Congressional Record, Volume 149 Issue 111 (Thursday, July 24, 2003)

[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 111 (Thursday, July 24, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H7518-H7531]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2210, SCHOOL READINESS ACT OF 2003

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, by the direction of the Committee on
Rules, I call up House Resolution 336 and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

H. Res. 336

Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 2210) to reauthorize the Head Start Act to
improve the school readiness of disadvantaged children, and
for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be
dispensed with. General debate shall be confined to the bill
and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled
by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee
on Education and the Workforce. After general debate the bill
shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule.
In lieu of the amendment recommended by the Committee on
Education and the Workforce now printed in the bill, it shall
be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose
of amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the
nature of a substitute printed in part A of the report of the
Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. That
amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered
as read. All points of order against that amendment in the
nature of a substitute are waived. No amendment to that
amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order
except those printed in part B of the report of the Committee
on Rules. Each amendment may be offered only in the order
printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member
designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall
be debatable for the time specified in the report equally
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent,
shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject
to a demand for division of the question in the House or in
the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such
amendments are waived. After a motion that the Committee rise
has been rejected on a legislative day, the Chairman may
entertain another such motion on that day only if offered by
the chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce
or the Majority Leader or a designee. After a motion to
strike out the enacting words of the bill (as described in
clause 9 of rule XVIII) has been rejected, the Chairman may
not entertain another such motion during further
consideration of the bill. At the conclusion of consideration
of the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report
the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been
adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House
on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the
bill or to the amendment in the nature of a substitute made
in order as original text. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to
final passage without intervening motion except one motion to
recommit with or without instructions.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce) is
recognized for 1 hour.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings),
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purposes
of debate only.
Mr. Speaker, House Res. 336 makes in order the bill H.R. 2210, under
a structured rule. The rule provides 1 hour of debate to be equally
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of
the Committee on Education and the Workforce.
The rule provides that in lieu of the amendment recommended by the
Committee on Education and the Workforce, it shall be in order to
consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment, the
amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in part A of the
Committee on Rules report accompanying this resolution and provides
that it shall be considered as read. The rule waives all points of
order against the amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in
part B of the report.
It makes in order only those amendments printed in part B of the
Committee on Rules report, which shall be considered only in the order
printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in
the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the
time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the
proponent and opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall
not be subject to a demand for a division of the question in the House
or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of order are waived
against the amendments printed in part B of the report.
Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.
Mr. Speaker, there are many things in this world that I can be
content with, fully satisfied. Watching a beautiful sunset, eating a
good piece of chocolate cake, or reading a great ending to a nail-
biting suspense book. But there are other things in this world with
which we should never be content; ideals which we should never tire of
championing, that we should never stop striving for. And the quality of
our children's education is one of those items with which we should
never be content. We should always want more for them.
Mr. Speaker, the debate today is in many ways a vote on the status
quo. Do we keep the existing system as it is, or do we demand more for
our children? More specific to our debate: Are we completely satisfied
that the quality of our children's education is fine, or do we demand
more? The bill before us today, the School Readiness Act, strengthens
the Head Start program, the Federal Government's largest effort to
prepare the Nation's most disadvantaged children for school.
An immensely popular program, Head Start provides a range of services
including education, nutrition, health, and parent training to over 20
million preschool children and their families who are living in
poverty. But Head Start can do better.
The legislation before us aims to reform and improve Head Start so
that disadvantaged children hold the same level of academic
preparedness as all of their peers before entering kindergarten.
Specifically, this plan aims to enhance school preparedness, improve
teacher quality, and close the ``readiness gap'' that exists between
Head Start and non-Head Start children.
First, this education package will help enhance each school's
effectiveness by providing certain select States with more flexibility
and control over the operation of prekindergarten initiatives through a
measured pilot program. Currently, States lack the ability to fully
coordinate their State's early childhood programs with Head Start. This
inefficiency results in the duplication of programs and services,
underenrollment, gaps in services, and missed opportunities. With this
pilot program, however, States and local communities will be able to
tailor their programs and services to best meet the needs of local
families.
It is important to note that this pilot program in no way eliminates
basic programs and services, nor is the program an unfunded mandate or
a loophole for States to cut early childhood education programs. Let us
be crystal clear: this bill in no way cuts funding for any of Head
Start's education, nutrition, or health services. Quite the opposite,
Mr. Speaker. This package provides safeguards to prohibit participating
pilot program States from making funding cuts. In addition, the Head
Start package authorizes a $202 million increase in funding for the
program, an amount that has nearly doubled in the past 7 years.

[[Page H7519]]

This legislation will also ensure that more Head Start teachers are
adequately trained and educated in early childhood development,
particularly in teaching the fundamental skills of language,
prereading, and premathematics. These provisions will help to meet a
goal set recently by the National Head Start Association itself, which
calls for 75 percent of the Head Start teachers to have at least an
associate degree by the year 2005 and for all Head Start teachers to
have at least an associate degree by 2008.
And, finally, for our country's most, most disadvantaged children,
this education plan will help close the Head Start readiness gap and
ensure that all children achieve academic parity.
Most children entering Head Start hold academic skills far below
national standards. That is very sad. And while most children make
improvements in these schools while enrolled in Head Start, the average
Head Start child still lacks many of the premathematics and
prevocabulary skills that their peers attain.
Head Start students are learning, but they are not learning enough.
In fact, for the brightest 25 percent of Head Start kids, there is no
evidence of academic progress while enrolled in the program. This bill
makes significant improvements to the program, fine-tuning its focus on
a strong curriculum and academic excellence.
And so we find ourselves faced with the same questions I asked just
moments ago: Is Head Start better and more effective than it was
yesterday or last year?

{time} 1615

It is a worthy question, especially when faced with the long list of
studies that shows the sad truth, that Head Start children simply do
not begin kindergarten with the same level of academic preparedness as
their more fortunate peers.
So I ask the opponents of this legislation, are you satisfied with
this readiness gap? Are you comfortable with the status quo? Well, I am
not. Parents are not. And neither are the supporters of this bill.
The level and quality of our children's education is something with
which we can never be completely content. It is an on-going struggle,
an area where we must be willing to constantly demand more.
There is no rest when it comes to fighting for a better education and
a brighter future for the youngest in our society. There is no such
thing as a perfect classroom, a perfect teacher, or a perfect student.
There is always room for improvement.
Mr. Speaker, this plan raises the bar on our standards and our
expectations. It closes the readiness gap between disadvantaged and
more affluent children, and it will enhance teacher quality and school
effectiveness.
In short, Mr. Speaker, it is a bill that demands the best for our
children, and I urge my colleagues to pass the rule and agree to the
underlying bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of
making a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Woolsey).
(Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2210 will dismantle Head Start and rob
single moms of the very best childhood education for their children.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The Chair would advise Members
that as indicated by previous occupants of the Chair on June 26, 2003,
on June 22, 2002, and on March 24, 1995, although a unanimous consent
request to insert remarks in debate may comprise a simple, declarative
statement of the Member's attitude toward the pending measure, it is
improper for a Member to embellish such a request with other oratory,
and it can become an imposition on the time of the Member who has
yielded for that purpose.
The Chair will entertain as many requests to insert as may be
necessary to accommodate Members, but the Chair also must ask Members
to cooperate by confining such remarks to the proper form.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of
making a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Lofgren).
(Ms. LOFGREN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2210 would cynically dismantle Head
Start, so I rise in opposition to the bill.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of
making a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Roybal-Allard).
(Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD asked and was given permission to revise and
extend her remarks.)
Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2210 will dismantle the
successful Head Start program.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of
making a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from Michigan
(Ms. Kilpatrick).
(Ms. KILPATRICK asked and was given permission to revise and extend
her remarks.)
Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2210 will dismantle Head Start,
which in these desperate economic times should be strengthened and not
weakened.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of
making a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from New York
(Ms. Velazquez).
(Ms. VELAZQUEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend
her remarks.)
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2210 will dismantle Head Start and
rob single moms of the best early childhood education for their
children.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of
making a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from California
(Mrs. Capps).
(Mrs. CAPPS asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak regarding H.R. 2210, because
in these desperate economic times Head Start needs to be strengthened,
not weakened.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of
making a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Solis).
(Ms. SOLIS asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2210 will dismantle Head Start, which in
these desperate economic times should be strengthened and not
dismantled.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of
making a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Linda T. Sanchez).
(Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California asked and was given permission to
revise and extend her remarks.)
Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2210 will
dismantle Head Start and take thousands of beloved Head Start teachers
from the children who depend on them.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of
making a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Loretta Sanchez).
(Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California asked and was given permission to
revise and extend her remarks.)
Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, as the only Member of
Congress that is a former Head Start child, I rise to speak about H.R.
2210, which will dismantle Head Start and rob single moms of the best
early childhood education for their children.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of
making a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Watson).
(Ms. WATSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. WATSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak about how H.R. 2210 will
dismantle Head Start and take thousands of beloved Head Start teachers
from the children who depend on them so greatly.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 2210, the
wrongheaded Republican Head Start Bill that represents an unprecedented
attack on our federal preschool system
I want to bring to your attention two important reports that were
released this week by

[[Page H7520]]

the Government Reform Committee of which I sit on, one commissioned by
members representing Los Angeles area, and one by the congressional
Black Caucus. Both of which demonstrate that H.R. 2210 is detached from
reality and does little to address the programs' existing challenges.
The reports released by the Government Reform Committee track the
success of current Head Start program. They tracked studies that showed
how Head Start children are more likely to receive medical services
than other low-income children, and they are less likely to repeat a
grade, require special education, or be convicted of a crime. Head
Start children are also more likely to graduate from high school and
college, and that the program narrows the performance gap between
disadvantaged children and other children in vocabulary, writing
skills, and social behavior.
So why is this Administration trying to dismantle a successful and
popular 40-year old program? Studies after studies have showed that
when states run their own pre-school programs, they fail to provide the
services guaranteed under the comprehensive standards of Head Start.
For example, 60 percent of the states do not require dental care
referrals, while 40 percent of the states fail to provide mental health
referrals.
Under H.R. 2210's proposal to block grant Head Start in eight states,
hundreds of children would lose the protection of federal standards
providing that they receive preventive and primary health care. They
would lose the protection of federal standards providing that they
receive all necessary immunization, and they would lose such protection
for dental care. This is simply not acceptable!
The President is trying to hoodwink the American people into
believing that one of the most successful child development programs
ever needs to be ``fixed.'' Head Start isn't broken, but it is under
threat from Republican meddling. My constituents have seen the Bush
bait and switch before--on education, on the economy, and on
prescription drugs. They won't be fooled this time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of
making a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Washington
(Mr. Inslee).
(Mr. INSLEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, as a father, I rise in opposition to H.R.
2210, which will dismantle Head Start, which should be strengthened,
not weakened, in any economic time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of
making a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms.
Majette).
(Ms. MAJETTE asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. MAJETTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2210, which
will dismantle Head Start and rob children of their best opportunity to
break the cycle of poverty and to become successful, happy, and healthy
adults.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of
making a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin
(Ms. Baldwin).
(Ms. BALDWIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2210 will dismantle Head Start,
leaving thousands of children without the comprehensive tools that have
been a proven success for decades.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 2210.
While traveling through Wisconsin, I have seen first-hand how
important this program is for our children. Its comprehensive approach
to child development--through health, social and learning skills--has
been proven success for over 19 million children since 1965.
The simple fact is that Head Start works. Head Start kids arrive at
school more ready to learn and do better in school than low income
children who don't participate in Head Start. In addition, Head Start
narrows the readiness gap between Head Start kids and their more
affluent peers.
I have also heard countless personal stories about how Head Start has
strengthened entire families. Parents who may have limited resources to
provide for their children in other ways are overjoyed to enroll their
children in Head Start. They know it is an investment in their child's
future--something that they can do now to benefit their children for
their entire lives.
Why then, I ask, has such a successful and important program become
the focus of an unnecessary political battle? Why has this
reauthorization been the only contentious reauthorization in Head
Start's 38 year history?
Because instead of strengthening Head Start by providing full funding
and expanding Early Head Start, the bill's sponsor has chosen to alter
the Head Start program in such a fundamental way that if these
provisions are passed into law, head Start as we known it will cease to
exist.
This bill starts down the slippery slope of turning Head Start into a
block grant program. The eight states that participate in the block
grant demonstration program would only have to meet four weak
eligibility criteria. The states can then spend the block grant funds
as they please with no Federal guidelines on what should constitute a
Head Start program. This block grant scheme actually weakens
educational standards for Head Start!
In addition, this bill allows religious institutions who participate
in the Head Start program to hire and fire based on religious beliefs.
I have serious concerns about direct government funding of religious
organizations engaging in religious discrimination as proposed in this
legislation. Under this bill, a church could refuse to hire a person
who is Jewish to work as a janitor in their day care, or a Muslim soup
kitchen could refuse to hire a Baptist. But not only that, a church
could refuse to hire a person who is divorced if divorce is against
that church's tenets and teachings, even though the position is for a
secular activity. In addition to expanding religious discrimination,
the bill also preempts all State and local laws against discrimination.
The religious community has been an integral part of Head Start's
success. They have helped millions and millions of children from all
parts of the country. They have not asked for this provision.
Finally, this bill actually cuts funds for teacher training, while
increasing educational requirements for Head Start teachers. This is
insulting to both the teachers who would like to further their
education and to the children and families who benefit from Head Start.
Instead of attacking the Head Start program, its participants, and
its teachers, we should be having a real discussion of how to improve
the program. Only 60 percent of eligible preschoolers participate in
Head Start due to a lack of funding. And only 3 percent of eligible
children participate in Early Head Start. Instead of dismantling a
successful program, we should provide additional funding to expand
opportunities for all children in our country.
I urge my colleagues to vote against H.R. 2210.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of
making a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Harman).
(Ms. HARMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, as a California mother of four who values
early education, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2210.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of
making a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from California
(Mrs. Davis).
(Mrs. DAVIS of California asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2210 should be
strengthened and not weakened for families and their children.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of
making a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Eshoo).
(Ms. ESHOO asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2210. Head Start
should be strengthened even more, rather than dismantled. It is the
most effective program for children in our country today.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of
making a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms.
Kaptur).
(Ms. KAPTUR asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, Head Start works. It should not be
dismantled. The Republican Party should not dismantle Head Start.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of
making a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from the District
of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
(Ms. NORTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2210 will dismantle Head Start, despite
its proven effectiveness for our children and despite its demonstrated
scientific validity.

[[Page H7521]]

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of
making a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from the Virgin
Islands (Mrs. Christensen).
(Mrs. CHRISTENSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend
her remarks.)
Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2210 would dismantle Head Start
and take dedicated teachers from the children and families who depend
on them.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of
making a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from New York
(Ms. Slaughter).
(Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend
her remarks.)
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2210. Head
Start has more than paid for itself over these years, giving children
precisely what it says, a head start on education and a much better
society for the rest of us. I ask that it not be dismantled.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of
making a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from Connecticut
(Ms. DeLauro).
(Ms. DeLAURO asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2210, which in
essence really will dismantle the Head Start Program, which has proven
its effectiveness, and has provided youngsters an opportunity to
realize their potential to grow, to become productive members of our
society. It would be contrary to the role that we have in this
institution to turn our backs on a program that has been so effective
in making a difference in the lives of children and families. We should
not do it.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of
making a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Davis).
(Mr. DAVIS of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2210 will dismantle the most
effective of all Great Society programs, Head Start.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of
making a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms.
Corrine Brown).
(Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida asked and was given permission to
revise and extend her remarks.)
Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2210 will dismantle
Head Start. The Republican example of compassionate conservatism is
destroying our best early childhood education program for our children.
If it isn't broke, don't fix it; and, whatever you do, don't break it.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from Ohio for yielding to me.
Mr. Speaker, what we have just seen is a powerful demonstration of
women and two men that represent nearly 13 million people in the United
States of America.
One would think that this highly contentious Head Start
reauthorization bill would be the kind of thing that would allow us to
not have this kind of undertaking. One would think that this would be a
simple four-step process involving the systematic introduction of a
bill that increases funding and expands Head Start services; followed
by committee markups to ensure the bill includes bipartisan interests;
next, it is placed on the calendar; and, finally, a 15-minute vote with
the passing of Head Start reauthorization. But since the Republicans
are in control of the House, it is never that simple. Instead, I wind
up opposing the rule and the underlying bill on Head Start.
Head Start is America's best known Federal program. Of the more than
20 million children and families that are enrolled in Head Start
nationwide, there are 2,574 Head Start children in my congressional
district alone, including 41 Head Start centers with a total of 127
classrooms. Of those Head Start children in my district, 98 percent of
them live in families that receive public assistance or have incomes
that are below the Federal poverty line.
These kids receive a gamut of services which include medical and
dental care, mental health services, disability assessment and
treatment and family assistance.
In fact, studies have shown that Head Start narrows the gap between
disadvantaged children and other children, narrows that gap in
vocabulary, writing skills, and social behavior. Head Start children
are less likely to repeat a grade, require special education or be
convicted of a crime. And I underscore, 80 percent of all of the
children who start and end Head Start do not wind up in prison. These
children show IQ gains compared to low-income children who are not in
the program and are more likely to graduate from high school and
college.
Mr. Speaker, I cite these statistics to simply say it seems to me
that, as one of the gentlewomen said, If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
This seems to be a solution in search of a problem.
Although Head Start has a well-documented record of improving the
education and health of participating children, Republicans seek to
begin its evisceration. The current proposal by my colleagues on the
other side of the aisle is completely without reason.
While H.R. 2210 does seek to reauthorize Head Start funding, it also
seeks to undermine and erode the foundation of Head Start programs
through its proposed change. We need legislation that will build upon
and ensure Head Start's continued success.
We would not be building upon its success if we passed a bill that
begins the state-by-state dismantling of Head Start programs by
establishing block grants in eight States, Florida included.
We would not be building upon its success if we passed a bill that
promotes discrimination in hiring by ignoring civil rights laws and
lowers Federal standards.
We would not be building upon its success if we passed a bill that
literally and figuratively shortchanges teachers by not mandating an
increase in pay and denies services to eligible children through an
insignificant increase in funding.
Mr. Speaker, I might also add that of the 25 amendments that we heard
in the Committee on Rules that were offered by Democrats, only two were
allowed, and the one Republican amendment by arguably the most
qualified Member of the House on this particular matter, the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murphy), a child psychologist, was also
rejected.
This is shameful, and, frankly, sinister. You Republicans really know
how to kick a kid when he is down. First the child tax credit, now
this. What is next? Maybe there is a Republican bill out there that
outlaws kickball or stickball.
Mr. Speaker, this body owes the American people a reauthorization
that significantly increases funding and allows for the expansion of
Head Start and Early Head Start. We will be doing a disservice to
lower-income families and the future of America to pass the bill on the
floor today. I urge rejection of this Draconian rule and of the
underlying bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

{time} 1630

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 5 minutes
to my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from the great State of
Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the chairman of the Committee on Education and the
Workforce from which this bill arose.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Ohio for yielding
me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule for H.R. 2210, the
School Readiness Act, important legislation that will help close the
readiness gap that exists between Head Start children and their more
affluent peers.
This rule clears the way for consideration of a consensus agreement
reached among Members who believe children in Head Start deserve the
very best that our Nation can give them. It clears the way for steps
supported by the President that will strengthen the academic components
of Head Start, ensure that well-qualified teachers are helping Head
Start children get ready for school, and encourage coordination between
Head Start and other successful State programs.
These changes are badly needed. Children in Head Start are learning,
but

[[Page H7522]]

they are not learning as much as they deserve to be learning. There is
still a significant school readiness gap between children in Head Start
and their peers when they enter kindergarten, and that is simply not
acceptable. Children in Head Start deserve the same shot at a good
education as every other child in America. These children are capable
of achieving the same things, and they deserve that chance and nothing
less.
When Head Start was a new program in 1964, it aimed to give
disadvantaged children a ``head start'' by allowing them to begin
learning earlier than everyone else who started in school in the first
grade. Now, most States run their own pre-kindergarten programs and
virtually every child attends kindergarten.
Unfortunately, Head Start has not changed with the times. As this
chart shows, Head Start's graduates beginning kindergarten are more
than 25 percentile points below in average skills like recognizing
letters, numbers, shapes, and colors. And when compared to what other
children are learning before they start school, disadvantaged children
are not getting an even start, much less a head start. Too many
children in Head Start are being left behind.
The average child entering kindergarten today is right here, at the
50 percentile, and if we look at the numbers across the bottom of this
chart, we can begin to see where Head Start children are in each of
these subject areas. We can do better and we must do better.
And it is not because there is a lack of funding. We have almost
doubled funding for Head Start since 1995. What is holding Head Start
back is that it has become isolated from change and improvement. It has
been walled off from other good programs that it should be coordinated
with.
Today, States administer the vast majority of programs that provide
early childhood care and education. Even programs funded by the Federal
Government, such as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, child care
and development block grant funds are administered by State
governments. Head Start is the only program that lies outside of this
network.
If we are going to ensure children in Head Start get the best our
Nation can give them, qualified States need more freedom to coordinate
Head Start with these programs. There is an agreement on this across
the ideological spectrum, from the Brookings Institution to the
Heritage Foundation, from the Wall Street Journal to the Washington
Post, from faith-based organizations to State school leaders.
The rule would allow for consideration of the bill that will
strengthen Head Start by addressing this need in up to eight States, so
long as those eight States meet tough new rigorous standards. The bill
also ensures that Head Start children can benefit from the full talents
and compassion of America's faith-based organizations by restoring
civil rights protections for such groups and removing barriers that
discourage them from participating in the Head Start program.
The 1964 Civil Rights Act established that faith-based organizations
have the right to hire workers on a religious basis; for example, a
Catholic organization can intentionally hire Catholic individuals under
the law. Over the years, though, many Federal programs have trampled on
this right, including Head Start. It is just wrong; it is just as wrong
to deny any civil right to any other group or individual. If a Catholic
group operating Head Start intentionally hires Catholic individuals,
that organization should not have to worry that it may be breaking the
law.
The rule allows consideration of the measure that would restore this
protection to faith-based organizations and ensure that they are full
participants in the effort to prepare disadvantaged children for
school. The rule allows for consideration of a base bill that will
address these pressing needs.
President Clinton signed four different bills during his Presidency
that do exactly the same thing that the faith-based provision in this
underlying bill does. Yet, some of our friends on the other side of the
aisle disagree with that proposal. The rule accommodates their concerns
by allowing for an open debate on an amendment that would strike this
provision from the bill. It also allows for a substitute offered by our
colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).
I would urge my colleagues to support the rule and to support the
underlying bill.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes
to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa), my good friend.
(Mr. HINOJOSA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this rule on
H.R. 2210. The bill, which the majority has brought to the floor, is
not a good-faith effort to reauthorize the Nation's premier early
childhood education program, the only program that exists to serve some
of the most deprived children. Instead, the majority has stifled
serious debate on areas of need within the Head Start program. They
have refused to significantly increase the funding resources for this
vital program.
The majority say they are for improving the quality of Head Start and
access to Head Start, but only, only if it does not cost money. Once
again, poor children and families are left off of the majority's list
of priorities.
Under this restrictive rule, the majority refuses to debate many of
the critical amendments by Members on this side of the aisle. Because
of the majority, we will not debate how to help Head Start teachers
earn their B.A. degrees or how to increase their wages. We will not
debate how to expand Head Start to all eligible children. We will not
debate the appropriate use of assessments in the education of our
youngest children.
I had offered an amendment to increase funding for Early Head Start
and improve its services for limited-English-proficient families. The
majority refused to allow me. Early Head Start currently reaches only 3
percent of the eligible families. Access to this program for Hispanic
and limited-English-proficient families falls below these dismal
national figures.
In the entire State of Texas, the second most populous State in the
Nation, only 2,500 infants and toddlers are being served. The need is
great, yet my proposed amendment will never get a vote on the House
Floor.
I urge my colleagues to defeat this unfair rule.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield four
minutes to my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr.
Osborne), a member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.
Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Speaker, as I have talked to my colleagues here in
the House, I have been really surprised and somewhat dismayed at the
amount of misunderstanding and misinformation we have had regarding
this particular bill. We have already heard some of those: We are going
to dismantle Head Start. I do not think anybody on this side or the
other side intends to dismantle Head Start. Everyone values Head Start.
Head Start is not being transformed into a State-run program. It is not
a block grant program. That is absolutely not true.
So currently what we are talking about is the possibility of eight
States entering a pilot program, if they so choose. Now, if all 50
States say we want to keep Head Start like it is, they can keep the
program in all 50 States like it is. So the maximum would be eight
States in a pilot program, 42 States in a similar program that we have
had previously. So it is entirely voluntary. Pilot States must increase
spending for early learning and not decrease it, so it does not take
money from Head Start.
I have often heard, as I talk to people around the floor here, Well,
we are afraid that this is going to take money away from Head Start.
This is not structured in this way. Actually, the State must increase
its spending; no Head Start dollars will be transferred to the State.
This will create a seamless, coordinated early learning program in
pilot programs instead of a two-track system. Right now, we have Head
Start in most States and we have State-run early learning programs, and
they exist side-by-side. There is no coordination. There is no
commonality of standards. We think this is wasteful and inefficient.
So what we are talking about is a program that will serve more
children

[[Page H7523]]

and will have higher standards, not lower.
Also, the Castle bill increases Head Start funding, as we have said
previously, by $202 million, up to $6.9 billion, which, as the
gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Boehner) said, has more than doubled
since 1995. It raises the standards for teacher qualifications. It does
not lower standards at all.
Head Start continues to be administered by Health and Human Services.
It not being transferred to another department. Again, that is a myth
that has been out there for some reason.
Health and nutrition programs remain in place. They will not be
changed at all.
Underachieving Head Start programs receive additional funds. This is
one thing I think we really need to look at and think about.
The academic content of Head Start is strengthened while maintaining
important socialization components. So as has been stated earlier,
there is an emphasis on pre-mathematics, which currently is not
something that happens in most Head Start programs. There is also an
emphasis on pre-science, which again is not emphasized in Head Start
programs currently; also in pre-reading.
Currently, most Head Start programs say all you have to do is be able
to recognize 10 letters of the alphabet. Well, by the time you are four
years old, you had better know the whole alphabet. So we think that we
can make considerable improvements.
What we would like to emphasize here is that according to the Family
and Child Experience Survey, the average child entering Head Start in
terms of school readiness ranks in the 21st percentile. Two years
later, $6,500 a year later, that child leaves Head Start at the 24th
percentile, which is hardly statistically significant.
We cannot afford to do this. So if you start in the lower one-fourth
of readiness and you end Head Start in the lower one-fourth, by the age
of 16, you are probably still in the lower one-fourth, because where
you start is usually where you finish. Now, that is critical. So
something needs to be done to address this problem. So that is all we
are saying.
Let us make some changes here. This is not a perfect program, but it
is a good program, and we are trying to make it better.
So we hope that people will consider and will understand the bill
better. We think if they understand it, they will vote for it.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may
consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Ortiz).
(Mr. ORTIZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ORTIZ. Mr. Speaker, in Texas we say, ``If it ain't broke, don't
fix it.'' I oppose H.R. 2210.
Head Start is one of the greatest programs this government has
produced. It is highly successful; and it is by no means broke . . . so
this action by the House is unwarranted. If we pass this bill today, we
will be denying hundreds of thousands of little kids from poor homes a
solid foundation from which to begin their lives.
Since the beginning of the program, Head Start has provided the
foundation for low-income working families. Upon this foundation,
thousands of adults throughout South Texas have overcome tremendous
obstacles to break the cycle of family poverty and become productive
citizens. Without the foundation of Head Start, the children and
families in the 21st century will have a much harder time trying to get
a start on education, nutrition habits, and other basic health care
needs.
In South Texas, we have a long and successful relationship with Head
Start. In my district alone, Head Start serves nearly 4,000 kids from
birth to 5 years old. Head Start offers several unique opportunities
and programs to South Texas; including transportation, parent training,
Diabetes and obesity education, general nutrition information, and
services for immunizations, counseling and dental health. Their whole-
family approach to these services vastly improves the health and
education in South Texas.
By providing transportation to the program facilities, the South
Texas Head Start helps parents who are too impoverished to have their
own transportation from smaller towns to the Head Start facilities. By
training parents through English courses, promoting GEDs, increasing
literacy, and offering job referral services, parents learn to be self-
sufficient for themselves, their kids and their community.
One of the more valuable offerings of the local Head Start is the
Diabetes and obesity education. The Hispanic population suffers from
diabetes at two times the rate of whites. Of Hispanic 2\1/2\ to 3 year-
old kids, 50 percent will likely be diagnosed with diabetes within
their lifetime, according to a recent CDC study.
Losing weight, of course, can prevent diabetes, along with exercising
and following a sensible diet, all of which Head Start teaches local
families. Through providing nutrition information to parents and kids
with a focus on healthy eating and balanced meals, kids will develop
healthier habits and break the cycle of obesity and diabetes.
By offering a comprehensive immunization record for kids to get the
appropriate shots, Head Start helps prevents increase in spread of
disease along the international border, where disease is often rampant.
Dental services through Head Start educate parents and kids in proper
dental hygiene and about how nutrition affects oral health.
Through counseling services, Head Start serves the many kids with
severe emotional problems, who come from difficult backgrounds. Head
Start works with professionals, parents and kids to improve the
emotional well-being of the kids before they start school.
That's the overview of Head Start in South Texas; but let me share
with you stories from people who have used this program and precisely
what we will be taking away from the children of Texas and other states
around the Nation.

Jaime Reyna--28-year-old with a Master's Degree in
pediatric physical therapy, fondly recalls learning, not just
numbers, colors and how to read, but also how to build self-
esteem through social interactions with other kids.
Victor Sauceda--Honors graduate and varsity football player
from Texas A&M University-Kingsville, is currently a
football, basketball, and track coach who will travel to
Reno, Nevada next spring to take a shot at the NFL. He
attributes his outgoing leadership style to the encouragement
and interaction he had from his Head Start teachers and
peers.
Lizandro Garcia--4th-year student at University of Texas-
Brownsville, is earning his Master's degree in accounting
while holding a steady job as the Accounts Payable
Supervisor. He says that thanks to the teaching he received
at Head Start, teaching him to always be your best, strive
higher and never settle for second best, he has been able to
succeed in life.
Antonio Guerra--Principal of Elma Barrera Elementary School
in Santa Rosa, Texas, says that even though he didn't
understand the importance of being in Head Start as a child,
he does remember that the people were friendly, smart and
caring. He came from a low-income single parent home, where
the things other kids take for granted weren't always
affordable, but where education was a high priority. Head
Start provided him with the educational foundation to improve
his future.
Melissa Duran--Attended Head Start in the early 70s, went
to college and worked as a Head Start teacher for a couple of
years after graduation. She received her Child Development
credentials through the Head Start program, and now has owned
her own two Day Care Centers for 11 years.
Pat Gomez--Parent of three boys who went through Head
Start. The program gave them the opportunity to gain self-
esteem and confidence in themselves. They are all
successfully employed. One is a dentist.
Ms. Davis--Single mother of one son who went through Head
Start. Because of the one-on-one attention her son received,
he changed from being shy and withdrawn to an outgoing young
man who is now a successful lawyer.
Ida Gonzalez--Raised by her grandmother who spoke very
little English. She specifically remembers learning how to
brush her teeth, jump rope, eat healthy food and was prepared
enough academically to stay ahead of her peers in the Gifted
and Talented Program once she entered school. Her love of
learning motivated her to become a teacher and child
advocate.
Jessika Perez--Former Head Start student who is currently
beginning her senior year at Texas A&M University where she
received full scholarship for all four years. She has spent
summers working at California State University with NASA
researchers, and plans to start her own Engineering Firm
after graduating with her Masters Degree in Civil
Engineering.

This is only a small sample of what this House is ready to end if we
pass H.R. 2210.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to yield 2
minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards), my good friend.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, no American citizen should have to pass
someone else's religious test to qualify for a federally funded job.
That is why I am strongly supporting the Woolsey amendment allowed
under this rule.
Without the Woolsey amendment, private groups could actually receive
millions of Federal Head Start dollars to run Head Start programs, and
then

[[Page H7524]]

with those public tax dollars, they could hire and fire people not
based on whether they could help educate and support children, but
whether they passed a religious test. That is wrong.
For any citizen to have to choose between his or her job and personal
religious faith makes a mockery of the free exercise clause in the
first amendment of our Constitution.
Let me be specific, without the Woolsey amendment, a group associated
with Bob Jones University could receive a multimillion dollar Federal
grant and use those tax dollars to put out a sign that says this: No
Jews or Catholics need apply here for a federally funded job.
Now, if you think it is okay to have that kind of religious
discrimination using Federal dollars, then vote against the Woolsey
amendment. If, like many Americans and the vast majority of Americans,
you think that that kind of religious bigotry is wrong, then vote for
the Woolsey amendment.
Without the Woolsey amendment, American women could be denied a
federally funded Head Start job simply because a grant recipient says,
in their religious beliefs, women really should not have the right to
work. Without the Woolsey amendment, a Federal Head Start grantee would
ask job applicants the most private of religious questions and then
refuse to hire someone based on their answers.
I wonder, Mr. Speaker, how Members on the floor right now would feel
if somebody, while they were applying for a job, somebody asked them
these questions: Are you a Christian? Are you Jewish? Are you Muslim?

{time} 1645

Did you tithe to your church last year? Do you believe in evolution
or creationism? How many times did you attend church last year? What
religious beliefs are you teaching your children? How many times did
you pray yesterday?
Protect the fundamental American principle of religious freedom by
voting for the Woolsey amendment.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4\3/4\ minutes to the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), a member of my very own class in
Congress.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time.
I am pleased to come before the House on this issue, and I am so glad
this issue is being discussed. I have waited some 10 years for this
issue to be discussed in this manner before the House of
Representatives.
This is the most important vote that this House of Representatives
and this Congress will have since we did welfare reform because we are
talking about the future of our most needy and deserving citizens, our
most disadvantaged citizens. We are talking about the children of those
individuals in our society who need a Head Start and we were not
providing that.
I have heard rhetoric from the other side, and we saw the parade of
mediocrity coming down the aisle advocating the continuation of the
same, the same exact situation.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would most respectfully ask
that the gentleman's words with reference to idiocrasy be stricken, but
without asking a ruling from the Chair, I would ask the gentleman to
give consideration to undertaking to do that before making such a
demand. He said idiocrasy.
Mr. MICA. Mediocrity. That is what we are talking about today.
We are talking about mediocrity and perpetuating mediocrity among our
neediest students and those who really need an advantage. Let me say, I
have a degree in education and my interest is in the quality of the
education. And for the first time, a President has come forward with a
package that would not ensure mediocrity but ensure quality in the Head
Start program for the very first time.
Let me give an example. I come from a district that is very broad and
very big. I represent large counties, and I represent small counties.
So I spent the time some 6 and 8 years ago and have been back again to
look at the Head Start program and the preschool programs to see what
they are doing. I can tell you what they are doing is they are spending
a lot of money. They are spending a lot of money on bureaucracy, not
all on programs. I have a good program in my big county, and we are
able to support that. I have two counties that are over 45 miles apart,
and I begged and pleaded to try to get a Head Start program that made
sense.
We went to Atlanta. We went to Washington. We said, no, you cannot do
that. We do not have enough students in either county. We have 200 in
one and 300 in another to support the bureaucracy that is required by
Head Start. So we asked for a little flexibility, and we got no
flexibility. We still have no flexibility today.
Today we have eight administrators in a program earning between
$31,000 and $42,000. I have a total of 34 administrative various
personnel required by the program for 500 students and two counties
that are separated by almost 50 miles. So I am spending the monies on
bureaucracy, and you will not give me the flexibility to give my kids
the best chance possible.
I have got teachers; and I do not have one teacher, not one teacher
out of all the so-called teachers that we have in the program that are
certified. Would you want your children to go to a school if we take
the certification out of the school, the pre-school programs or any of
the programs that we take it out and force your children to go to that?
Today we are spending between $12,000 for our so-called teachers and
$22,932. And my bureaucrats in the program are getting up to $42,000. I
do not have one qualified teacher and that is the mediocrity you want
to resign our children to, my children to? These children deserve a
head start. That is what the program was about.
There is not one dollar cut in this. There are no standard cuts in
this; but we do allow a little bit of flexibility, and we do allow
quality. The President has requested quality in the program. For the
first time we will have people who actually have had an education to
educate our weakest, poorest-performing students. Is that a lot to ask
for, I ask you?
I have waited some 8, 9 years for these students. Do not deny my
students this opportunity. Do not deny them quality. Do not deny them
flexibility. Do not relegate them to mediocrity or bureaucracy.
You can tell I am very passionate about this. I feel very strongly
about this. This is the biggest improvement we can make for the future
of these children. I do not ask you to accept this. I plead with you to
work with us to try to improve this program. We do not cut money. We do
not cut quality. We make improvements and I ask you to help us.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds.
To the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), I went to school in Alta
Mont Springs. There were no certified teachers. Every one of them loved
me. My mama and daddy and grandmama never went to school and somehow or
another I managed to get three degrees.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr.
George Miller), my very good friend and a leader in this field; and I
invite the House to listen for 2 minutes to the gentleman.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong
opposition to this unfair rule.
Just yesterday a very contrite leader in the Republican Party
acknowledged a chronic mistreatment of members of the minority of this
House.
On Monday, the former Republican leader talked about an emerging
theme in this House. The theme is 10 years of one-party rule is enough.
The Republicans have had control for 10 years. They have gotten
arrogant. They demean the institution. They demean democracy by virtue
of their heavy-handed way they run the House, minority rights are
downtrodden, and it is time for a change.
The rule we have here today is a perfect example of the arrogant and
abusive treatment that is directed not just at Democrats but 140
million Americans who sent us here to represent them and look out for
their interests and particularly the children. Many of those Americans
feel very strongly about Head Start programs. Many of their children
participate in it, and they would like to know this program is going to
be improved. But we have the same old arrogance we saw last week with
the pension bill.
Last minute changes were made in this legislation at 11 o'clock last
night. When we asked the right to change our

[[Page H7525]]

substitute to take into account those changes, we were told we would
not be given the opportunity. So instead we will not be able to offer
the amendments that people came before the Committee on Rules and asked
for.
So what is the result? The result is for the first time in the
history of this program, for the first time in the history of this
program, where we had Republican Presidents, Republican Congresses,
Democratic Congress, we have always sought to improve this program.
For the first time in history we have a partisan attack on Head
Start, and for the first time in history we are undermining the
performance standards, the quality standards in this program. And for
the first time in history, we will be limiting the participation of
children in Head Start. In the third year of this bill because of the
caps on funding for the first time in history under any administration
in any Congress, we will reduce the number of Head Start children that
will be able to participate from the current population. No Republican
President in the past has ever done that. No Congress has ever done
that. No Democratic President has done that because we have had a
national consensus, because this is the best program we have in the
Nation, with the best results.
You may want to do a lot of things with this program, but you cannot
put it somewhere where a program has better results than Head Start.
This attack should be rejected and this rule should be rejected.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Regula), the distinguished colleague of mine and the
dean of our delegation, a former elementary school teacher and
principal himself, and, most importantly, the chairman of the
Appropriations Committee on Health and Human Services that funds this
bill.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me
time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2210, the School
Readiness Act of 2003. As a former elementary teacher and an elementary
principal, I am aware of the necessity of a first-rate education and
the need to ensure that children have adequate skills before entering
kindergarten. You cannot start too soon. My daughter-in-law reads to my
16-month-old granddaughter, and here we are talking about children who
are 2, 3, 4 years old.
The Head Start program has been a successful program over the years,
providing comprehensive services to many children not otherwise
reached, and providing students with some of the basics needed to be
successful in school.
As successful as Head Start has been, I believe that the program can
be even more successful by maintaining the comprehensive services
already provided and enhancing, that is the key word, the academic
component. H.R. 2210 will allow the Head Start program to achieve this
goal by emphasizing cognitive development, improving teacher quality,
and providing extra help for Head Start programs identified as
underachieving.
I would like to emphasize, as my colleagues have stated, that there
will be no additional testing required of the children in this program.
Further, arbitrary performance measures will be eliminated, ensuring
that the performances of Head Start centers are more fairly evaluated.
Because of the value of the comprehensive services, recently referred
to as the crown jewel of Head Start, this legislation will keep the
program at the Department of Health and Human Services, preserving and
extending the health and nutrition components. The bill authorizes a
level of more than $200 million over the current level and limits
Federal Government administrative expenses allowing as many as 10,000
more children, 10,000 more to be served by the Head Start program.
I would like to add that in the appropriations bill for the
Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services and Education that this
body recently approved, we provide an additional $148 million. This
bill was just approved a few weeks ago. We added $148 million to the
program. I might point out that in the last 8 years the Republican
majority has more than doubled the amount going to Head Start.
I hear conversation about how the program is not getting adequately
funded. The facts are the facts. Funding has more than doubled in the
last 8 years since we have been responsible. Additionally, the bill
contains incentives for States to maintain or expand funding of early
childhood education. Education should be seamless. It should start with
the Head Start program, go through the elementary into the high school
and on to the college level. And I have had a real concern since I have
been chairman of this subcommittee about the number of high school
dropouts. Many of the major cities are in excess of 50 percent in the
dropout rate. That is a terrible waste of human capital; and we need to
address it. One of the key elements in this is the ability to read. I
do not think decisions are made by young people at the ninth grade or
the tenth grade to drop out. Those decisions are made when they do not
learn to read at the first, second, third, fourth, fifth grade level.
Therefore, the Head Start program as envisioned by this bill will be
an added component to ensure that individuals will have skills so that
when they reach high school they can participate. They can read. They
can comprehend, and they can be ensured that they will get the skills
they need to participate in our economy.
We hear today about unemployment levels. We hear about people not
finding jobs, and the need for skills only grows. Therefore, I think
this program is a very important part of the early education of a young
person, of a child and on into adulthood. I would urge my colleagues to
support this legislation. Give these kids the same chance that others
have. That is what it is. It is Head Start. And we want to give them a
head start, and this bill will do that.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The Chair would advise Members
that the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) has 18\1/2\ minutes
remaining. The gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce) has 5\1/4\ minutes
remaining.

{time} 1700

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield for a unanimous consent
to the gentlewoman from Kansas City, Missouri (Ms. McCarthy).
(Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I believe the rule to H.R.
2210 will dismantle Head Start which, in these desperate economic
times, should be strengthened, not weakened.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the rule on the School
Readiness Act, which would seriously jeopardize the Head Start early
education program.
For decades, Head Start has been a successful program dedicated to
helping disadvantaged children receive the preparation they need to
succeed in school and to lead better lives. This bill would leave our
neediest children behind by shortchanging the Head Start program and
putting its federal funding at risk in States that are mired in their
own budget woes.
In my district of Kansas City, MO, over 3,800 children are enrolled
in Head Start programs and they depend on help from the Federal
Government. Head Start is one of the oldest and most thoroughly studied
early education programs in America. Studies find that children
involved in Head Start programs are less likely to repeat a grade and
to require special education services than disadvantaged children who
are not lucky enough to experience Head Start. Furthermore, Head Start
students are more likely to graduate high school and to attend college.
This past Fall a young mother named Michelle enrolled her son,
August, in a Head Start program in Kansas City. Her two older daughters
had already successfully completed the program, but Michelle worried
that her son's speech and physical disabilities would put him far
behind his classmates when he started kindergarten. The Head Start
Mental Health and Disability Consultant coordinated his efforts with
the County Health Department and the North Kansas City School District
to insure that Michelle's fears would not become a reality. An
Individualized Education plan was put into place and August was
enrolled in speech therapy classes. Today, all of Michelle's children
are doing well academically and socially, and she stays involved in
Head Start as a volunteer so that she can give back to the program that
meant so much to her and her children.
The measure before us (H.R. 2210) authorizes barely enough funds to
even cover the cost of inflation, let alone expand Head Start

[[Page H7526]]

programs. It will actually reduce the number of children in the
program. It provides no resources for teacher training and will allow
discrimination in hiring practices. But the part of this legislation
that concerns me the most is that it puts Head Start money into the
hands of States that will be able to use these block grant funds to
defray their own deficits rather than expanding the program to reach
students.
Governor Holden of Missouri shares my concern that resources usually
suffer when a federal program becomes a block grant. It is his fear,
and mine, that federal mandates will be shifted to deficit wracked
states such as mine, forcing them to do more with less money.
Head Start works in Missouri, and it works all over the country.
Let's put federal dollars into education programs such as Head Start
that have been proven to make students ready for a successful school
experience and a productive life. It's the best investment we can make
for our Nation's future.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3
minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), my very good
friend.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Woolsey
antidiscrimination amendment and against the part of the bill which
would allow employment discrimination based on religion in the Head
Start program for the first time since the program began.
Yesterday, the bipartisan leadership of the House and Senate
celebrated the historic March on Washington and praised the gentleman
from Georgia (Mr. Lewis), Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr., and others
for their courageous demonstration 40 years ago. Let us not forget what
that march was about because two of the demands of the March on
Washington were:
``Withholding of Federal funds from all programs in which
discrimination exists'' and ``a Federal Fair Employment Practices Act
barring discrimination.'' Both of those demands were enacted within 2
years of the march.
Now, one day after the bipartisan celebration, we have a bill before
us which undermines the same victories which were celebrated. But the
Woolsey amendment will preserve the tradition of nondiscrimination in
federally funded programs. That tradition goes back to 1941, when
President Roosevelt issued an executive order prohibiting
antidiscrimination laws that have not caused all these problems over
all these years. In fact, today 8 percent of Head Start programs are
sponsored by faith-based organizations, and Head Start officials
recently expressed outrage that someone could tell a Head Start child's
parents that they were not qualified to be Head Start teachers solely
because they attended a synagogue rather than a church or a mosque
rather than a temple.
Next year, we will celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Supreme
Court's decision in Brown v. Board of Education. That case spoke of the
ravages of segregation when it stated that ``the policy of separating
the races is usually interpreted as denoting the inferiority of the
Negro group. A sense of inferiority affects the motivation of a child
to learn. Segregation with the sanction of law, therefore, has a
tendency to retard the educational and mental development of the Negro
children.''
Mr. Speaker, although the children in the Head Start programs may not
be segregated, some will not miss the message their parents were not
qualified to be teachers while parents of other children were
qualified.
Mr. Speaker, we have a choice today. Preserve the equal employment
opportunity principles and traditions established by President
Roosevelt, Brown v. Board of Education and the March on Washington or
change the law in such a way that someone will have to explain to some
young Head Start students why their parents were not good enough to be
teachers solely because of the family religion.
The vote on this amendment will determine what kind of Head Start the
next generation will have.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes
to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), my very good friend.
(Mr. NADLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the bill as crafted
and to this rule. I also urge my colleagues to support the substitute
that will be offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. George
Miller) and the amendment to be offered by the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Woolsey).
The bill creates a new block grant for eight States and eliminates
the obligation that States abide by Head Start's educational
performance standards by allowing governors to increase class size,
increase child-to-staff ratios, dumb down existing curricula, all
without any accountability.
The President has told us repeatedly that his goal is to leave no
child behind. Unfortunately, the reality fails to match the rhetoric.
Because of inadequate funding, we are already leaving 400,000 children
behind. An appalling 40 percent of those eligible to participate in
Head Start cannot participate because of short funding.
With the changes made by this bill, even more of our at-risk,
eligible children will be shut out of this successful program,
endangering their opportunities to succeed in school and to contribute
all they might to this Nation. We must not deny children the health,
social and educational services they need. This Nation cannot afford to
cheat its future by robbing our children of educational opportunities
today.
Without the amendment to be offered by the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Woolsey), the bill would betray our core values by
explicitly permitting, for the first time in the history of this
program, religious discrimination in employment. It would allow Head
Start programs that use taxpayer funds to discriminate against teachers
and parent volunteers solely because of their religious convictions.
The bill does so by eliminating existing law that has, since the
beginning of the Head Start program, protected the people who teach our
children against this most reprehensible form of discrimination. No
public school, no publicly funded Head Start program should be
permitted to hang out a sign that says no Jews or Catholics or
Protestants or Muslims or whatever need apply. Incredibly, this bill
deliberately would allow them to do just that. For shame.
Head Start is an exceptional program that has served nearly a million
children and their families. It works. It works well. Instead of
cutting its funding and eliminating basic standards and promoting
religious discrimination, we should be standing up and expanding this
program and not destroying it.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the legislation and to
this rule. I also urge my colleagues to support the substitute that
will be offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller), and the
amendment to be offered by the gentlewoman from California (Ms.
Woolsey).
This bill creates a new block grant program for eight states, yet it
eliminates the obligation that states abide by Head Start's educational
performance standards by allowing governors to increase class size,
increase child to staff ratios, dumb-down existing curricula--all
without any accountability.
The President has repeatedly told us that his goal is to leave no
child behind. Unfortunately, the reality fails to match the rhetoric.
Due to inadequate funding, we are already leaving behind over 400,000
children--an appalling 40 percent of those eligible to participate in
Head Start.
With the changes made by this bill, even more of our most at-risk,
eligible children will be shut out of this successful program,
compromising their opportunities to succeed in school and contribute
all they could to our nation. We cannot continue to deny children the
health, social, and educational services they need. This nation cannot
afford to rob its future by robbing our children of educational
opportunities today.
This bill also betrays our core values by permitting, for the first
time in the history of the Head Start program, religious
discrimination. It allows taxpayer funds to be used in Head Start
programs that discriminate against teachers and parent volunteers
solely because of their religious convictions. The bill does so by
eliminating existing law that has, since Head Start's beginning,
protected the people who teach our children against this most
reprehensible form of discrimination.
We have heard terrible allegations from the other side of the aisle,
and from the administration alleging, that certain members of the other
body have hung a sign on the federal courts saying ``No Catholics Need
Apply.'' While I continue to believe that this slur against
conscientious Catholic members of the other body is blatantly false and
slanderous, those making the charge, including the President and our
colleagues on the other side of

[[Page H7527]]

the aisle, understand that religious discrimination in employment, or
the imposition of a religious test for federally funded employment in
violation of the Constitution, is reprehensible and an affront to our
First Freedom.
I urge my colleagues to support the Democratic substitute, and the
Woolsey amendment, both of which would strip this indefeasible
provision from the bill.
Head Start is an exceptional program that serves nearly 1 million
children and their families. We know from experience that it works and
works well, helping our children succeed educationally. Instead of
cutting funding, eliminating basic standards, and promoting religious
discrimination, we should be standing up for families and our most
vulnerable children by providing the necessary resources and
accountability, to ensure that all children who qualify for the Head
Start program can participate and succeed.
By failing to improve, rather than destroy, Head Start, this
administration, and this bill, are making clear that our children are
not valued and do not deserve a head start in life. Instead of
dismantling this program, with a proven track record, that countless
early childhood educators, child psychologists support, and parents
support, this bill would replace it with an untested, unproven,
unaccountable program.
It is time to match the rhetoric with action and leave no child
behind. It is time to make good on the promise of this nation that we
are all created equal, that all children are entitled to a decent
education, and that no one should ever have to decide between a job
helping our children and their religious faith. No child was ever
helped by governmentally funded and endorsed religious discrimination.
That is not what this country is about, and it is not befitting of a
nation dedicated to liberty and justice for all.
I urge the rejection of this rule, and the adoption of the Democratic
substitute and the Woolsey amendment.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, will the Chair tell me how much
time we have remaining.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Hastings) has 13\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentlewoman from Ohio
(Ms. Pryce) has 5\1/4\ minutes remaining.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes
to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), my good friend.
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished
gentleman for yielding me the time.
I wanted to debate this at the very beginning of this very long
evening because this is the rule that will design whether we work on
this in a bipartisan manner or whether or not we use the singular view,
My way or the highway.
This is actually Head Start retrogression, and I wish that we could
have come to the floor of the House and crafted reform that would truly
help our children, but Mr. Speaker, this legislation continues the
saga.
Only 60 percent of preschool children are able to access the real
Head Start, 19 percent only of those who are seasonal and migrant
children and 3 percent only of infant and preschoolers are able to
access a real Head Start program.
Mr. Speaker, if we look at America, we will find Members of this body
that started in Head Start. Children who are children of incarcerated
persons were in Head Start. Average Americans have had the ability to
be in Head Start, but we have never finished the job, and this
legislation that we have before us is going to unravel Head Start as we
know it, a nurturing, caring program that has nutrition, has
psychology, has education, has teachers who care and teaches parents
how to access better education for their children.
Why could my Republican colleagues not see that education is a dream
of all America? This rule should be denied because this rule does not
address the question of giving block grant moneys to the States so that
they can abuse those resources, and our children still will not have a
viable Head Start program.
I support the Woolsey amendment. I support the substitute. We need to
go back to the drawing board and really listen to those who have now
grown up who have been products of Head Start. Ask them the question
whether or not they have benefited from the ability to have
immunization and good health care, good nutrition and then be able to
have a loving environment to educate or to be educated in.
Why my good friends think that that is a good bill, I do not know,
but the best thing to do is to send it back. It is a Head Start
retrogression. Vote against the rule.
I oppose the rule governing H.R. 2210, the Head Start Authorization
Act, because it denies the Minority an opportunity to make a bad bill
better. Make no mistake about it; the underlying legislation is a bad
bill. I regret that my colleagues and I do not have the opportunity to
improve upon it.
The Republicans on the Rules Committee have denied us the opportunity
to have our amendments heard, to have our colleagues vote on the
amendments and to decide for themselves what best suits their
constituents. The Head Start program is of critical importance to our
children and this rule does not do justice to the undertaking of
reauthorizing that program.
A total of 26 amendments were submitted to the Rules Committee on
this bill. Of those 26 amendments, Democratic Members submitted all but
one. The rule makes in order only two of those amendments: a Democratic
substitute and the Woolsey/Edwards/Frank/Scott/Van Hollen amendment to
restore civil rights protections to Head Start teachers by striking the
language in the bill that allows Head Start programs to discriminate in
hiring with regard to religion. Certainly, those are both excellent
amendments and it is my hope that they will be adopted. Then, this bad
bill will be better. Those two amendments however, were not the only
worthy amendments that should have been allowed to come to this floor.
There was Mr. Grijalva's Migrant and Seasonal Head Start and Indian
Head Start amendment which calls for additional funds to be allocated
to Head Start. That is important because the legislation currently on
the table will prevent more than 80 percent of eligible children from
benefiting from Head Start services. The U.S. Department of Health has
found that Migrant and Seasonal Head Start Programs serve only 31,400
out of 161,400 migrant and seasonal children; this is a mere 19 percent
of all eligible children. That overwhelming shortfall leaves 130,000
children of migrant and seasonal Head Start families behind.
This is simply unacceptable; America's children deserve better. As a
Texan, I understand the importance of that amendment, as would many of
my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. I wish that we had the
opportunity to vote for the Grijalva amendment.
The amendment proposed by Mr. Grijalva aimed to minimize the existing
gaps that are preventing the children of migrant and seasonal workers
from receiving the early education that prepares children for more
structured schooling later in life. The amendment calls for an increase
in the total authorization of early education programs from $6.87
billion to $7 billion and raises the set-aside for each of these
programs from 13 percent to 15 percent. While Migrant and Seasonal Head
Start Programs as well as Indian Head Start programs serve both infants
and toddlers, the fact remains that neither program has access to Early
Head Start Funds. However, these funds are available to Regional Head
Start programs. The only way Migrant and Seasonal Head Start and Indian
Head Start Programs can receive increases is if additional funds are
appropriated. That is what the Grijalva amendment would do.
By making a modest increase in the funding for Migrant and Seasonal
Head Start as well as Indian Head Start programs, we would be able to
move these programs toward parity and ultimately to reduce the
significant funding gap. What a small price to pay for the success of
our children. Given the chance I would have urged my colleagues to vote
in favor of the Grijalva amendment and to support the measure on behalf
of America's marginalized children. Due to the Republican's restrictive
and unfair rule, I will not have the opportunity to do so.
The Republican leadership of the Rules Committee closed out a number
of other valuable amendments. One of those amendments was offered by
Mr. Davis of Illinois. His amendment would have provided scholarships
to Head Start teachers to assist them with the cost of obtaining a
post-secondary degree. It is stunning that the majority denied this
amendment because post-secondary degrees will be a requirement for half
of current Head Start teachers, if this version of H.R. 2210 passes.
If we are to demand higher levels of formal education from Head Start
teachers then we must compensate them fairly. Unfortunately, well-
educated Head Start teachers can earn more by taking a new job teaching
kindergarten. It is a fact that a teacher with a Bachelor's degree in
Early Childhood Education can earn, on average, about $16,000 a year
more teaching in a public school kindergarten than working in a Head
Start program. That is nearly double the salary. How then can we expect
these teachers to bear the expense of attaining additional education
and then remain

[[Page H7528]]

as Head Start employees earning lower salaries? It is illogical and
frankly, it is unlikely that most Head Start teachers will make that
choice.

We know that these teachers are caring people. They want to remain in
their jobs working with children and families that need them most.
Without the Davis amendment, however, H.R. 2210 will make that
financially impossible for many Head Start teachers. The result could
be a great loss to Head Start programs, to the children they serve and
thus to the future of the country.
I too offered amendments to the underlying bill. I too had those
amendments shut out of the process. One amendment was written to
maintain the mandate for a study comparing the educational achievement,
social adaptation, and health status of children participating in Head
Start programs with that of eligible children who do not participate.
The underlying bill would eliminate that study. It is apparent, that
the data gained from the study would be useful in adding to our
understanding of the importance of Head Start and the ways in which we
can improve program.
Among those children who are eligible for Head Start, the study would
focus on the developmental differences between children who participate
in Head Start and those who do not. Such a study could be particularly
relevant as we seek to better accommodate the increasing number of
special needs disabled children, emotionally or mentally challenged
children, and non-English-speaking Head Start children.
In Texas, and in other states, there are thousands of children who
are eligible for Head Start but who are not enrolled. Those children
are entitled to the services that they would receive from the Head
Start program. The families of those children would benefit from the
holistic approach of Head Start as it seeks to educate not only the
child but also the child's parents about what it takes to help a child
thrive. This study is a mechanism through which we may better
understand the positive impact that Head Start creates on the lives of
the children and families whom it serves. Unfortunately, the Members on
the other side of the aisle would not allow it to be heard on the
floor.
My other amendment was authored to prevent states from using federal
funds allocated under this Act to supplant other federal funds that
states are currently spending on Head Start. In other words, my
amendment would have helped keep Head Start dollars in Head Start
programs. Under the amendment, the text of the Head Start Act would
read, in part, ``Funds received under this section shall not supplant
any Federal, State or local funds.'' That language is crucial to the
preservation of Head Start in states that currently spend federal
dollars on Head Start centers.
Without this amendment, the cash strapped states could choose to use
funds allocated under this Act to supplant funds currently being spent.
Thus, there would be no net gain for the children who need the services
provided by Head Start. Undoubtedly, the overburdened states will use
this opportunity to plug federal dollars into another hole in their
budgets. My amendment would had cured that problem but the majority on
the Rules Committee will not allow it.
The amendment was supported by the Children's Defense Fund, yet my
colleagues were denied the opportunity to vote the amendment up or
down. What a shame, Mr. Speaker. What a pity that something so
important should fall prey to partisan politics.
While I am disappointed that my amendments and those of my colleagues
were excluded from the legislative process here on the floor, I am
substantially more disappointed about what the underlying bill will do
to Head Start. I am dismayed by this rule but I am in fact more
dismayed about what this bill will do to the children and families who
would otherwise benefit from a healthy Head Start program. I am so
disappointed and dismayed because the legislation seeks to desolve Head
Start. Although the Republicans seek to disguise it, Title II of this
bill will end Head Start as we know it.
Frankly, the underlying bill is the answer to a question that has not
been asked. It is a solution for a problem that does not exist. The
block grant created under Title II is no more than a treacherous
experiment. It will push a successful program onto states that have
unproven expertise to manage it. Not only does the bill push Head Start
to the states for experimentation but also, it does so without the
federal quality requirements and oversight that have demonstrated their
success.
There are other failures in this bill that could have been corrected
had the Democrats of this House been allowed to offer their amendments.
Would that I had time to speak about them all but, I have only 2
minutes to speak on the rule. Would that my colleagues had the
opportunity to vote on those amendment to improve this bill.
Nevertheless, there is still a chance.
There is still an opportunity for this body to improve the Head Start
bill. Voting ``no'' on this rule will allow us that opportunity.
Therefore, I urge my colleagues to join me in voting no on the rule.
Vote no and let us come together to pass a better piece of legislation
one that will strengthen not dismantle Head Start and serve the needs
of our children.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2
minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva), a new Member, but
a distinguished person that has dynamics with reference to this matter
as a part of his portfolio.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my deep, deep
disappointment in the Republican proposal to dismantle Head Start.
Head Start has been an historic, powerful tool in ending poverty in
this country, and we heard about passion earlier today, but when we
profess our passion, it should not be about empty rhetoric. It should
be about real compassion, real care and real resources for children.
I am very proud of my Democratic colleagues' persistent attempts to
improve this disastrous bill. Yet of the 25 Democratic amendments
submitted to the Committee on Rules only two were made in order.
Receiving a rewritten bill in the middle of the night last night, many
of us have not had sufficient time to review the changes. From what I
can see, though, this is essentially the same bill, causing lasting
damage to a widely successful program like Head Start.
The bill offers no accountability. The bill repeals long-standing
civil rights protections on employment discrimination; and my
colleagues have addressed many of the other issues that are wrong with
this bill.
I want to concentrate on one aspect. The most troubling part of this
forum from my perspective is the weak attempt by the Republicans to
provide a funding increase for migrant and seasonal Head Start. Before
these changes, the bill would have provided between $8.5 and $17
million additional funds to migrant and seasonal Head Start.
This new bill creates a provision that guarantees $17 million to this
program. While this looks like an improvement, it actually only
guarantees one-quarter of 1 percent of the total appropriation for
eligible children of migrant and seasonal farm-working families. This
modification would only extend services to 2,200 of the 130,000
eligible children that are currently neglected. This is a so-called
improvement? It is a slap in the face to these children and their
families.
Mr. Speaker, these children deserve equal resources. They deserve our
attention and they deserve to be treated equitably in this legislation.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield for a unanimous consent
request to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky), my good
friend.
(Ms. SCHAKOWSKY asked and was given permission to revise and extend
her remarks.)
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I believe H.R. 2210 will dismantle Head
Start and rob single moms of the best early childhood education for
their children.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2
minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Linda T. Sanchez) who
is distinguishing herself in our body as new Member, my friend.
Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, let me just begin
first by saying that I take umbrage to comments that were made earlier
from the gentleman from Florida that the female Democratic Members of
the House were ``a parade of mediocrity.'' These are amazing, talented
women who are not mediocre, but extraordinary women as evidenced by
their passion on this issue.
Having said that, I rise in opposition to this flawed rule. We are
considering a bad bill, the so-called School Readiness Act, H.R. 2210,
without any options for improvement. There are so many things wrong
with this bill that I cannot even begin to count them.
A fair rule would have allowed us to fix some of those things, like
providing adequate funding to expand Head Start, especially migrant and
seasonal Head Start programs, and providing scholarships for Head Start
teachers.
H.R. 2210 begins an irreversible process of dismantling Head Start by
promoting religious discrimination in hiring, shortchanging teachers by
increasing requirements and denying services

[[Page H7529]]

to eligible children by continuing to underfund Head Start.
Worst of all, H.R. 2210 puts in danger years of proven success. For
what? An experiment, a so-called pilot program that does not require
States to even abide by national Head Start standards or have a sound
preschool infrastructure.
Nearly four decades of research have established that Head Start
delivers the intended services and improves the lives and the
development of children and families that it serves. Head Start is
about preparing children for school like Pablo Robles, a constituent of
mine. It is about helping parents become better parents and advocates
for their children and involved in their school work. Ultimately, Head
Start is about giving low-income children an opportunity to succeed in
life.
Republicans are just like scam artists trying to sell us an
oceanfront property in the desert, but now they are trying to sell us a
phony Head Start bill. We must not fall for it, especially when it is
gambling with the lives of children.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule for H.R. 2210 and on
the underlying bill. Let us not play with the future of our most
vulnerable children, like Pablo Robles.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, how much time do we have at
this time?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Sweeney). The gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Hastings) has 7\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentlewoman from Ohio
(Ms. Pryce) has 5\1/4\ minutes remaining.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I would inquire of the gentleman as
to how many speakers he has?
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Three, and we are at that time prepared to
close.
Mr. PRYCE of Ohio. The gentleman may as well go ahead then, please.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very privileged and
pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms.
Waters), who is not only my good friend, but is a person that ran a
Head Start program in the United States of America while the rest of us
are running our mouths about Head Start.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for allowing me this
time, and I must tell my colleagues that as I stand here today, my
heart is broken. It is broken because after 38 years of a successful
program we allowed 90 minutes on a closed rule to destroy Head Start.

{time} 1715

It is shameful. Republicans ought to know and understand what they
are doing. It is another blow that you are striking against children,
and poor children and poor families at that.
Mr. Speaker, I cannot help it that the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Mica) and others do not understand how Head Start was organized, the
delegate agencies, to keep it closer to the communities. We bypassed
the Governors on purpose to keep them from snatching the money from
Head Start, and my colleagues are throwing it back into a block grant.
That money is going to be siphoned off in even States like mine where
we have a $38 billion deficit.
My Republican colleagues want to throw it back into school systems
and preschool programs that have no mandates, that do not mandate
parental involvement, that will not guarantee nutrition programs, that
will not give the physical examinations to help identify the
deficiencies that these children have before we put them in the
classroom and help get them ready for school.
Everyone has admitted that Head Start is successful. Each of my
colleagues says that as they get up to destroy it. If it is successful,
why then are we messing with Head Start? We need to try and do
something about K through 12. When we send kids to Head Start, they are
doing well. Sometimes they lose it because the school systems are not
ready for them.
Mr. Speaker, we need more money in Head Start. It is only servicing
60 percent of the children who need it. We have waiting lists. To add
insult to injury, not only do my colleagues dismantle this program by
putting it into a block grant, then they bring on discrimination and
only allow those parents to participate who are of the same religion of
some of the delegate agencies that are trying to run a Head Start
program.
Again, it is shameful. You break my heart today, and you dismantle a
program that is desperately needed.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\
minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge), who was
the superintendent of education in North Carolina and speaks very
clearly with reference to these issues based on his experience.
Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
this time.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman who just spoke, my
friend from California. She knows what she is talking about. Head Start
is working. And I rise today in opposition to this rule, and I urge my
colleagues to oppose H.R. 2210, the Republican Head Start bill. It is
not what it says it is.
Someone said earlier today, if it is not broken, do not fix it,
improve it. Currently, Head Start funds are targeted directly to the
specific local initiatives of children who need it. But under H.R.
2210, the responsibility for operating Head Start would shift to the
State through a series of block grants. And I can tell you when you go
to block grants, the next thing you are going to see is they are going
to be cut and they will not go to the children who have the needs. I
know. I have been there. I have been involved.
Governors have enough to do rather than trying to put their fingers
in this. They can help improve it, but not run it. This change would
require the establishment of a new State bureaucracy, placing yet
another burden on our already cash-strapped States. Most importantly,
there is no guaranty that under these block grants Federal funds would
ever find their way to Head Start. Oh, sure, some of them will; but
eventually we will see it slip.
Additionally, these block grants eliminate accountability and exempt
States from quality standards and oversight. The bill is not a
reauthorization. It is a demolition of a program that has worked so
well for so many children and so many families.
We have learned that under H.R. 2210 States would be allowed to
increase class size and child teacher ratios, reduce the number of
hours children have to spend in Head Start, eliminate health services
and supplement Federal dollars. That alone is enough to tell us not to
do it. We should not allow States to supplant the dollars. Instead of
recklessly dismantling Head Start, we should invest in it and improve,
as we have already heard.
Today, Mr. Speaker, I will vote for the Miller substitute to this
bill which will strengthen school readiness, enhance quality and
accountability, expand the initiative to more children and families,
all while maintaining local control and high performance standards.
That is what we ought to be about in this House, making it better, not
dismantling it.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2210 flies in the face of reason. It will ruin Head
Start and needlessly jeopardize the future of thousands of children.
This bill is a part of the disturbing trend in this House of trampling
on low-income families and children.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute
to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton), a very
thoughtful member of this conference.
Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to all of the
discussion on the other side; and I may be missing something, but I
think this bill makes sort of sense.
I believe in Head Start. I work with the people who have taught and
been in it. My kids have been a part of the program. It works the way
it should in some areas. In other areas it does not. Where it works,
the kids compete and succeed and it is fine. Where it does not work, we
find those kids as they move into kindergarten no better off than the
kids who do not go to Head Start. That is not right. If we have a
program we spend money on, it ought to work.
This new program, at least to me, is a win-win situation. If a State
wants to take a look at its programs, it can. If it needs help, it can
get it. The bill adds over $200 million to that. If on the other hand
the State likes what it has, does not want to change, it does not apply
for the demo project. It does not

[[Page H7530]]

have to do it. And if it does, every single one of those demo projects
is guaranteed to have the full 5-year funding.
I think the program makes sense, and I hope I am not missing
something essential.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute
to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne).
(Mr. PAYNE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2210 will dismantle Head Start,
resulting in lowering the quality and effectiveness and quite possibly
ending one of the most successful programs our Nation has ever had.
Since its inception, Head Start has served over 20 million children.
Its focus on the whole child extends through recognizing the importance
of the family, not only the institution. Its full-day, full-year
programs provide preschool children of low-income working families with
a comprehensive program to meet their emotional, social, health,
nutritional, and parental support.
The bill really does a lot. It brings in parents that work with the
teachers. It brings in parents who have helped design the program. It
emboldens the parents then to become interested in also improving their
education. It has local vendors being able to provide services to that
local Head Start program. It is a program that really has a tremendous
amount of impact on a local program. And having this sent to the
States, I think, goes in the wrong direction; and I ask the defeat of
the rule.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), the chairman of the
Subcommittee on Education Reform, the chief sponsor and author of this
legislation.
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this
time, and I thank all the members who took enough interest in Head
Start to be here today to speak. Obviously, we do not agree on
everything, but they are interested, and that is good.
My view of this legislation is greatly influenced by the history of
it. Looking back to 1965, in what was called the Great Society and the
creation of this, many people say this is maybe the best program extant
from that in terms of it being able to help children. We have heard the
millions it has helped over the years. And, frankly, I believe that is
accurate. I believe particularly in the areas of just well-being, in
nutrition and medicine, it has been a tremendous amount of help.
This program has been continued pretty much as is directly from the
Federal Government to the local grantees who run the Head Start
programs. It serves today about 900,000 students at about $7,100 a
year. Most of the 4-year-olds that are eligible are served. Some 3-
year-olds are served. And they go to school for roughly half the year
for roughly half a day. I think all of this is in the interest of these
children because we are dealing with children who are at 100 percent of
poverty, or roughly $20,000 for a family of four. So for that reason, I
think we can agree that Head Start does some good things.
On the other hand, to suggest that Head Start is doing what it should
do educationally for these young kids who need it as badly as anyone
else in our society would be, in my judgment, a very inaccurate
statement. Another inaccurate statement I have heard today are words
like dismantling Head Start. This is not an accurate statement
whatsoever; and also block grant, which is also not an accurate
statement.
I have had this argument so much I am almost tired of making it, but
perhaps some people have not heard it. Essentially, the bottom line is
that we are not block granting anything here. Forty-two States will be
treated just as they were before and eight States would go through a
demonstration program that would hopefully show us how better to
educate these young people as far as Head Start is concerned.
Is it a block grant? Let us take a look at it. First of all, the
States would have to maintain or increase their fiscal year 2003 State
funding levels. Then they would have to add 5 percent to that in order
to be one of the eight States which qualify. They could only use Head
Start funds for Head Start-related uses. All comprehensive health and
nutritional services currently provided by Head Start would continue to
be provided. Parental involvement strategies must be developed. State
teacher quality standards would meet or exceed the new requirements for
Head Start programs. This is hardly block granting or dismantling. It
just simply is not that. This is an opportunity for improvement, as far
as young people are concerned.
A speaker from the other side said at one point that for the first it
will reduce the number of children to be served. I do not know
mathematically how anybody arrived at that. I have seen the
authorization figures, and I have seen the appropriation figure for
this year. The increases are there for that.
The rule itself is fair. There will be a substitute certainly that is
very significant in terms of what we are going to do.
A number of other people have spoken to this legislation, Mr.
Speaker; and I thought it would be interesting to go through what some
other people are saying, since we are a little bit political on the
floor, if you will. Today, in Roll Call, Mr. Morton Kandracke said,
``Children who were in the upper 25 percent of their Head Start class
when they entered Head Start in 1997 showed no gains on any measure of
cognitive ability over the course of the Head Start program year, and
actually experienced losses in some measures in comparison to national
norms. The report said that more recent 2000 data shows modest
improvement in results of children, but overall progress is still too
limited. Children continue to lag behind national norms when they exit
Head Start. They also lag behind more advantaged children throughout
their school years.''
And then it says, in conclusion, and this is, I believe, a fair man:
``Democrats ought to be urging, not fighting, upgrades in Head Start's
academic rigor. Instead, they are denouncing the measure sponsored by
Representative Mike Castle to give eight high-performing States leeway
to improve the program.''
And that is my judgment as well. Because today, and we are in 2003
not 1965, all these States have early education programs,
prekindergarten programs and other programs that help with this. Others
have looked at this. The Brookings Institute has looked at it; and they
have reached the same conclusions, that we should be doing this.
So I think we need to be very cautious about what we are saying about
what is in this program. I believe this affords kids an opportunity.
Vote for the rule, support the legislation. It will be interesting to
continue the debate through the evening.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of
making a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Pelosi).
(Ms. PELOSI asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise to say that H.R. 2210 will dismantle
Head Start and rob single moms of the best early childhood education
for their children.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 30
seconds to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton),
who should be able to vote on whether or not there are vouchers in her
city.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time. I wanted to put on the record what I learned at a Congressional
Black Caucus hearing. The rap is put on these children that they are
not as far ahead as they should be. I asked why they were not exposed
to reading, and the testimony was there had been, until recently, a
Federal mandate against exposing these children to the kind of early
access to reading that other kids get in nursery schools. The problem
is with the Feds and not with the program.

{time} 1730

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of
my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Sweeney). The gentleman from Florida is
recognized for 1\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Delaware

[[Page H7531]]

knows that I have great respect for him. That will continue regardless
of our different views on this subject.
What he did was read from today's Roll Call by that paragon of
education, Morton Kondracke, who is probably a friend of his and
certainly a friend of mine. But the gentleman left out another thing
that Mr. Kondracke said. He said, ``Democrats did help Bush pass his No
Child Left Behind standards and testing initiative in 2001 and now have
every right to blast his and the GOP Congress' failure to fund it.''
So, you see, context has a lot to do with things. When the gentleman
was before the Committee on Rules, I asked him, in a respectful manner,
was there one teacher organization or one parent organization or one
student organization that supported the bill that he put forward. He
looked to his staff and indicated that there was an education trust
group, which the Democrats support as well because it deals with the
quality of teachers and teacher pay. There are no teacher
organizations, no parent organizations, no student organizations that
support this proposition.
The fact of the matter is, one of my distinguished colleagues from
Florida came down here and all of these ladies who represent nearly 13
million people, along with the two men that stood with them and asked
unanimous consent, he referred to them as a line of mediocrity. If he
wants mediocrity, all he has to do is suggest that if this bill rose to
the level of mediocrity, it would be fine. Look to Florida for
mediocrity when they say they leave no children behind. In Florida we
not only leave them behind, we lose them and cannot find them.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
It is time to demand the best for our children. The gentleman from
Delaware (Mr. Castle) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) are
offering us that opportunity this evening. I urge my colleagues to pass
this fair rule and agree to the underlying legislation. It is time to
improve our children's chances.
Mr. DAVIS of California. I rise to object to the rule on
consideration of H.R. 2210, the Head Start reauthorization. Once again,
thoughtful amendments that address core issues were not ruled in order
by the committee.
As has been so widely discussed this week, I believe it is important
that this legislative body be able to give the proper consideration to
this reauthorization--which is so critical to the most vulnerable among
us, low income children.
I valued the opportunity to participate in considering this measure
at the subcommittee and the committee levels. In that process, I was
able to offer significant amendments for consideration and in one case
for adoption by the committee. Happily, the reauthorization now before
us recognizes the central nature of the social and emotional
development of young children as well as their cognitive and physical
development.
Nonetheless, other core issues were not adopted during the committee
consideration. However, only 10 percent of the members of this body had
the opportunity to consider those issues. The public deserves a full
consideration by other 90 percent of their representatives.
I would particularly point to these major areas of concern: (1)
providing financial support and loan forgiveness for the increased
educational levels which will be required of teachers and staff
members; (2) requiring performance standards of curriculum,
developmentally appropriate accountability processes, personnel
education, and professional development opportunities to be at least as
high as federally required standards; and (3) assuring that any state-
operated programs would be required to provide the comprehensive health
and family services that are integral to Head Start.
Mr. Speaker and members, 100 percent of the members of this
representative body have the right and obligation to consider how these
issues should be resolved in order to enable the most vulnerable
children to enter kindergarten closer to the levels of preparation
enjoyed by more economically advantaged children.
Mr. PRICE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time,
and I move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and
nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this question will
be postponed.

____________________