a lot
of time all day working and now they come here tonight, and the reason
the Members are here is because they want to make sure that every child
is allowed to grow up to be all that God meant for them to be.
The other day I was visiting Sheltonham Juvenile Detention Center in
Maryland; and in speaking to the young boys there, most of them between
12-17, I told them when I was 7 years old I could remember young
children going off to that detention center. I told them that the march
continues even today, and I am 52 years old. I told them that we wanted
to make sure that no more of our young men and young women would march
off to that institution with shackles around their feet. We want them
to be the Dr. Ben Carsons of the world, the teachers, the doctors, the
educators, the people who make a difference in our society.
That is why the Congressional Black Caucus takes this time tonight,
and we have done it over and over again, to make sure that we do
everything in our power during our watch not to allow a very
significant and very effective program that helps our children to be
dismantled.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).
Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr.
Cummings) for holding this Special Order on Head Start and for the
gentleman's leadership to ensure that we continue to raise the level of
awareness in terms of making sure that our country knows what is going
on here in Washington, D.C. I thank the gentleman for remaining
consistent and ensuring that we do have this opportunity to speak out
and to wake up America.
Tonight of course this Special Order, this discussion is with regard
to Head Start, a program whose obituary is but a few days away if the
administration has its way. If the administration has its way, this
would be the beginning of the end for Head Start. Later this week, we
will see the Republicans overhaul or at least try to overhaul the Head
Start system, a program which has fundamentally provided children with
an opportunity to succeed. Since its inception in 1965, it has reached
over 20 million people. It is a program that still continues to touch
and improve this country's low-income children by providing them
opportunities to succeed. It really is the best example of Leave No
Child Behind.
In my hometown of Oakland, California, over 1,600 children are part
of our area Head Start programs; and across the country last year, Head
Start and Early Head Start programs worked with more than 900,000
children in over 2,500 local programs. But the Bush administration has
indicated that, like so many other beneficial policies and programs
that they are dismantling, Head Start must also be dismantled. They are
saying that it must be undone, it must be gutted. How are they doing
this? They are doing this in several crucial ways.
First, they want to block grant Head Start, but block granting Head
Start would be very dangerous. Block granting Head Start would mean
creating 50 potential new bureaucracies in each State. Not only would
that be expensive, depriving these programs of money to use for the
real goal of providing early childhood development and education for
children, but it would weaken the oversight and evaluation of these
programs.
And, of course, block granting Head Start is especially disturbing at
this point in our Nation's history in the economic downturn and jobs
depression that we are, unfortunately, experiencing. At a time when
State budgets are in such crisis and with the States able to determine
exactly how they are going to spend their money, the possibility of
using this money for things other than Head Start I think would be too
tempting. I would hate to see our children caught up in State budget
battles. It is too risky, and they do not deserve that.
Perhaps worst of all, Republicans wants to turn Head Start into a
program that relies on an exclusively academic program rather than what
has been proven to be successful, and that is a comprehensive program
for low-income children. What they want now is for children as early as
age 4 to take a literacy test. Can Members imagine giving a 4-year-old
a literacy test by which they would be evaluated? Gone would be the
program components of nutrition and immunization programs, as well as
counseling and other very important program components that provide for
the support not only of the child but of the family. This focus on test
scores for young children really is unbelievable.
At this particular time we should be doing more to improve and to
increase the program, not reduce it. The truth is, we are still not
reaching enough children. As I said earlier, over 1,600 Oakland
students are in our Head Start programs. On any particular day in my
hometown, 300-400 children are on waiting lists for Head Start centers.
Head Start officials tell me all 30 centers have children on waiting
lists, meaning all of the areas in my city are being affected.
Several months ago when families of Head Start heard about this very
backwards initiative and proposal, 300-400 rallied immediately at city
hall and they said in no uncertain terms if it is not broke, why fix
it. They said that they wanted more children included in Head Start and
that it was working in the way that we know it has always worked and to
not tamper with it.
In fact, several of them told me we needed to focus on the fact that
300-400 children in Oakland are far too many to begin school already
behind. They insisted, as we are insisting tonight, that Head Start
remain intact. We must not stand by and allow the Bush administration
to dismantle a successful, proven program like Head Start.
The President wants to kill one of the country's most successful
programs, and I do not understand it. I encourage all of my colleagues
to join with the Congressional Black Caucus and the Congressional
Hispanic Caucus to resist this administration's very wrong and backward
policies. I encourage our colleagues to do everything possible to avoid
having one of the greatest early childhood education efforts become an
obituary, a tombstone on which is written ``Head Start was a great
program.''
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her statement,
and I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), a former
Head Start teacher and someone who has spoken out consistently on this
issue with a tremendous amount of passion.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the chairman of the
Congressional Black Caucus for this and many of the other Special
Orders he has organized in order to make sure that everyone in this
Chamber and throughout the country understands the grave changes the
President and the Republican Party are trying to make to the Head Start
program.
{time} 2145
Mr. Speaker, 38 years ago, I had the great fortune to help organize
one of the first Head Start programs in this
[[Page H6856]]
country under the War on Poverty. My involvement with Head Start has
been one of the most defining experiences of my life. Not only did I
help to organize one of the first Head Start programs in the country
working with the community, I went to work for Head Start as an
assistant teacher and I was inspired to go back to school and to get my
degree. Not only was I inspired, I saw the inspiration that Head Start
did for many parents, many folks in the community.
Today I sat in the Committee on Rules where I went to try and offer
some amendments to strengthen the Head Start program and to not allow
the Head Start program to be block-granted to the States. I literally
sat there and listened to the chairman of the Committee on Education
and the Workforce and others talking about Head Start without really
knowing or understanding what Head Start is. I did not recognize the
program that they were talking about. And it dawned on me that they did
not know this program. It dawned on me that many of them had never
spent any time in a Head Start classroom. I heard descriptions of what
the Republicans would like to do with the Head Start program, talking
about somehow making it a program where children would be involved with
literacy and trying to prepare them for the public schools and
education in new and different ways.
Mr. Speaker, they did not know that in the beginning of Head Start, a
lot of work was done to determine what would be the best way to provide
an early childhood education experience for children who came from
disadvantaged homes and disadvantaged communities. We tested everything
from Montessori to other approaches to dealing with children. Finally
it was concluded, after all of the study and all of the work, that the
way to deal with the children from disadvantaged communities was to
focus on the whole child, the entire child, and bring the family in to
helping to determine the educational destiny of their children. In
doing so, we felt that all of the children needed to have a physical
examination to determine their health. We also thought that it was
important to have a strong parent involvement component in this
program. We also knew that it was important to have nutrition involved
in the program.
And we were right. And we also determined that we had to reduce the
ratio of children to teachers, because at that time single-teacher
classrooms headed by one teacher was trying to manage 35 and 40 kids in
the public schools. So we reduced those ratios to 1 to 5. For a
classroom of 15, one adult to every five students in the Head Start
class. And it worked. Because we had physical examinations, we
discovered learning disabilities, dyslexia, other kinds of problems,
sight problems, hearing problems, all kinds of problems that would have
caused children to fail, to be placed in special education classes and
not to be able to succeed; and we dealt with that, with this new model
that was created.
And now we have people talking about they want a program to teach
literacy. They do not understand that when you build self-esteem, when
you introduce children to books for the first time, when you teach them
to love books and to care for books, that is the best way to get
children reading. When you teach the parents through the parent
involvement program to read to the children, you are developing
children who not only will love reading and love books but will become
great readers and will be very, very literate and be able to succeed in
the public schools and in the schools that they will go to.
I listened to those who were describing how they wanted to change the
program. They really do not have any good reasons for changing this
program. The only thing that they are doing is carrying out a
conservative Republican philosophy that gets government out of
providing a real safety net for the least of these. They are not only
following the line, the philosophy of the Republican Party in divesting
itself from programs that invest in people. We see it every day. It is
not only Head Start. It is the section 8 program where they are trying
to get out of the business of helping to provide safe and secure
housing for people who cannot afford it with a subsidy; and so they are
marching down this conservative road, of divesting government from
being involved in programs that were created under the Great Society,
programs of Johnson and Kennedy and getting rid of government
responsibility.
Unfortunately, we are in the minority around here and we may not be
able to stop them. They were so arrogant that they are going to have a
closed rule where we will not be able to offer any amendments. They are
going to have a closed rule so that there will not be any discussion
and any real debate about how we ought to be strengthening Head Start.
And the arrogance goes further than that. They are going to debate this
on a Friday when people are rushing off to catch airplanes so that they
can limit the debate and shut it down and literally roll out of here
having block-granted Head Start and eight of our programs. This is
sinful and it is shameful. They are destroying one of the most
successful programs that we have ever had in this country, a program
that has been commended and supported by every President since the
inception of Head Start.
There is no reason for this. Some of the amendments that I tried to
offer, one was an amendment that would allow parents to count the hours
they volunteer in a Head Start classroom against welfare work
requirements. Another would establish a parent service awards program.
The amendment would authorize a $1,000 voucher to up to 5,000
individuals to be used for the cost of any education or job training
program approved by any State or the Secretary of Health and Human
Services. Eligible recipients of the award are parents who volunteer in
the classroom at least 5 hours a week for the entire Head Start year.
A third would require each Head Start program to establish and
maintain a waiting list of all children who are eligible for and apply
for enrollment in a Head Start program, but are unable to participate
because of lack of funding. If there is funding remaining after the
initial disbursement of funds, this amendment authorizes the Secretary
of Health and Human Services to distribute the remaining funds. And the
last would remove title II of the bill and thereby ensure that Head
Start can function as designed with strong educational standards, low
child-to-staff ratios, and high-quality social services. In addition,
the amendment ensures that funds designated for Head Start will go
directly to local Head Start programs and the States will not have the
opportunity to divert Head Start funds to close gaps in their budget or
for other priorities.
I was not the only Member of Congress up there. In fact, I would
guess there were 15 or 20 Members who were present, all interested in
offering an amendment or two in an attempt to minimize the damage that
the Republicans are doing to the Head Start program. Many of these
amendments were well thought out and would improve the program. Yet the
chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), has requested a closed rule with no amendments
to be permitted except maybe a manager's amendment and a Democratic
substitute.
Let me just close, Mr. Speaker, by saying, if, in fact, this Congress
allows the block-granting of Head Start, it will be one of the worst
public policy decisions that has been made in the history of the
Congress of the United States of America. Any time you have public
policymakers who are willing to take a successful program that has been
lauded and commended by everybody and there is nobody supporting the
block-granting of the program, nobody asking that some changes like
this be made to the program and undermine the ability of poor children
and low-income, working families to have an experience of preschool
that would help to make children more successful, then we ought to be
called to task for it, and we ought to be challenged in our elections
for it. We do not need to do this. I would ask the Republicans to
rethink this wrongheaded policy. They may not do it, but we will all
pay a price in the long run for it.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman for her
statement.
Mr. Speaker, tonight it is a very sad time when we consider a
program, as the gentlewoman from California said,
[[Page H6857]]
that has been so successful; and it is a sad time when a program that
has touched so many lives and built so many lives so successfully is
being attacked. We do consider it to be just that. One of the things
that the gentlewoman from California talked about was she went to the
Committee on Rules and she asked a question, why is it that the
Republican leadership is so afraid of amendments to this bill to make
it a better bill and to make the Head Start program better? She went on
to say that there is a question as to whether or not they really
understand what Head Start is all about. Martin Luther King, Jr. said,
``You cannot lead where you do not go and you cannot teach what you
don't know.'' The fact is that there are so many children like the 4-
year-old that I saw just a month ago graduating from our Head Start
program at the Union Baptist Church in my district reading on the level
of a third or fourth grader. That is what Head Start is all about.
And so it gives me great pleasure to yield to the distinguished
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis), who has consistently been at the
forefront of lifting people up and trying to make a difference in their
lives. I know that the gentleman from Illinois believes very strongly
in the statement that I make quite often and that is that our children
are the living messages we send to a future we will never see.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. I want to thank the gentleman from Maryland
for yielding. I also want to commend him for his outstanding leadership
on not only this but a myriad of issues confronting America as he
continues in his role as chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus. I
also want to commend my good friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Rodriguez), for his outstanding leadership as chairman of the Hispanic
Caucus as we come together to work on issues that are mutually
important to both groups, but are really important to all of America.
For about the last almost hour, we have heard many of my colleagues
extol the virtues of Head Start. Since 1965, the Head Start program has
helped over 21 million of America's neediest children gain the
academic, social, emotional, and behavioral skills necessary for
success in life. However, the positive effects of Head Start extend far
beyond the individual child in the classroom. As a matter of fact, as
we have heard, it helps the entire family. One of the most important
aspects of Head Start is the involvement of parents. Through their
involvement in the program, Head Start parents gain invaluable skills
that have a positive and lasting effect on all of their children.
Research has shown that Head Start parents demonstrate improved
parenting skills, are more likely to begin preparing for employment,
and gain the skills necessary to effectively advocate for their
children. Head Start parents learn the importance of being involved and
caring role models for their children. They are encouraged to
participate in a wide range of activities, such as home visits,
literacy classes, volunteering in the classroom, and taking part in the
governing of the program. As a matter of fact, we just heard one of the
most outstanding members of this body, the gentlewoman from California,
talk about how she was inspired and motivated as a parent.
In the 2001-2002 program year, more than 876,000 parents volunteered
at their local Head Start program. After participating in the program,
Head Start parents typically continue to take a strong interest in the
education of their children and are likely to continue their
involvement with the program.
{time} 2200
In fact, 23 percent of Head Start staff members in Illinois and in
many other sites across the Nation are current or former Head Start
parents.
The original bill sought to block grant the entire program.
Fortunately, as a result of the hue and cry of Head Start activists,
program directors, Democrats and Members of this body and other bodies
and others have forced some back-peddling, and now the Head Start
reauthorization bill seeks to implement an experimental program in
eight States, providing block grants to integrate Head Start in
preexisting State preschool programs.
These block grants, as we know, will undermine the comprehensive
family-based intent of the program. They will allow States to determine
their own standards, guidelines, and qualifications. These States could
then decide to implement Head Start as a pre-kindergarten program,
cutting out nutrition, vaccinations, dental care, medical care, and
other important services currently guaranteed to children in the
program. With the current State budget crisis, these services will
almost certainly be eliminated, leaving the low-income children served
by Head Start with no way to receive these extremely important
services.
Unlike Head Start, typical pre-kindergarten programs are half-day
programs that do not fully address parents' child care needs. These
programs also focus primarily on building a foundation for academic
skills, overlooking the importance of developing the social, emotional,
and behavior skills vital to classroom survival.
Finally, these programs typically do not teach parents to actively
advocate for their children. Low-income children deserve safe, caring
environments. They deserve to have their parents involved in their
lives. Low-income parents need to learn how to provide for the needs of
their children. It is clear that if Head Start reauthorization is
passed as written, it will be a tragedy for our Nation's low-income
families and will not provide the comprehensive approach to readiness
that our children so greatly need.
So, Mr. Speaker, once again, I want to reinforce what has already
been said. That is, ``If it ain't broke, don't fix it.'' If it does not
need change, do not change it. If it is working, then let it work in
such a way that it seriously benefits all of the children.
So, Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings)
for his outstanding leadership.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his statement.
Mr. Speaker, tonight the Congressional Hispanic Caucus and the
Congressional Black Caucus have come together to address the Head Start
program; and, as I said a little bit earlier, our concerns go very
deep.
Every time I come into this Chamber, I cannot help but think about
the day that I was sworn in. My father, who only had a first grade
education, sat up in the balcony. After the swearing-in ceremony, he
came down with tears in his eyes, and I asked him the question, I said,
Dad, why are you crying?
And I understood, first of all, about his history. He was a man who
was born in Manning, South Carolina, and his people who owned the land
where he was a sharecropper denied him the opportunity to get a decent
education. He had gone some 70 years deprived of the kind of education
that he deserved. So here he was in April of 1996, looking down on his
son who had gotten the education. And I said, Dad, are you upset? I
mean, are you happy, so happy that you have tears in your eyes about
your son being elevated to a Congressman and being a lawyer and a phi
beta kappa? He said, no, that is not what it is about. He said, I am
crying out of pain. I am crying over the fact that I have gone a
lifetime and finally I see what I could have been.
And what this is all about, this entire discussion here tonight, is
about little children who have been born into a world and born into an
environment where the income level of their parents may not be all that
it is for others, and all they are doing is trying to be all that God
has meant for them to be.
One great sculptor said that not long ago at one time he was
sculpturing and his sculptures were selling for about $20. He went back
to his grandfather and he said, grandfather, your sculptures sold for
more. I mean, what is it? How did that happen? And the grandfather
said, you have to look into the wood; it is already there. And so he
began to look into the wood and see the sculpture, and he began to cut
away and finally came up with what he knew was already there.
The fact is that these children who, again, are trying to simply be
all that God meant for them to be, it is already there. The question is
whether we, as adults, will do all that we can to bring it out of them.
We are convinced in the Congressional Hispanic Caucus and in the
Congressional Black Caucus that we should be doing more, not less. We
should not
[[Page H6858]]
be merely raising the Head Start budget from $6.8 billion to $6.9
billion. That is not enough, because there is still, even with that
slight increase, there are still 40 percent of all of the children who
deserve a head start and who deserve to be in the program unable to do
it because we have not put the money forward.
We are concerned about the fact that we are now saying let us
experiment with these eight States and give them the block grant funds
to pass on to the Head Start programs. We are worried that that money
may get diverted somewhere else, and the kids that really need that
money they will not get it. Because budgets throughout our Nation,
almost every single governor is struggling with a deficit, and we are
very clear that when they are struggling with deficits it is probably
quite likely that the money, all of the money that is destined for
those Head Start programs will not get there.
So we do not want to be in a situation where 30 years from now, 20
years from now, 40 years from now, children who are then grown up are
looking at their children and saying what my father said to me: Now I
know what I could have been, what I could have been. The fact is that
we have an opportunity here today, this week, to make sure that all of
our children, all of our children, every one of them, has an
opportunity to get off to a good head start.
Finally let me say this: So often I hear my colleagues talk about
what they want for our children. But I ask the question, if their
children, if they were talking about their own children, the children
that have their blood running through their veins and who came from
their womb, would they want an improved Head Start program if their
child had to be a subject of the Head Start program? I would submit
that they would want a better program, that they would not want funds
diverted.
So this evening, Mr. Speaker, I thank all of the Members of the
Congressional Black Caucus, all of the Members of the Congressional
Hispanic Caucus who have come forward to lift up our children so that
they can be all the best that they can be.
Mr. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I raise in support of Hard Start as
we know it. Rather than dismantling Head Start, I call on the
leadership of both parties to make Head Start bipartisan as it has been
for 38 years, to keep the current Federal-to-local structure of Head
Start intact rather than supporting any measures to shift oversight to
any number of states, to maintain and improve upon current Federal
performance standards and oversight--to ensure high quality and the
array of comprehensive services offered by Head Start, to provide for
further improvements including higher teacher qualifications, matched
with provisions for funding teacher training and higher salaries, and
to move towards fully funding Head Start, beginning with at least a $1
billion increase for FY 2004.
All the Head Start programs in Ohio say that if the States inherit
control of the program, it is likely the current comprehensive focus
for Head Start will be lost. This change could eliminate critical
services, such as promoting children's social and emotional well-being
in addition to their academic skills, health and dental screenings and
treatment, mental health services, parent-education programs and social
services.
They say that: families who are currently receiving help but have
income above 150 percent of poverty will lose their assistance the next
time their eligibility is predetermined. The changes also include an
increase in parent fees, which will increase the amount families pay by
an average of $50.
They say that the rates for family childcare providers will be
lowered from the 75th percentile of the market rate to the 60th
percentile, making it difficult for those providers to serve families
receiving assistance.
The shame of it all is that the most eligible children are denied
childcare assistance. Nationally, only 1 out of 7 children eligible for
childcare assistance under Federal law receives help. States have long
waiting lists for children help. (At the end of 2002, one-third of the
states continued to put low-income working families on waiting lists.)
In Ohio 38,081 children are enrolled in the Federal program and
18,173 in the State program.
Ohio has 837 centers. This does not count home-based services; these
are actual centers. Of these, 229 are only federally funded, 109 are
only State funded, and the other 499 are mixed--both State and Federal
funds.
Cuts in Ohio will mean that 18,500 children will lose their child
care assistance by September to help the State save $268 million. On
April 1, the State will decrease income eligibility from 185 percent of
the Federal poverty level ($27,787 for a family of three) to 150
percent ($22,530 for a family of three).
Support Head Start as we know it. Fully fund this successful program!
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
____________________