[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 111 (Thursday, July 24, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H7546-H7595]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
SCHOOL READINESS ACT OF 2003
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 336 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill,
H.R. 2210.
{time} 2103
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further 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,
with Mr. Duncan in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier today,
time remaining under general debate, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Boehner) has 15\1/2\ minutes and the gentleman from California (Mr.
George Miller) has 20\1/4\ minutes remaining.
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne) who not only is extremely well
known for his expertise in coaching, but is one of the leading experts
on mentoring in this country.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from Delaware (Mr.
Castle) controls the time.
There was no objection.
Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Chairman, I certainly agree with all those who have
spoken tonight that Head Start is an excellent program. It is a
necessary program. Yet many people feel that no changes are needed to
the program.
I guess if you put it in any context, let us say you ran a business
for 35 years, a football team for 35 years, a school for 35 years, and
you said over and over again, if it ain't broke, don't fix it and you
stayed with a pat hand, my feeling is you would drift toward
mediocrity. There is no organization that can stay the same year after
year after year. I think there are a couple of things that really can
be fixed. I think
[[Page H7547]]
there are some things that need to be done here.
The first question is, does Head Start do what it is designed to do,
which is to get kids ready to go to school? As we have mentioned
earlier tonight, the Family and Child Experience Survey, which is the
best measure I know of of school readiness, says this. They said that
the average student entering Head Start is at the 21st percentile in
terms of readiness to go to school. And then 2 years later, $6,500 a
year, $13,000 later, we see those same students ranking at the 24th
percentile, a gain of 3 percent in 2 years.
I think that is unsatisfactory. I do not think we are doing the right
thing by our children. When they enter Head Start, they are in the
bottom fourth of school readiness, when they leave Head Start they are
in the bottom fourth, and the best statistical prediction we can make
is that at age 16, they are still going to be in the bottom fourth.
This is something that I think needs to be rectified.
As we have mentioned, the Castle bill does introduce some academic
rigor to Head Start. I think this is critical. I think this change
needs to be made. Pre-math, pre-science, ramp up the reading programs.
We think students ought to be somewhere around the 40th percentile on
average after leaving Head Start instead of the 24th percentile. I
think that can be done. I think that is doable.
Secondly, there are 1.5 million children eligible for Head Start;
900,000 are in Head Start and there are 600,000 left over. Of that
600,000, some are in State programs, and we have State programs here
and we have Head Start and then we have got a whole bunch in the middle
that are falling through the cracks. They are not in anything. That is
why we think the demonstration program is critical, because we need to
have a more seamless program where those kids are not falling through
the cracks, where we have some type of a comprehensive plan as to how
we are going to take care of all of them. I think that is going to be
important.
The last thing I will mention, that in fact we might think about a
little bit, is one of the real strengths of Head Start is we involve
the parents. We are expecting now that there is a transition from Head
Start to the elementary school where those kids' parents stay with the
student. That is something that we have incorporated in this bill which
we think is very important.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes
to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished minority
whip.
(Mr. HOYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, let us be clear about what we are doing
here. We are asking this body to begin, in my opinion, to dismantle
Head Start, one of the most successful programs in American history.
Head Start serves more than 900,000 3- to 5-year-olds in every State
in this Nation every single year. Head Start teaches reading, writing,
mathematics and language skills. Head Start, as well, provides
comprehensive services that increase school readiness: health and
mental health screenings and services, nutrition, dental and vision
services, and extensive parent involvement in education, a critical
component of this program.
And Head Start combines local control with strong Federal quality
standards. That is the key. In fact, Head Start is one of our most
evaluated education programs. Over the last 30 years, it has helped
millions of children do better in school. But now, through H.R. 2210,
the sponsors are trying, in my opinion, to unravel Head Start.
The Republican initiative initially was to block-grant all of Head
Start. That did not fly. They are now down to eight States. This bill,
however, would create a new block grant program for eight States
without requiring any of the Federal Head Start program performance
standards. What does that really mean to parents and their children? It
means, I think, that States could run Head Start programs with lower
educational standards, minimal comprehensive services and less
oversight and accountability. That is not good for our children or
their parents.
In looking at this bill, we should look at the intent. The intent of
this bill directly contradicts, I believe, our bipartisan recognition
that no child should be left behind, that the Federal Government needed
to establish high educational standards and tough accountability for
the educational achievement of low-income children because the States
had not done so. In essence, this bill proposes that we turn our 3- to
5-year-olds in Head Start over to the States even though the premise of
the No Child Left Behind Act is that States are not currently serving
low-income children as well as they should. As the Los Angeles Times
stated recently:
``Now, when States are in precarious financial shape, is hardly the
time to dismantle the program's, Head Start's, Federal management.''
Let me close by saying, despite our best efforts in Head Start, we
still are not doing enough for low-income children. There are some 1.5
million children eligible. There are 900,000 participating, 600,000
being left behind. Now is not the time to start to dismantle Head
Start.
Mr. Speaker, let's be clear about what the Republican majority is
proposing today: They are asking this body to begin to dismantle Head
Start, one of the most successful Government programs in American
history.
Head Start serves more than 90,000 three- to five-year-olds in every
State in this Nation every single year.
My Democratic colleagues and I are not standing here today just
reflexively defending Head Start because Lyndon Johnson signed it into
law in 1964.
No, we are here defending Head Start--and to expose the GOP's bill
that is designed to dismantle it--Because Head Start Works!
Head Start teaches reading, writing, mathematics, and language
skills.
Head Start provides comprehensive services that increase school
readiness--health and mental health screenings and services; nutrition,
dental and vision services; and extensive parent involvement and
education.
And Head Start combines local control with strong Federal quality
standards.
In fact, Head Start is one of our most evaluated education programs--
and over the last 30 years it has helped millions of children do better
in school and achieve more in life.
But now, House Republicans, through H.R. 2210--the misnamed ``School
Readiness Act''--are trying to unravel Head Start. They want to end it.
They would like nothing more than to see 50 State programs run by 50
State Governors.
This bill would create a new block grant program for eight States
without requiring any of the Federal Head Start program performance
standards.
What's that really mean to parents and their children?
It means that States could run Head Start programs with lower
educational standards, minimal comprehensive services, and less
oversight and accountability.
Now, doesn't that strike any of you as odd?
It should, because the intent of this bill directly contradicts our
bipartisan recognition in the No Child Left Behind Act--that the
Federal Government needed to establish high educational standards and
tough accountability for the educational achievement of low-income
children because the States had not done so.
In essence, the Republicans are proposing that we turn our 3- to 5-
year-olds in Head Start over to the States even though the premise of
the No-Child Left Behind act is that States are not currently serving
low-income children.
And as the Los Angeles Times stated recently: ``Now, when States are
in precarious financial shape, is hardly the time to dismantle the
Program's--Head Start's--Federal Management.
Let me close by saying, despite our best efforts in Head Start, we
still are not doing enough for low-income children.
Right now, Head Start is only serving 6 out of every 10 eligible
preschool children because of inadequate funding.
That's 600,000 American children left behind. And it's simply
unconscionable.
It's unconscionable in the greatest Nation on the face of the Earth.
And it's unconscionable when Republicans talk about leaving no child
behind, but then propose a budget for fiscal year 2004 for Head Start
that barely covers inflation.
I urge my colleagues to vote for the Democratic plan offered by the
gentleman from California Mr. Miller.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes
to
[[Page H7548]]
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens), a member of the committee.
(Mr. OWENS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, for its exemplary performance, Head Start
deserves to be rewarded by the decision-makers in both parties. But
instead of rewarding Head Start, the Republican majority is proposing
to abandon Head Start through the slow death process which begins with
the block-grant experiment.
When translated into realistic terms, realistic political terms, the
Republican block grant means, first, a withdrawal of compliance
requirements and the automatic granting of endless waivers. In the next
appropriations cycle, it means a reduction in Federal funds. This slow
strangling process has been utilized to destroy enough safety net and
social programs to provide us with a clear vision of the fate that Head
Start will suffer if it is block-granted.
Consider the fate of title XX social service programs. Consider the
fate of the summer youth employment programs. For years, youth summer
jobs could be protected from the floor of this House, but once the
block grant took place, we have a situation this year where State by
State you will find that everywhere summer youth employment programs
are being drastically reduced. In New York State, the Governor started
the budget process by putting zero in the budget for summer youth
employment programs. Block grant means certain death.
The time to save Head Start is now. Vote ``no'' on this Republican
proposal.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes
to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne).
Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose the dismantling of the
Head Start program, a program that has proven to be a winner since its
inception 38 years ago. These changes will result in lowering the
quality and effectiveness and quite possibly end one of the most
successful programs in the Nation. The New York Times said on July 11,
2003:
``The Bush administration has mastered the art of producing speeches
and press that bear little resemblance to the legislative program they
purport to describe.''
{time} 2115
``This block grant approach has loopholes that the President either
does not understand or fails to acknowledge.'' The Boston Globe on June
16, 2003, said: ``Over Democratic objections, they [Republicans]
advanced a bill that would transfer Federal control of the program to
as many as eight States,'' which has 33 percent of the students, ``in a
demonstration project. The measure requires those States to serve the
same number of children and provide the same services. But there is no
guarantee that the quality of services will be maintained, and there is
no extra money to handle the new enrollees.''
The Star-Ledger of New Jersey on February 20, 2003, said: ``Against
the backdrop of Bush's anemic education budget, the President's
proposal is to turn Head Start into a [block] grant program, to hand
responsibility for delivering preschool services for poor children to
the States,'' and this is very ``suspect.''
Let me just hold up, if I can, some of the mail that I have received
from my district. Some are petitions with 10 names on it. I have never
received as much mail from my constituents as I have on this particular
bill. So I would just say that I have not heard parents say change it.
I have not heard educators say change it. I have not heard people who
are researchers say change it. Let us defeat this bill and keep the
program as it is.
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes and 15 seconds to the
distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers), who probably has
had more to do with increasing the emphasis on math and science
education than anybody in the Congress and has indicated this is one of
the most misunderstood bills he has seen in 10 years here.
Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me this
time.
It is a pleasure to rise and defend this bill. And as the chairman of
the subcommittee has mentioned, I have been shocked by the
misunderstanding about this bill that has been propagated throughout
this country. It is a good bill, and I wanted to comment about one part
of it that I think has really been improved.
The migrant and seasonal children of this country are special
children who need special help. They need special help because they are
moved from place to place, and they have special conditions that have
to be dealt with. For example, in my community they must be attended to
in Head Start programs from early summer to mid-fall. That is not the
standard school year.
But that is just one of many ways in which they have to be treated
specially. I am very familiar with their problems because in my youth I
lived in a farming community. I worked on a produce farm. I worked side
by side with migrant workers, both in the fields and in the packing
sheds and even in transporting produce to markets.
It is very important to provide services for migrant children. When
these children are not served, parents sometimes will bring their
children to the field and sometimes even have them working. This
certainly exposes them to harmful conditions.
Today, migrant and seasonal Head Start serves close to 35,000
children and operates in 39 States in every region of the country. But
in contrast to the normal Head Start program that serves approximately
60 percent of eligible children, migrant and seasonal Head Start serves
only approximately 19 percent. That is a dramatic shortfall, and we
must improve that.
I am pleased that I was able to get an amendment approved by the
committee that, first of all, will allow all migrant and seasonal Head
Start grantees to operate Early Head Start programs. That is not true
of all Head Start programs, but it is essential because that way the
youngest children of the migrant and seasonal workers can participate
in Head Start programs rather than being taken to the fields.
My amendment will also require the Secretary to ensure that migrant
and seasonal Head Start programs are included in the planning and
coordination of the State system of training and technical assistance.
In addition, part of my amendment, in combination with a change that
the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) made in his substitute,
specifically makes one-fourth of 1 percent of all the total
authorization available for seasonal and migrant Head Start. This means
that we will have an additional $17.4 million in fiscal year 2005 and
$18.5 million in 2008. This also means that the funding that will be
available will provide an additional 2,300 slots for children to
receive services in 2005 and up to 2,500 in 2008. I expect that these
provisions will allow the migrant and seasonal Head Start program to
successfully take care of a substantially greater number of migrant and
seasonal Head Start children.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes
to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, we support Head Start, and we support
constructive changes to Head Start. We must oppose this bill because of
two very destructive changes. The majority says there are 600,000
children eligible for Head Start who, today, do not get Head Start.
They do change that. They increase the number of children eligible who
will not get funded. About 10,000 more children by the end of this bill
who are eligible for Head Start will not be.
The second change is even more odious. There is an understanding in
this country that if a church or religious organization runs a
preschool program and someone who is not a member of that religious
organization comes and applies for a teaching job to teach mathematics
or reading or other skills that under present law they cannot deny that
person a job because they do not go to their church or their religious
organization. This bill changes that law. It violates that principle.
It is wrong. It is divisive. It is destructive. It is unconstitutional.
There are a lot of good reasons to oppose this bill; but ripping us
asunder,
[[Page H7549]]
giving employers the right not to hire people because of where they
worship is just plain wrong, and so is this bill.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes
to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa), a member of the committee.
(Mr. HINOJOSA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to this bill.
The majority has placed divisive and damaging provisions in the
legislation. They propose to begin the dismantling of Head Start
through a block grant to the States. The majority has also proposed to
allow discrimination in hiring of teachers that educate our youngest
citizens. And I ask the Members, what kind of head start in life could
that be?
In the few moments given me to debate, allow me to inform the Members
about migrant Head Start children. In the case of perhaps our neediest
children, the sons and daughters of migrant and seasonal farmworkers,
the majority in the Committee on Education and the Workforce has
offered crumbs. Only 19 percent of these eligible migrant children are
served now, compared to the 60 percent for the regular Head Start
program nationally. The majority bill will move that figure by only 1
percentage point to approximately 20 percent. Furthermore, their meager
authorization funding level will ensure that a larger percentage of
children will never be served and helped to be school-ready in the
foreseeable future.
For farmworker families, access to Head Start is more than a school
readiness issue. It is a public health and safety issue. The Republican
bill provides no new money to close this access gap for the migrant
children, and I have to emphasize that the only way to close this gap
is to substantially increase our investment in Head Start. It does not
have to be this way. Head Start has a 35-year history of bipartisan
cooperation. Until that happens, I urge Members of Congress on both
sides of the aisle to vote ``no'' on H.R. 2210.
I hope that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will come
back to the table and work with us to write a bill that will be worthy
of our children, our future.
Until that happens, I urge Members of Congress on both sides of the
aisle to vote ``no'' on H.R. 2210.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to
the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).
(Mr. LANGEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in opposition to the so-
called School Readiness Act, H.R. 2210. Currently, Head Start provides
services to our most vulnerable population, children born into families
who live below the poverty line. Head Start reaches those children. It
reaches their families and does tremendous work in providing them with
access to health services, teaching parenting skills, and preparing
young children to overcome the obstacles related to poverty and enter
kindergarten with a fighting chance.
Title II of H.R. 2210 strips Head Start programs of oversight and
accountability measures. The already-vulnerable children served by Head
Start will undoubtedly be left behind. Many indicators of the
difference this program has made in children's lives are quite
measurable, and we can prove that Head Start works. Add to that the
immeasurable value of breaking the cycle of poverty, and I am at an
utter loss to comprehend why the Republican leadership insists on this
seriously flawed bill.
Mr. Chairman, in the spirit of preserving a program that works
wonders, I urge my colleagues to vote against H.R. 2210.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Murphy).
Mr. MURPHY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter into colloquy with the
distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Boehner), and I would like
to thank him and the gentleman from Delaware (Chairman Castle) for
their ongoing generosity in letting me voice my thoughts on this very
important piece of legislation.
Mr. Chairman, I testified before the Committee on Rules in support of
an amendment which the gentleman from Delaware (Chairman Castle) and
the administration support, dealing with accepted scientific standards
of reliability and validity that will have a very positive impact on
Head Start. As a psychologist who has focused my career on dealing with
early childhood education, I know the values of these measures.
Head Start currently uses a variety of assessment measures, some
acceptable and some less reliable, and teachers and parents need good,
reliable information for the sake of tracking Head Start successes and
providing taxpayers with information on how well this Federal program
is functioning. Less reliable tests provide little value in identifying
children's needs for further evaluations. They run the risk of
misdiagnosing problems and mislabeling children and are more prone to
cultural biases.
I ask the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), is it his intent to
continue to explore this issue?
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MURPHY. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, as we progress through the conference, I
do intend to explore this issue further. Quality research relies on
valid and reliable data, and I believe that we must have quality
research to drive the real improvements that are necessary in Head
Start. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murphy) is a leader on
these issues, and I appreciate his interest and his advice on this
matter.
Mr. MURPHY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his response.
I must add an emphasis on quality research that is going to drive
program administrators to use scientifically valid measures. And
additionally, when information is disclosed to the local community and
parents, it is imperative that the reports depend on quality measures.
Finally, let me add, we know that Head Start is not alone among early
childhood education programs. The Perry Preschool Project and the
Abcedarian Project are two that are frequently quoted in scientific
literature, and we need room for innovations that follow research, but
accompanying any Head Start help must be sound ways of measuring
success.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MURPHY. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman for his
commitment to these quality programs and look forward to continuing to
work with him as we move this bill through the conference.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes
to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney).
Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California for
yielding me this time.
We have heard talk tonight about people saying that everybody on this
side of the aisle wants to have things stay the same, and that frankly
is not so. We worked quite hard together to make changes and
improvements in the first section of this bill, as we have made changes
and improvements on the bill in previous years, continually improving
it and continually reducing the gap in readiness for school.
The problem comes in the second part of this bill. And the fact of
the matter is that those proponents of the change in the block grant
cannot show a single stitch of evidence that this would improve the
situation. When the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) was asked at
the Committee on Rules to give an example of one parent group, one
child group, one educational group, one social advocacy group that
supported the block grant section of the bill, he could not do it. When
all the editorialists and all those are people are dead set against
this, somehow the Republicans still think that they are right. Other
people would have some pause for thought on it.
The fact of the matter is that the block grant does do damage to the
Head Start program. It would not require performance standards. It
would allow States to weaken educational standards by increasing class
size, increasing child/teacher ratio, shortening
[[Page H7550]]
the program duration, cutting off 3-year-olds, using unproven
curricula. States can, under their provisions, gut comprehensive
services, eliminate parent classroom involvement, eliminate health and
mental health screenings and services, eliminate adult literacy
services, eliminate vision and dental services, eliminate health and
nutrition education. And, yes, under this they can take block grant
money and supplant other Federal funds. And CRS, Congressional Research
Service, an independent group, says that that is so, despite the
protestations of the other side.
{time} 2130
We also leave too many children behind. For one-fourth of what we are
spending in a month in Iraq, we could add another 87,000 children to
this program that already underserves America's children.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Musgrave), a member of our committee.
Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2210.
While the resources spent for Head Start have been very significant,
hard-earned dollars of our taxpayers, the results have been mixed.
Studies indicate that children who are enrolled in Head Start make some
progress, but are still lagging far behind the national average in
school readiness.
Let me share some research from Health and Human Services. In 1997,
Head Start children entered the program at an average of the 19th
percentile in early learning knowledge areas and graduated in the 23rd
percentile. That left Head Start students 27 percentile points behind
the national average.
In the 1997-98 school yard, Head Start students actually decreased
performance in letter recognition.
In 2000, Head Start children entered the program at an average of the
21st percentile in early learning knowledge areas and graduated in the
24th percentile. That left these Head Start children more than 25
percentile points behind the national average.
Sadly, in the 2000-2001 school year, the Head Start students made no
gains in letter recognition.
A recent publication by the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services again concludes that both higher- and lower-achieving Head
Start children have low scores overall and show limited progress after
completion of the Head Start program, another way of saying they enter
and leave the Head Start program with below average skill and knowledge
areas.
We know that disadvantaged children need all the help they can get
because in order for them to succeed in school, well before they enter
school they have to have this knowledge base. We can predict how they
are going to do in school by the progress they have made when they
enter. The importance of all children achieving academic parity upon
entry into kindergarten is critical, because children who start behind
have been shown to never catch up.
I am very much in support of this bill, and I commend the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) and
the staff and members for their hard work.
The stakes are high with these disadvantaged children. We need to do
everything we can to prepare them for school.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30
seconds.
Mr. Chairman, it is rather remarkable that the other side has
discovered that the poorest children in the Nation do not do as well as
the average children in the Nation, but what they ought to tell you is,
these children do better than their peers that do not have an
opportunity, and by the time they finish kindergarten, they are in the
50th percentile.
That was the job, to try to get them ready for school, and they are
accelerating as they go through kindergarten; but they somehow seem
astonished that they cannot compete with the average child the first
year in Head Start, when they are the most impoverished children in the
Nation.
Yes, we are dedicated to all of the changes in title I of this
legislation. We are just not dedicated to the eradication of the Head
Start program in title II.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin
(Mr. Kind).
Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, change for any program can be a good thing,
if it is change the right way. That is why I reluctantly rise in
opposition to the Head Start bill this evening. The recommended changes
are wrong for the children of the Head Start program.
The story of Head Start is that it works. It is a highly successful
program. Studies have shown for every $1 we invest in children at this
age in Head Start programs, we realize $4 to $7 worth of savings down
the line. There is not a business person in the country that would not
take that deal.
According to surveys, 96 percent of the Head Start families express a
high level of satisfaction with their Head Start programs because of
the quality and the accountability that exists there already. That is
probably why there has been such overwhelming opposition to the radical
Republican transformation of the Head Start program before us tonight.
We have heard the concerns of the block grant proposal that they are
recommending without accountability or quality assurances. We have also
heard the concerns that the bill would legalize religious
discrimination in the Head Start program.
What we have not heard this evening is that under their bill they
call for a reduction in funding for professional development programs,
again affecting the quality of these programs.
What we also have not heard, perhaps a very important issue, is that
they are planning on moving forward with an entirely new testing regime
by this fall for these 3- and 4-year-olds, when experts in early
childhood development tell us, unless we do it right, unless we have
the right measurements, it could do more harm than good for these
children.
That is why I got included in the legislation a National Academy of
Sciences study to recommend what measurements are appropriate for
children. But instead of waiting for the results of that study, they
are moving forward on an untested, unscientific, new testing system
this fall, which could do our children more harm.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation.
Mr. Chairman, I join educators, parents, and Head Start staff around
Wisconsin as well as many of my colleagues here today in opposing
drastic changes to the highly successful, early education Head Start
program. Changes offered by the Bush Administration and backed by the
Republican Congressional majority threaten the program, which has
helped millions of high-risk children from impoverished families
achieve academic success.
In the 38 years of Head Start, there has always been bipartisan
consensus to continue this program that currently helps more than
13,000 children in Wisconsin and 2,000 in the 3rd Congressional
district alone. As a member of the House Education and Workforce
Committee, it is my believe that the majority leaders have put our 3-
and 4-year-old children in the middle of a partisan tug-of-war.
Under the bill, which I voted against during the committee
consideration, the burden of Head Start would be on the shoulders of
cash-strapped States through a series of block grants. Under current
law, the Department of Health and Human Services gives money directly
to local Head Start programs. Under the proposed changes, however,
block grants would be administered by new State bureaucracies, which
would cost additional money and provide no guarantee the money would go
towards Head Start.
Nearly every State in the nation is facing a budget deficit. We
cannot take the chance that one dime of this critical funding would
fail to go towards Head Start and the kids it serves.
Educators and parents are particularly upset with the changes because
of the success rate of Head Start. Further, numerous studies indicate
that every dollar spent on Head Start saves taxpayers $4 to $7 in the
future due to savings and lower education and welfare expenses.
I offered a series of amendments to H.R. 2210 during Committee markup
and again to the Rules committee last week. The first amendment would
restore to current law the 2 percent set aside for training and
technical assistance for improving program quality in Head Start. We
know the key to quality Head Start programming is having quality
teachers dealing with the students. And, yet, the base bill before us
would actually go backwards. It
[[Page H7551]]
would decrease the training and technical assistance fund to an
undetermined amount between 1 and 2 percent. That is especially
disconcerting since we know that approximately 2.5 percent of Head
Start funds are currently being spent on such programs.
This money is critical for quality staff. Funds are being used to
supplement teacher salaries and train staff in a variety of areas. For
example, this funding is used to improve staff qualifications, to
implement early childhood curriculum, to assess child development, to
monitor child health and safety, provide human resources training,
support parenting and family services, and to better integrate the use
of technology in Head Start centers in working with these kids. Now is
not the time we should be going back on the maximum amount that is
allowed for ongoing training and technical assistance.
Furthermore, I offered an amendment that would have halted the
National Reporting System until the National Academy of Science (NAS)
reports to Congress on the appropriate standards and benchmarks for
school readiness and valid measures of assessment.
I am concerned with the Administration's implementation of a country-
wide testing system for Head Start children despite protests by early
child education experts who question the validity and reliability of
the assessments developed. The National Research Council's ``Eager To
Learn'' report warns, ``assessments must be used carefully and
appropriately if they are to resolve and not create educational
problems.'' Thus, while we support ongoing assessments of Head Start
children to help ensure their school readiness, these specific
assessments were developed behind closed doors and with very little
input from Congress, Head Start Centers, or other experts.
Reauthorization provides Congress with an opportunity to evaluate
appropriate standards and benchmarks for school readiness, as well as
valid measures of assessments for Head Start students. Unfortunately,
efforts to slow down and properly evaluate the National Reporting
System during Committee consideration were defeated. For the sake of
our children, it is important that these assessments are not rushed and
are given ample review before implementation.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose H.R. 2210. I will not
support any legislation that reduces the opportunities for children.
All children deserve a high-quality prekindergarten program and
according to numerous studies that is exactly what Head Start children
currently receive.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes
to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, when H.R. 2210 was considered in the
Committee on Education and the Workforce, Democrats offered a number of
amendments to the bill, an amendment to disallow a provision that
taxpayer dollars be used to support religious discrimination in hiring,
an amendment to provide money to Head Start teachers to help them
acquire bachelor's degrees and be better qualified to teach low-income
children of this Nation, and an amendment to fully fund Head Start,
ensuring that all eligible preschoolers would have access to the
program.
Unfortunately, all of these amendments were rejected. As a result,
low-income children in 42 States will suffer and the Head Start program
will not have improved access or resources for teacher quality or
protection from discrimination in hiring.
In eight States, the majority would dismantle, would dismantle, the
program, dissolving Head Start into a block grant without requiring
Federal Head Start performance standards. This means States then can
eliminate health screenings, parenting education, dental exams, adult
literacy services, parent classroom involvement and vision services.
The block grant is the first step towards the end of Head Start.
Poverty is on the rise. We should not be dismantling Head Start. Our
Democratic substitute will ensure that the program continues unharmed,
eliminating the discrimination provision and eliminating the block
grant.
Children deserve Head Start. They deserve a chance in life. They
deserve our votes for the Democratic alternative and to reject the
wrong-headed Republican proposal.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton), a member of our committee and a
real leader on this issue.
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I too want to commend the gentleman from
Ohio (Chairman Boehner), the gentleman from Delaware (Chairman Castle)
and the terrific staff for their work as we prepared this bill for the
House floor tonight.
Mr. Chairman, I strongly support this legislation. I have worked with
a number of Head Start operations all of my years. I have been
impressed with the teachers and the aides; I have been impressed with
the administrators, the parents often working as volunteers; and
certainly the kids themselves, not only the kids I have seen in the
classrooms, but the same kids as I have watched them progress K through
12.
Though tonight there has been a lot of criticism focused on title II
of this bill, this is the provision that allows only eight States, only
eight States, to establish a pilot program. It is important to note
that those States cannot use the money that they receive for these
pilot programs for other programs. It has to be dedicated solely to
Head Start. They also have to dedicate more of their own State money
for these programs. To me, the kids win. They get more money,
particularly to see if they can make the program work even better.
As I said earlier, I visited many of these Head Start facilities, and
I was concerned as we developed this legislation that under title II
perhaps some of those Head Start grantees may have had their funds cut.
Well, I did not want to see that happen. I offered a successful
amendment in committee to have a hold-harmless provision that prevents
any cuts to current grantees that will now be in place for 5 years. So
you cannot say that those grantees in fact are going to be cut if that
State goes into a pilot program.
By the end of the demonstration period, the 5 years authorization
period of this bill, Congress will have an accurate perspective on the
effectiveness of whether or not these pilot programs work.
This is a better bill for our kids. Let us see it pass.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield a minute and a
half to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt), a member of the
committee.
(Mr. HOLT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, for almost 40 years Head Start has assisted
low-income, preschool children and their families, establishing a
comprehensive, early learning environment addressing a variety of
social and medical needs. Certainly in my district, as in districts all
over the country, Head Start has been a tremendous success: IQ gains,
reading and writing and math skills improved, high school graduation,
significantly greater; the need for special education, reduced; crime,
reduced.
So if it is so good, why overhaul it? If one wants to improve it, we
can do that. But one should review it in a bipartisan way. This is not
bipartisan. There is nothing bipartisan here. And this is not a debate.
No Member will be persuaded, no vote will be changed.
The Republicans are foisting a block grant program on the country on
a take-it-or-leave-it basis. And you know what a block grant program
is. It is a pot of money that goes to the State with the message ``This
is for early education. You know what to do with it.''
Well, some States know what to do with it, and some States do not.
The block grant approach is flawed and it is illogical. It guts
quality comprehensive services, primary health care, dental care,
mental health services. The block grant approach weakens performance
standards, it sets no minimum thresholds for school readiness
standards, teacher-student ratios, classroom size or curriculum
content. It weakens oversight and evaluation.
Rather than pursuing a bill that will lead to a partisan vote on Head
Start legislation, we should reconsider the block grant approach for
the sake of America's children.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes
to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis), a member of the
committee.
(Mrs. DAVIS of California asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I must regretfully rise in
opposition to a bill which I believe has many good elements.
I see the Head Start program, as my colleagues do, as a successful
and long-
[[Page H7552]]
standing effort to engage low-income children in the preparation for
kindergarten, that we know is readily available and enjoyed by children
from more financially secure families. In fact, I have two of my
current staff members who are graduates of the Head Start program, and
so I know that the program indeed does work.
I am pleased to support the requirements for relevant training for
staff members, but the problem is that we really have not done the job
of providing loan forgiveness for those staff members. We really have
not done the job of finding a way for them to get the professional
development that they need.
We have talked about the religious discrimination introduction into
this bill, and that is a real problem. But let me just talk about
another problem. We have targeted title II, and we have targeted that
for a very good reason, because in reality the bill fails; it fails to
secure guarantees and require that States not supplant State or other
Federal funds with Head Start funds.
We know about the current budget crisis in my State of California.
States will find a way to find opportunities to supplant when they are
in fiscal crisis, and the bill does not really prevent that.
There is another thing that the bill does not do. It only says that
States must generally meet the requirements, not meet or exceed those
requirements, and all the special programs in Head Start, we need them
to meet those requirements.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes
to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum).
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, Head Start is a program that works.
Studies have shown that this is an investment that pays off. Children
in Head Start are less likely to be held back in school or placed in
special education classes, saving our schools precious dollars. These
children are more likely to be successful students and to graduate.
In my home State, there are currently 16,000 children eligible for
Head Start and not receiving services because of lack of funding.
{time} 2145
Budget constraints this year have forced Minnesota to make drastic
cuts in early childhood programs, cutting more than $3 million in Head
Start funding. Early childhood and family education was cut by $7
million. School readiness was cut by almost $2 million, and the Way to
Go program, well, that was just plain eliminated. Combined, this
represents a 14 percent cut in base funding for early childhood
programs in Minnesota.
Now, this legislation would give States a block grant, and in my
opinion, that will limit accountability, allowing States to reduce
performance standards, allowing for increased class sizes, decreased
child-teacher ratios, cutting off services possibly for 3-year-olds,
and using unproven curriculum. This legislation would allow States like
Minnesota to cut Head Start funding, a temptation I know they will not
be able to resist, given the current track record with early childhood
programs, and allow governors like my own to shift funding away from
Head Start and put programs at risk.
Head Start works. It does not need to be overhauled; it needs to be
funded.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), the author of the bill and the
chairman of the Subcommittee on Education Reform.
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Chairman, I just want to take on the question of how well we are
doing, at least educationally, in Head Start. This is really, really
important, that everybody understands it.
First of all, there are not that many studies with respect to how
Head Start children are doing. There is a longitudinal study in the
works right now which we should have pretty soon. This is a study, and
I will show 2 charts, one from 1997 and one from 2000, which shows
children in Head Start far below average. The average is 50 percent.
That is the median that we are dealing with here.
This study is by the Family and Child Experiences Survey, and it
shows, and you cannot see it probably, but the blue is the fall of 1997
and the purple is the spring of 1998, so after they had been through a
year of this. It shows the vocabulary of the kids had gone from the
16th percentile to the 23rd. In letter recognition they actually went
down from the 27th to the 25th. In early writing, 16th to 23rd, and
early mathematics, 17 to 19.
Believe me, these are numbers which tell us that these kids are not
going to make it in school. This is absolutely why we have to challenge
Head Start. It is why we need to go to a State demonstration to make
sure it is brought in with all of the other State programs which exist.
Now, the numbers really are not a lot different for the year 2000,
but there they are: 16 to 23 for early letter recognition; early
writing went from 16 to 19; early mathematics, 21 to 23. This means
that when these children reach kindergarten, we can almost predict that
they are not going to make it out of school ultimately, and that,
unfortunately, Head Start has not done all for them that it could.
Head Start does a wonderful job in many ways that we have described
here today in terms of helping with the well-being of our young
children, but it is not doing what we need to do in education, and we
need to challenge it. It is as we have seen and heard in some of the
newspapers that have written about it. The Detroit News on July 9 said:
``Head Start advocates fear States will fritter away any
Federal Head Start funds shifted their way, but proposals now
in the House restrict States in how they spend earmarked
money. The pilot program would be limited to eight States,
and that would be a good test for proposed preschool reforms.
If government can devise a better Head Start program, one
which helps children more effectively, it should hurry to do
so. The program's 900,000 children, the ones who need the
help, deserve no less.''
That is absolutely correct. We need to take steps to help them
academically. What we have proposed will do so. Please support this
legislation.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) has 1\1/2\
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from California (Mr. George
Miller) has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield the remaining
time 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. Chairman, sometimes when we evaluate, we
need to look at the depths from which one comes as opposed to only the
heights to which they have not excelled.
I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 2210. I am pleased that my
amendments in committee to restore reference to the importance of
delivering culturally appropriate services and to increase
opportunities for fathers to more actively participate in Head Start
were agreed to. And while I am pleased with the acceptance of these
amendments and others introduced by my colleagues, I am greatly
disappointed by the fact that other amendments will not be discussed
here today.
Among these is my amendment to provide funding for grantees to
fulfill the requirement that 50 percent of teachers have bachelor's
degrees. Since my amendment was not accepted, this will continue to be
an unfunded mandate like the rhetoric of Leave No Child Behind.
Education is, in fact, the great equalizer, and since its
introduction in 1965, the Head Start program has helped over 21 million
of America's poorest children gain the academic, social, emotional
behavior, and readiness skills necessary for success. In those 38
years, we have learned much about the needs of disadvantaged children
living in poverty. What we have learned is what it takes to prepare
them for school. It takes dedicated, skilled, well-trained teachers. It
takes parental involvement. It takes comprehensiveness. It takes health
care. It takes nutrition. It does not take some kind of program that
has never been tested.
Let us keep Head Start. ``If it ain't broke, don't fix it.''
Mr. Chairman, I would like to begin by commending Chairman Boehner
and Ranking Member Miller from the Education and the Workforce
Committee and Chairman Castle and Ranking Member Woolsey from the
Subcommittee on Select Education for their work
[[Page H7553]]
on this bill. I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 2210. I am pleased
that my amendments in committee to restore references to the importance
of delivering culturally appropriate services and to increase
opportunities for fathers to more actively participate in Head Start
were agreed to. While I am pleased with acceptance of these amendments
and others introduced by my colleagues on the Education and the
Workforce Committee, I am greatly disappointed by the fact that
numerous amendments designed to improve this legislation will not be
discussed today. Among these is my amendment to provide funding for
grantees to fulfill the requirement that 50% of teachers have
Bachelor's degrees. Since my amendment was not accepted, this will
continue to be an unfunded mandate, like the rhetoric of Leave No Child
Behind.
Education is the great equalizer. Since its introduction 1965, the
Head Start program has helped over 21 million of America's poorest
children gain the academic, social, emotional, behavioral and readiness
skills necessary for success in the future. In those thirty-eight
years, we have learned much about the needs of disadvantaged children
living in poverty and what it takes to prepare them for school. It
takes skilled, well trained and dedicated teachers. It takes
comprehensiveness. It takes health care, nutrition, it takes parental
involvement and participation. It takes more than eloquent speeches
about Leave No Child Behind experiments. The Head Start program has
grown and changed through the years with the increased knowledge of how
best to serve low-income children and their families. Study after study
has shown that participation in the program results in decreased
incidence of school failure, higher graduation rates, lower crime rates
later in life, and better social and emotional relationships. In these
times when politicians speak so eloquently on how no child should be
left behind, why would we conduct an experiment that would restructure
an already successful program and, ultimately, result in thousands of
children being left behind?
Title II of this bill would do just that. It implements a pilot
program for eight states to take the Head Start money appropriated to
them and run the program on their own. The idea behind this
experimental program is to integrate Head Start with already existing
state preschool programs. However, such a move would undermine the
intent of Head Start as a comprehensive, family-based program. Title II
would allow states to determine their own standards, guidelines, and
qualifications. These states could decide to implement Head Start as a
pre-kindergarten program, cutting out nutrition, vaccinations, dental
care, medical care, and other important services currently guaranteed
to children in the program. With the current state budget crisis, these
services will almost certainly be eliminated, leaving the low-income
children served by Head Start with no way to receive these extremely
important services.
The Head Start program has been in place for 38 years and has been
continually improving in quality as professionals have gained knowledge
on how best to serve low-income children. This knowledge and
understanding has resulted in high quality standards being set. In
contrast, many states do not even have preschool programs, and those
that do are still in the early stages of developing them. Few state-run
preschool programs have established quality standards. Nor do state-run
preschool programs encourage the active participation of parents.
Helping parents learn how to provide nurturing environments for their
children has a positive impact for years after graduation from Head
Start and is beneficial for the child in the program as well as his or
her siblings. The role of parents in Head Start goes far beyond being a
PTA member or a teacher's aide; parents learn that they are the most
important role model for their children and must be a caring and
supportive influence. The vast majority of State-run preschool programs
also have little to no integration of services, which is already a
major part of the Head Start program. Merging Head Start with programs
that do not have quality standards, do not encourage parent
participation, and do not provide such services as nutrition, health,
and immunizations runs the risk of destabilizing a successful program
and lowering standards and minimizing services that have been so
painstakingly developed.
Mr. Chairman, Head Start could serve our children better. However,
dismantling the program and leaving states to rebuild it without the
insights gained over the past thirty-eight years would be a tragedy for
our low-income children and their families.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of our time.
Mr. Chairman, if we look at the proposal that we have before us, in
title I, the main part of the program, there is quite a bit of
unanimity about the changes that need to be made to help improve Head
Start if, in fact, we are going to improve the futures for many poor
children in America. I think there is a recognition that more of an
education component to Head Start is absolutely necessary.
And so if we look at title I of the bill, there is no amount of
disagreement over it. The real disagreement is over title II which
would set up an eight-State demonstration program, only for the States
who have made big commitments to early childhood development, only
States that would agree to meet or exceed Federal standards, only for
States that are willing to make a big commitment and are already doing
it, and they will have to add more money. And if that is not enough, we
guarantee that the local grantees that are there today in those eight
States will continue to receive their money for 5 years.
How anybody could ever refer to this as a block grant is beyond me.
Why are we doing this? Very simply this: Some States are making big
commitments to help poor kids, and if they are able to take their pre-
kindergarten programs, their early childhood development programs,
their child care programs, they can work with poor children in their
States and their families to create a more seamless system to help
prepare children for school.
Why should we not see if it works? Why should we not take the chance
to help these children? Because I do believe that some States will be
better able to prepare these children to be ready for school.
Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Chairman, in my district, nearly 200 children and
their families utilize Head Start. I am opposed to the legislation
before us today because it would pose a risk to the many Utahns who
receive health, dental, social and educational services under this
vital program.
This is a program with a long-term record of success in investing in
the future of our children. Head Start has a proven pattern of success
with enrollment correlating to IQ gains, improved high school
graduation rates and higher achievement in writing, vocabulary and
social skills.
For almost 40 years, Head Start has been a lifeline for disadvantaged
Utah children, providing comprehensive services to them and their
families. I have seen the positive results. Children are receiving
medical, social and education help unavailable to them from any other
entity.
After taking to Utah parents, administrators and children in Head
Start, I am convinced that the current program serves as well, and I
don't understand the why Congress would want to make the significant
changes before us today.
Mr. RODRIQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 2210,
the School Readines Act.
I rise today, not only as Chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus,
not only as a Member of this body, but as a person who had to fight for
every day of his education and who is determined not to have his
grandchildren go through the same thing because of a partisan attack.
The changes to Head Start proposed through this legislation are
disgraceful.
And the lack of resources committed to serve all eligible children is
shameful.
We can no longer block grant the needs of families and then cut them
off at our discretion.
There are currently an estimated 270,000 Hispanic children benefiting
from Head Start today.
For over three decades, Head Start has grown tremendously, however,
funding has failed to keep up with inflation, let alone provide enough
to maintain or improve quality.
And now the President's 2004 budget proposals laid out the beginning
of this plan to dismantle Head Start.
His plan will keep 32,000 of our immigrant and seasonal children in
the fields and prevent the diversity of our education system through
religious discrimination.
The Head Start program is not perfect, but this plan throws the baby
out the bathwater.
Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R.
2210, the School Readiness Act of 2003.
In my State of Ohio, the State Head Start Program, as passed by the
Ohio General Assembly, and signed by Governor Taft, provided funding to
serve only 11,672 children in fiscal year 2004 using $57,170,000 in
TANF Block Grant funds, which is a reduction of services to 6,328 kids.
In the second year, funding was increased to $110,184,000 in TANF Block
Grant Funds with an anticipated enrollment of 14,000 children--still
4,000 fewer children that were served compared to last year.
There is only a small amount of State funds that are included in the
Head Start line item, $16 million in General Revenue Fund (GRF) money--
$11 million in fiscal year 2004 and $5 million fiscal year 2005. But,
State funds can
[[Page H7554]]
only be used for start-up, and can only be used for TANF-eligible
services. This means that homeless children, children whose parents are
unemployed, and foster care children are ineligible for State-funded
Head Start. The State contends these children can be served by Federal
Head Start even though there is no increase in funding in H.R. 2210 to
accommodate these children.
Since the State program is funded almost exclusively by TANF, except
for the self-imposed funding restrictions on the State money as
mentioned above, comprehensive health services will not be able to be
provided to children in State-funded Head Start. This violates both
performance standards and common sense as to what we know these
children need.
In tough economic times, one of the first programs to be cut in Ohio,
as well as other States, has been early care and education services.
The goal of creating a comprehensive early care and education system
that provides quality services for children, easier access for parents,
and fabulous results for all children is laudable and one for which we
all strive. In the last several years Ohio has taken several steps in
the opposite direction by continuing to flat fund preschool, lowering
child care eligibility, cutting 6,300 low-income children off of State
Head Start, and eliminating almost all State resources to support one
of our most vulnerable populations. Until Ohio has proven on a
consistent basis that a comprehensive, appropriately funded early care
and education system is one of its top priorities, Ohio should be one
of the last in line for flexibility to do what it will with children:
recent history already has shown we are not ready for it.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to reiterate my opposition to H.R. 2210. Funding
authorization in H.R. 2210 does not even cover cost of living
increases, let alone provide enough to implement improvements in
teacher credentialing and wages or to increase the number of children
served in Head Start, Early Head Start, and the Indian, Migrant and
Seasonal Head Start programs, all of which are woefully underfunded.
Ohio has done much work to help Head Start teachers receive higher
credentials and degrees, but it takes a long time and significant
resources.
States given the option to administer Head Start would have little
federal monitoring. The states would be free to determine their own
standards and monitor their progress, unlike the current requirements
to closely monitor Head Start programs. This is of great concern.
Finally, several Ohio faith-based organizations and coalitions are
not in support of provisions in H.R. 2210 that allow discrimination in
hiring based on religion. My constituents believe that discrimination
of any kind should not be allowed in this bill. It is also of great
concern should this provision extend to volunteers. Parents are often
the ones encouraged to volunteer in their child's classroom. Parents
often are ultimately hired as staff in Head Start centers. Do we want
to discourage parent involvement and a potential job applicant pool
because of their religion?
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the bill. The Bush
Administration and many in this Congress have said over and over that
the education policies of this country should leave no child behind.
The President pledged to leave no child behind, and then proposed more
than a billion dollars of education cuts. If the legislation before the
House today passes, the Majority will once again fail the kids who need
our help the most.
Head Start was created to help secure a good start, a good education,
and good prospects for at-risk youth. Not only does it help children
develop cognitive learning and social skills, but also provides
comprehensive health, dental and nutrition services which are vital to
educational success. This bill before the House would undo the
foundation of a program that has been a glowing success for nearly 40
years.
In addition, this bill seriously underfunds Head Start. With already
limited resources, Head Start struggles to serve two our of every five
eligible children. Without additional funding, we will leave nearly 1
million children behind. It is ironic that the Majority will push to
pass billions in tax cuts that chiefly benefit the very rich, yet is
unwilling to provide the necessary funding to school kids. This speaks
volumes about the priorities of the Majority.
In contrast, the Democratic substitute which I support would build on
the success of Head Start. It does so by strengthening school
readiness, improving program quality and accountability, and expanding
access so more eligible children will be served. It does all this while
maintaining local control and high program performance standards.
I ask you to defeat the Republican-sponsored legislation. If you vote
for this legislation, not only are you voting to undermine the
foundation of Head Start, you're voting to undermine the future of the
children who depend on it.
Mr. BACA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Democratic
substitute to protect Head Start. I oppose H.R. 2210, because this bill
will do nothing to help African American, Latino, and low-income
children get a head start on education.
Head Start has been helping minority and low-income families for over
38 years.
It has helped millions of children from our families have access to
quality education.
Ninety percent of the families served by Head Start are below the
poverty level and 30 percent are Latino. We must fight to protect this
program.
Head Start helps our children compete on a level playing field with
children from more privileged backgrounds.
Our families deserve a level playing field. Our children deserve a
quality education.
If we truly cared about all children, we would simply expand Head
Start not leave it up to the States.
There are nearly 1 million children from Spanish speaking homes that
could use a Head Start, but because of funding it can only serve 21
percent of them.
We must not let Republicans block grant this program. It is too
important to minorities and low-income families. We must pass the
Miller substitute and stop the destruction of Head Start.
Right now, States like my State of California are facing huge
deficits. They have their hands full. They cannot adequately protect
this program.
All children deserve a better chance at life. We should simply expand
this program.
Right now, Head Start only serves 60 percent of all eligible
children.
I am tired of watching legislation be passed every day that hurts
minorities and hurts the poor. This doesn't make sense.
We must provide more money to our Latino communities since we are now
the largest minority in the country.
We need more money to train teachers to meet the needs of children
with limited English skills.
The only way to improve Head Start is to invest in our children.
Giving control to the States simply doesn't make sense.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Democratic substitute and
``no'' on H.R. 2210.
Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R.
2210, the School Readiness Act of 2003.
Head Start is one of the great success stories in the history of
American education. Since 1965, Head Start has benefited more than 20
million low-income pre-school children, preparing them to compete with
their more affluent peers when they reach primary school.
Head Start offers these kids a research-based academic curriculum and
a wide range of vital services, including health screenings, nutrition,
dental and vision services, as well as extensive parental involvement
in education. It currently serves over 900,000 pre-schoolers, including
2,500 on Long Island.
Last week, I had the privilege of meeting several Head Start success
stories in my district. Let me tell you about one of them.
Thomas Farrell attended Head Start for 2 years as a pre-schooler.
Thomas came into Head Start with a speech impediment, which the Head
Start educators worked to correct.
Now, Thomas has just finished his first year at Brown University. He
has excelled in his coursework. He plays linebacker on the football
team. And he speaks perfectly.
From Head Start to the Ivy League. That's the kind of life-changing
difference that Head Start makes.
But this bill will pull the rug out from under all of the future
Thomas Farrells out there--ending Head Start as we know it. H.R. 2210
dismantles Head Start, turning the program over to States with unproven
expertise and without the Federal program's quality standards and
oversight.
It this bill passes, our low-income kids will be placed into State-
run Head Start programs, which will be held to a weaker set of quality
standards--if they are held to any standards at all--than current,
locally run Head Start programs.
States will be able to cut off all services to 3-year-olds, increase
class size, eliminate adult literacy services, eliminate parent
classroom involvement, and use unproven and untested academic
curricula.
And under this bill, States will be able to raid Head Start funding
to pay for other educational programs.
My Republican colleagues say they want to make Head Start better. But
under this bill, State are under no obligation to show that they would
improve the program. In fact, no State pre-kindergarten program has
ever been demonstrated to be as effective as Head Start.
Mr. Chairman, my Democratic colleagues and I are willing to work with
our friends across the aisle to make Head Start an even more effective
program for our low-income kids. We can start by fully funding Head
Start so no eligible child is left behind. We can work together to
expand Early Head Start to serve
[[Page H7555]]
more infants and toddlers. And we can improve the quality of Head Start
teachers by requiring that more of them have bachelor degrees and by
compensating them properly so that they stay with Head Start.
But what we must not do is dismantle a program that has proven to be
so effective for our low-income kids.
Mr. Chairman, education is the great equalizer for kids like Thomas
Farrell to achieve the American Dream. I implore my colleagues to vote
against H.R. 2210, which makes the playing field even more unlevel for
them.
Our primary job in Congress is to set priorities for America. Let our
children be our highest priority.
Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R.
2210, the School Readiness Act of 2003. Since 1965, Head Start has
profoundly improved the lives of more than 20 million children, and
their families. The legislation before us undermines the very structure
of the Head Start program and its ability to continue to improve the
lives of low-income children who deserve a chance to succeed.
This bill establishes an eight state, block grant program that would
provide funds to cash-strapped states that have neither the experience
nor the commitment to run a Head Start program. These state run Head
Start programs would not be required to meet Head Start performance
standards that ensure a quality, comprehensive program that focuses on:
health, education, and family and community development.
One of the most valuable parts of the Head Start program is the
commitment to families and communities. The ``federal to local''
organization of Head Start has allowed each program to address the
particular needs of their locality. Through this tailored approach,
Head Start teaches and encourages parents to become more involved and
committed to their children's continuing education. The result is that
Head Start has been able to improve the long-term outlook for many
children. Studies show that by the spring of their kindergarten year,
Head Start students show substantial progress in word knowledge, letter
recognition, math skills, and writing skills in comparison to national
norms. In addition, Head Start students are less likely to be held back
a grade, or require special education. Rather, they are more likely to
graduate from high school and college, than their peers who did not
enjoy the benefits of Head Start. There is no evidence to show that
state-run Head Start programs could replicate these successes or the
invaluable community focus.
In order to continue to help more low-income children overcome the
disadvantage of poverty, Head Start must receive adequate funding.
Currently, Head Start is capable of serving only: 60 percent of
eligible children, and 19 percent of migrant children; while Early Head
Start serves only 3 percent of eligible children. Rather than
jeopardizing the quality programming of Head Start by ceding control to
states that are inexperienced in managing Head Start programs, we need
to catch more at risk children who are slipping through the cracks.
In addition to making irresponsible structural changes, H.R. 2210
repeals longstanding civil rights protections for the employees of Head
Start programs that are operated through faith based organizations.
Under this legislation, faith based organizations could legally
discriminate, on the basis of religion, in the hiring of their Head
Start employees. Many Head Start programs are admirably operated by
faith-based organizations, however, that does not give them the right
to discriminate if they accept Federal funds. The only consideration in
hiring Head Start teachers should be to secure the best possible
educator for these children who so desperately need quality
instruction. It is shameful to think that educational qualifications
could be overshadowed by religious affiliation.
In my home State of California, over 100,000 children and their
families participate in Head Start and Early Head Start programs
annually. These programs have dramatically improved school readiness,
health, and family relationships of participating children. I am
unwilling to support H.R. 2210 and its unproven provisions that
threaten the established success of the Head Start Program. I would
urge all of my colleagues to oppose this dangerous legislation.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my strong
opposition to proposed changes to Head Start that will lead to the
dismantling of this important program for children. Instead of making
these changes, we should be working in a nonpartisan manner to
strengthen a program that has served so many children so well for
almost 40 years. Turning Head Start over to the States who already face
growing record budget revenue shortfalls can only lead to deep,
unacceptable cuts in State government support for early childhood
education and development programs.
Countless studies show that Head Start is effective at an early age
and continues to be effective into adulthood.
One study shows that only about one-fourth as many female Head Start
participants as nonparticipants failed to obtain a high school or GED
diploma and only one-third as many were arrested for crimes.
The Administration itself said in a 2002 report by the Department of
Health and Human Services (HHS) that Early Head Start programs
consistency enhanced cognitive development and reduced negative aspects
of children's social-emotional development.
HHS reported that the Head Start program received the highest
customer satisfaction score of any government agency and even had a
higher score than many major companies.
HHS also found that the children and families served by Head Start
are diverse in culture and language and that parents have been pleased
with the program's attempts to respond to linguistic and cultural
uniqueness of their children.
We must not by persuaded by word games involving Head Start. I do not
believe that we should attempt to ``improve'' Head Start by breaking it
up and diverting its funding to the States for use in untested and
unproven programs that may not survive deficit-driven State budget cuts
over the nest few years. Our constituents will be watching to see how
we work to best serve their children.
It is inconceivable that we would strive to serve fewer children than
Head Start does not or provide less comprehensive services to those
children who are served. These outcomes are simply not acceptable since
these at-risk children who rely upon Head Start require special
assistance in order to be ``ready to learn'' when they start
kindergarten and elementary school. Why, Mr. Speaker, should we support
spending funds on state administrative costs that would be better spent
serving children in the classroom? Perhaps, someone can explain to me
how reducing teacher educational requirements and other key standards
and providing no role for Head Start parents and volunteers will
strengthen this program.
Rather than this dangerous bill, I support making Head Start work
better rather than dismantling Head Start. This House should make sure
that this program survives and is properly funded to serve all eligible
children, including the two out of five 3- and 4-year-old children who
could be in the program, but are not, today. We should be building on
the success of Head Start, not rendering it useless. Mr. Chairman, Head
Start deserves the funds it needs to serve all eligible children and to
put more teachers with top qualifications into the classrooms where
they are so urgently needed today.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the Republican
Anti-Head Start legislation that strives to destroy this nationwide
pre-school program for poor children, and in support of the Democratic
substitute.
The Head Start program is by far the most successful preschool
program in this Nation's history. The facts show that Head Start works.
Children enrolled in Head Start show gains in their IQs, are more
likely to graduate from high school, and are less likely to need
special education, repeat a grade, or commit crime than low-income
children who do not attend Head Start.
Head Start works because it provides comprehensive health and
nutritional services as well as educational services to poor children.
This is important because well-fed and healthy children learn better
than hungry and unhealthy children.
Head Start also works because it provides services to parents such as
education classes, health services and parent training classes. This is
vital because parent services involve fathers and mothers in their
children's development and as a result their children perform better
academically.
Unfortunately, the Republican bill today attempts to destroy all that
is good about Head Start. Instead of expanding the program, the
Republicans allow states to gut Head Start and the benefits it provides
to children. By turning the program into a block grant, Republicans are
ensuring that unproven state preschool programs could soon replace Head
Start.
It is a proven fact that these state programs aren't as good at
improving our children's academic performance. A recent Yale University
Study shows that Head Start provides better health and nutritional
services than any state preschool program. Yet, the Republican bill
does not even require States to demonstrate that their preschool
programs can do a better job than Head Start. In fact, States could use
Head Start dollars to support preschool programs that have no quality
education standards or that have no school readiness standards.
Republicans also allow States to cut off all services to 3 year olds,
to increase class size, to increase child-staff ratios, and to
eliminate adult literacy services, parent classroom involvement and all
health and nutrition services.
[[Page H7556]]
Mr. Chairman, our children deserve better than a second rate start to
their education. They need the best Head Start we can give them.
Unlike the Republican bill, the Democratic substitute builds on the
proven success of Head Start by strengthening school readiness,
improving program quality and accountability, and expanding access so
more children can receive its benefits. The Democratic bill strengthens
Head Start's focus on pre-literacy, language and pre-math skills and
creates new quality standards to develop school readiness skills.
Our legislation also expands Head Start to all eligible preschoolers
and increases access for poor families to the Early Head Start program.
Even the most successful programs need improvements over time. The
Democratic bill addresses this. It strengthens Head Start by providing
meaningful reforms that build upon this program's success.
Mr. Chairman, I urge all my colleagues to stand up and stop this
heartless destruction of Head Start. The hopes of millions low-income
children are depending on us to do the right thing. We should not deny
these children the Head Start services that give them a better chance,
that help them to succeed, and allow them to become healthy and
productive citizens of our great country.
I urge my colleagues to vote to save Head Start and Early Head Start
by supporting the Democratic substitute and voting down this
destructive Republican anti-Head Start bill.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, it makes no sense to gamble with Head
Start. We have a program that serves almost a million people. Since
Head Start's inception in 1965, the program has reached over 21 million
children. In our community it has served over 214,000 children and
their families. It works.
Head Start children score higher on standardized assessments of
cognitive development than children who haven't been able to
participate.
Head Start is an investment. There are estimates for each dollar
invested in the long term savings to society are seven times as much,
but that does not really tell the whole story. It's not just money, it
is more stable families, a sense of worth and accomplishment and it is
a demonstration that we care enough to invest in children who don't
have all the advantages.
Children learn by example. Parents of Head Start children are more
likely to be engaged with their children, and more likely to read with
their children. Head Start is more than just an education program.
Health screenings provided by Head Start are an essential component of
many children's health at a time when too many of our working families
do not qualify for health coverage.
In my 8 years serving in Congress I have not heard one complaint
about Head Start. In fact, Oregonians support Head Start and are
opposed to the changes. This bill is a sign that we don't care enough
to provide services for another two-thirds of a million children and
their families that are eligible but for whom funding is not available,
this of course would be small fraction of the money we are giving in
tax cuts to people who have all the financial advantages and do not
want for education and support. It will be extremely difficult to
explain to the vast majority of Americans how we have money for the
most well off and not to extend this basic proven service to those not
in need and who would benefit not just themselves but the society for
years to come.
The problem is compounded by the insistence administration and
Republican leadership to take chances with Head Start. Because of
economic upheaval, more restrictive financial operating requirements
and frankly because the Federal Government has not kept its promises,
state governments are a source of significant turmoil.
Across the country, states are dealing with the economic calamity and
the lack of federal support by cutting back on services and some cases
abandoning long held principles of their own. College tuition is
skyrocketing, social service networks are unraveling and money that was
to be directed to long-term social problems are being robbed to avoid
complete financial breakdown. State after state is raiding tobacco
settlement money which was given to correct health problems from use of
tobacco. This money is being diverted, to provide short-term financial
relief.
Why would we take a proven successful program and throw it into the
financial black hole that is represented by so many states? Why would
we abandon the guarantees that these Head Start money will go to the
children who need it? Why after the travesty of Leave No Child Left
Behind which has degenerated into a series of unfunded mandates would
we now impose another unfunded mandate for Head Start teacher
qualification and provide no addition resources? In my good conscious I
cannot support a bill that gambles with our children.
Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition
to a bill that would turn back the clock on the improvements made to
early childhood education and development in this country.
The School Readiness Act, H.R. 2210, would turn the successful Head
Start education program for disadvantaged children into block grants in
eight states, including Connecticut, which would reduce accountability
and ignore performance standards. It would allow states to qualify for
a block grant simply by having a state preschool program, regardless of
the quality, components, size or proven record of that state program.
It also allows states to run Head Start programs with lower educational
standards, minimal comprehensive services, less oversight and
accountability and no evidence that they do a job equal to or better
than Head Start.
This legislation is the first step in the process of completely
dismantling a very significant early childhood education program by
turning it into a block grant initiative for states without requiring
them to live up to any Head Start performance standards. The bill
diverts funds from local programs to state governments while at the
same time relieving states of the responsibility to meet the current
federal performance standards that have made Head Start so successful.
This change will result in reduced performance standards,
accountability and oversight, ending the Department of Health and Human
Services review process and weakening the program.
Mr. Chairman, Head Start is one of the most evaluated federal
programs, and research concludes that Head State works. Children who
attend Head Start exceed national norms in vocabulary, early writing,
letter recognition and social behavior, and they enter school better
prepared than low-income children who do not attend Head Start. Head
Start students are less likely to need special education services, are
less likely to repeat a grade, are more likely to graduate from high
school and are less likely to commit crimes during adolescence.
For nearly 40 years, Head Start has successfully served millions of
children through comprehensive services to ensure they are ready for
school. The efforts to dismantle this program is little more than an
ideological exercise cloaked in rhetoric about collaboration with
states and improving outcomes. It is an unjustified and unnecessary
experiment on a successful program that is less about real policy and
more about advancing an ideological crusade. It will end up doing harm
to the children of this country and I urge my colleagues to oppose it.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2210,
because it unjustifiably turns the Head Start program--one of the most
evaluated and successful federal antipoverty programs--into an unproven
experiment.
The very strength of the Head Start program lies in the comprehensive
services it provides. Consistent with Maslow's hierarchy of needs, the
program improves academic achievement only because it addresses basic
health and mental health, nutritional, dental and other social needs of
low-income children. These needs must be met in order to facilitate
learning. H.R. 2210 discards Head Start's comprehensive approach and
curtails parent involvement. It troubles me that proponents of this
bill believe that we can expect children to excel academically, along
with their privileged peers, when, in fact, their learning is seriously
impeded by the devastating effects of poverty.
Pediatric dentists are rare in rural areas. In Blossburg, PA, the
local Head Start program makes several trips each year to Scranton with
children who needed so much dental work that local dentists will not
treat them. Parents do not have the means to drive 180 miles to access
dental treatment, so Head Start provides the transportation.
John Holdsclaw, who worked with the National Head Start Association
and was a Head Start student himself, would not be the successful adult
that he is now without the program. When he entered Head Start at the
age of four, he was called ``Thick John,'' because he never responded
when asked a question. Head Start employees found that he had an inner
ear problem; had this problem not been corrected, John would have
entered school unable to hear his teacher and unable to learn.
There are eleven Head Start agencies, including five tribal programs,
serving families in my Congressional District. Over the past 5 years,
these programs served 12,683 children ages 0-5. In my district, 50
percent of eligible children go unserved by Head Start and Early Head
Start.
In recent weeks, I have received numerous expressions of support for
this vital program from Early Childhood experts, Head Start teachers,
and Head Start families in my district. They all state the obvious:
Head Start has yielded countless success stories, and it should not be
restructured in the name of ``reform.''
Recently, I heard from Susan Woidyla, a Head Start teacher who serves
children in two
[[Page H7557]]
counties in my district. She described the success of the Early Head
Start program's curriculum for prenatal woman. The program currently
serves ten pregnant women, many of whom are teenagers who will be
first-time mothers. Woidyla spoke about one teenage mother who is
homeless and in an abusive relationship. As the only social service
program in her life, Head Start is not only providing her with critical
information about the brain development of her fetus and the potential
effects of periodontal disease, but the program is helping this young
woman find the services she needs to care for herself and her
developing child.
Julia Kicker, another constituent of mine, shared her family's
experience with Head Start. Although Julia and her husband knew that
their first son, Jacob, was lagging behind other children in his social
development, they were told differing information from local day care
providers. Some day care providers insisted that he was fine; others
believed he needed to be medicated; and still others suggested
parenting classes for the Kickers.
Then Jacob began Head Start. The staff identified his needs, and they
encouraged special education professionals to become involved with
assessments and other services for Jacob, who is now enrolled in
kindergarten. He has a one-on-one para-professional helper in the
classroom and has been diagnosed with sensory delay and emotional
behavior disorder.
Not only did the program assist Jacob, but it assisted Julia as well.
It was the support that the Head Start program routinely gives parents
and families that gave Julia the self-confidence to run for and be
elected to the Policy Council for Head Start, the Board of Directors of
the Community Action Council, and the City Council.
I will not vote for legislation that guts Head Start's comprehensive
services and parental involvement and unravels a successful program
that HHS itself has said is working. Instead, Head Start should be
adequately funded to meet the needs of all eligible children.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 2210.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, Head Start works. In my home district,
over 3,300 children benefit from Head Start programs. Ninety-seven
percent of these children are part of families that live below the
poverty level or receive public assistance. For these children in
Western New York and the other million children enrolled in Head Start
across the Nation, I oppose the Head Start Reauthorization Act and its
attempts to dismantle Head Start.
Countless studies have shown that Head Start is an effective program
that helps some of our Nation's neediest youths succeed. It takes a
holistic approach to children's welfare by proving early childhood
education in reading, writing, mathematics, and language skills,
providing medical and dental care, providing mental health services,
and providing disability assessment and treatment. Virtually every
single child in Head Start programs in my district has received
appropriate preventative and primary medical care and comprehensive
dental care. This is health care they likely would not receive
otherwise.
The comprehensive approach to preparing children for academic success
is itself a success. Dollars spent on Head Start produce taxpayer
dividends for year. Children who go through Head Start are better
prepared for elementary school. Without Head Start, many of these
children would be far behind their peers from the first day of
kindergarten. Head Start children are less likely to repeat a grade,
require special education, or be convicted of a crime. Head Start
children show IQ gains when compared to low-income children who are not
in the program. In addition, Head Start children are more likely to
graduate from high school and college.
H.R. 2210 is the first step toward destroying Head Start. The bill
would hand control and responsibility for Head Start to eight states--
states that are facing the severe budget crisis gripping almost every
state and local government. However, these states would not be required
to meet minimum federal standards. Without these federal basic
requirement, states are likely to weaken educational standards, cut
services like medical and dental care, and shift more funds to cover
administrative costs--especially during this jobless recovery that is
squeezing state budgets. It is irresponsible to hand states such a
substantial sum of money without ensuring that it will be spent for the
optimum benefit for the 900,000 children currently enrolled in Head
Start and the thousands of eligible children who are not enrolled.
The Head Start programs in states that are not part of the block-
grant experiment continue to be severely underfunded. The lack of
sufficient funds denies many eligible children access to Head Start
programs. Only 60 percent of eligible preschoolers are enrolled in Head
Start; Early Head Start only serves 3 percent of eligible infants and
toddlers; and Migrant and Seasonal Head Start only serves 19 percent of
children or migrant and seasonal farm workers--all due to insufficient
funds.
Further, I am incredibly disturbed that this bill promotes
discrimination by allowing Head Start programs to hire and fire
teachers based on religion. This country has an admirable history of
advancing the fundamental principle of nondiscrimination, particularly
when the federal government spends taxpayers' money. It is
irresponsible to allow religious organizations using federal dollars to
run secular Head Start programs which could discriminate against people
of other faiths. The landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits many
insidious forms of discrimination. It also permits religious
organizations to hire people of their own faith for religious
functions. It protects synagogues from discrimination suits for not
hiring a Catholic priest to serve as a religions leader. This is as it
should be. But Head Start is not a religious program--it is a secular
education program. The faith of the teachers in Head Start is
irrelevant to their jobs. It is a terrible lesson to teach thousands of
children that discrimination against peoples of a differing religious
faith is desirable. How are Head Start teachers supposed to teach their
students that discrimination is wrong when a federal statute validates
it? Mr. Chairman, I strongly support the Woolsey/Edwards/Frank/Scott
(VA)/Van Hollen amendment that would restores civil rights protections
to Head Start teachers and oppose H.R. 2210.
Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to voice my strong
opposition to H.R. 2210, the School Readiness Act of 2003. Nationwide,
Head Start programs are facing serious budget and service cutbacks in
the comprehensive health, nutrition, social and educational services
they offer. Most Head Start programs only have enough funds to operate
a half-day schedule while most parents need full day care to
accommodate their work schedules. Only three out of every five children
eligible for services find a slot in a Head Start classroom. Only
62,000 infants and toddlers--just 3 percent of those eligible--are
served in Early Head Start. Many centers will face possible closure
within the next 5 years if President Bush's proposal is enacted.
Last year, federal funding for Head Start was almost cut by 10
percent. If that funding cut had been enacted, the Napa Solano Head
Start Program, which serves children in some of the areas I represent,
would have been forced to eliminate 100 slots for kids; would have had
to close five classrooms; and would have had to fire 15 teachers. The
Napa Solano Head Start program serves over a thousand infants,
toddlers, and pre-school children in my district. These children come
from families who live in poverty--where the parents' incomes are
around $18 thousand a year for a family of four. Without Head Start,
these families would have almost no options.
Incredibly, Head Start is only receiving a paltry 1.6 percent
increase in funding for 2004--an amount that barely covers inflation.
Head Start administrators say they will be forced to make cuts. But Mr.
Chairman, the cuts are not the biggest concern. The crux of this debate
is that the White House and Republicans in Congress are trying to
dismantle Head Start as we know it. The Republican bill being debated
today would change Head Start from a program that provides federal
grants directly to local community organizations into a state-
controlled program.
I've always believed that education needs to be a national obsession
and a local possession, and I am very concerned that taking money away
from communities to run Head Start programs tailored to their needs
would devastate children in our communities. States will be forced to
use money for administrative expenses instead of spending it all on
early education, healthcare, and nutrition services for our children.
This plan may also allow states to use Head Start dollars for non-Head
Start programs because the block grant money could be funneled to other
programs to reduce state budget deficits. A state only needs an
existing program providing pre-kindergarten in order to qualify for
funds. Unfortunately, nothing in this bill requires the state to have a
good pre-K program. There are no measures dictating quality, class
size, or components of curriculum. Any program would suffice. Thus, a
state with an untested, unproven program that is less rigorous and
comprehensive than the Head Start program would still qualify for
funds.
According to the National Head Start Association, only four states
have services as comprehensive as Head Start, and none have been
demonstrated to be of equal or better effectiveness. And, because of
conditions put on states to receive Federal funds, many simply would
not qualify. The net effect of this, Mr. Chairman, is that there will
be fewer dollars to administer programs at the local level and our kids
will be the ones who suffer. But that's not the only problem with this
bill. It essentially guts performance standards, which will ultimately
lead to dismantling Head Start. Current law requires the Department of
Health and Human Services to thoroughly review all Head
[[Page H7558]]
Start grantees every 3 years. Head Start experts supervise and conduct
the reviews. Under H.R. 2210, accountability and oversight will
disappear because the reviews will be contracted out and there will be
no initial evaluation of the quality of their state plan before funds
are released. By determining priorities and making decisions at the
state level instead of at the local level, the input of community
leaders and parents would be eliminated.
I do support the underlying bill's provision requiring that 50
percent of Head Start teachers nationwide have a bachelor's degree by
2008, and that by 2005, all new teachers have at least an associate's
degree. This would provide our children with better trained teachers
and would provide our teachers with a way to earn a higher salary.
Unfortunately, this bill provides no funding for teacher education or
salaries. It actually cuts the amount of funds that may be reserved for
teacher training and technical assistance to less than 2 percent. Head
Start teacher salaries cannot compete with the benefit packages offered
by county offices of education and school districts; therefore we train
teachers and then lose them to the higher paying entities after they
obtain their degrees. This bill does not provide enough money for
teacher training and salaries and is thus another unfunded mandate.
Head Start is not just a literacy program or just a pre-kindergarten
program. It is an anti-poverty program that seeks to build strong
families and strong communities. Strengthening the family is the only
way we can effect long-term, positive change in a child's life.
My colleague from California, George Miller, has offered a substitute
bill that will keep Head Start in place as we know it. The Miller
substitute will strengthen school readiness, improve program quality,
and expand access so more eligible kids are served--and provide enough
funds to do so all while maintaining local control. The Democratic
substitute includes assistance for children of migrant and seasonal
farm workers, creates a new quality standard to develop school
readiness, and focuses on pre-literacy, language and pre-math skills.
While our children's performance standards in some content areas do
need to be improved, dismantling the entire Head Start program, as the
majority's proposal would do, is a huge leap backwards in the progress
we've made for children in communities across the country.
I urge my colleagues to support the Democratic substitute and to
preserve this great program.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I am here today to
oppose H.R. 2210, the School Readiness Act of 2003. While I agree that
every child deserves an early education--the ``head start''--that they
need to get a strong start in life, and to be safe and secure while
their parents are at work, providing its funding in the form of block
grants and moving the program from the Department of Health and Human
Services would strip the program of its effectiveness.
Every day, three out of five preschoolers are in childcare and
millions of older children are in after-school activities while their
parents work. Head Start activities help to shape the way children
think, learn, and behave for the rest of their lives, but little
attention is being paid to the quality of those experiences.
While Head Start offers a strong educational foundation, the program
teaches proper nutrition and provides health mental health and mental
health screenings and other important services that many of these
children would not have if it were not for the Head Start program. This
Nation's most comprehensive and successful pre-school program for low-
income families, Head Start serves at least 1 million children each
year.
As a member of this body, but more importantly as a grandmother I am
troubled by the administration's plans to dismantle this proven program
by turning it over to struggling states. I find this move to be
incredulous and it baffles me as to why such a move would be necessary.
Disappointingly, last week the Rules Committee voted on a closed
rule, which allowed no amendments to H.R. 2210. During the last week,
colleagues on both sides of the aisle echoed the need for civility and
respect in this institution in making this a better America.
Republicans offer a rule that allows changes to their bill without
allowing changes to the Democratic substitute, and also blocks
consideration of critical Democratic amendments. I understand that my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle are doing everything to
succeed the President's agenda, but I am shocked that they are doing it
at the cost of innocent, deserving young children.
This administration is eager to prescribe unfunded mandates yet they
offer no tangible means of implementing measures. An issue of great
concern to many, which is not addressed in the current bill, is how
Head Start programs will comply with new regulations issued by the
Department of Health and Human Services (found at 45 CFR part 1310).
These new regulations require significant changes to the manner in
which these programs transport Head Start children to and from school
and were issued without providing programs with any effective means to
fund these changes.
As a result, numerous programs are having difficulty complying with
the transportation regulations and particularly with the next deadline
for implementation--January 20, 2004.
If an open rule were provided, I planned on offering an amendment. In
order to address this problem, I recommend extending the deadline for
Head Start programs to comply with the transportation requirements from
January 2004 to 2006. During this time period, with the input from the
local Head Start centers, I believe these regulations could be
effectively revisited and modified.
The Head Start program not only involves the child but also
recognizes the importance of the family. Head Start has included
parents in both the child's education and their membership of in the
Head Start Policy Council. Although this bill does focus on literacy,
it abandons the comprehensive approach that is fundamental to Head
Start's success. There are additional benefits of Head Start, including
providing medical screenings, immunizations, nutritional assistance and
referral service for families.
I have received numerous letters from teachers, parents, and other
employees of the Sunnyview and Greater Head Start locations in my
district of Dallas, Texas. Each one pleading for additional funding and
urging the program to be kept in its current structure. One parent
writes, ``they teach them how to write, count, their ABCs, to draw, to
be responsible. . . . Many families feel comfortable with this program
because they can come in and volunteer in the classes and see what the
children are learning.''
Mr. Chairman, we must join hands and commit to work together in our
country's educational struggle. A good education is the key component
of success in the information age. That is why extending educational
opportunity to every child in America has become my principal mission
in life.
It is my earnest plea that my colleagues will join me and vote
against H.R. 2210 in its current form. Head Start should not be moved
to the Department of Education, nor should the funding ever be in
question by having it succumb to the politics of block grants.
Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to join my colleagues in
speaking against the House leadership's ill-conceived plan to abandon
our Nation's most vulnerable children, through their latest attempt to
dismantle Head Start.
The re-authorization of Head Start grants Congress the express
opportunity to honor and strengthen the original intent of this
landmark anti-poverty legislation. Instead, we stand here today with
legislation that directly assaults Head Start by weakening the
academic, health, social and civil rights protections created by the
Office of Economic Opportunity as part of President Johnson's War on
Poverty social programs. Furthermore, we have once again been robbed of
the opportunity to amend and improve H.R. 2210, through the
leadership's restrictive, unfair rules denying us a voice in this
process. It is unconscionable to play legislative games with politics
that affect our most vulnerable citizens' lives.
First implemented in 1965, Head Start has been a beacon of hope for
low-income families and has fostered their dreams for their children's
successful futures. By offering comprehensive services, including early
childhood development, educational support, social development,
healthcare, dental services and parenting classes, we recognize the
unique needs of disadvantaged children, and offer much needed
assistance to level the playing field.
The leadership's so called reform legislation will only serve to
undermine Head Start and the success of the children whose futures we
debate here today. By block granting Head Start, states will be
permitted to create their own achievement and readiness standards,
while allowing them to gut the crucial programs currently used to
achieve national objectives. Under H.R. 2210, class sizes can increase,
programs can be shortened, and unproven curricula can be implemented.
Make no mistake about it, the existing Head Start guidelines value
the communities that implement the program. Currently, funding is sent
directly to the school systems, nonprofit organizations, and agencies
that assist our Nation's low-income children. By block granting Head
Start to states, funding will have to endure an extra level of
bureaucracy, with an extra level of administrative costs, without the
national accountability.
Our leadership's abysmal funding for Head Start is also indicative of
the low priority it holds for this essential program. The bill's
authorization does little more than cover inflationary costs by
providing only 2.9 percent more than the fiscal year 2003
appropriation. In addition, while increasing teacher quality
[[Page H7559]]
degree requirements, a new unfunded federal mandate is enacted by its
failure to provide the funds to achieve these measures. Even worse,
H.R. 2210 cuts funding for training and technical assistance.
Jodi Ogden, the executive direct of Community Services of North East
Texas, told me she is currently able to serve over 500 children in 10
Head Start centers under her purview. Weeks before the fall school year
has even begun, five of these centers have wait lists for needy
children. These children should not have to be waitlisted for essential
services. We should do better by them today.
Finally, we should be ashamed that this Head Start program, a
hallmark of federal social assistance, will allow nationwide
discrimination under the new reauthorization legislation. Current law
allows faith-based organizations to participate in the Head Start
program, as long as they do so fairly. However, under the
reauthorization these organizations will be permitted to use
discriminatory hiring practices to favor job applicants of certain
faiths over others. This is not how our scarce federal tax dollars
should be used. It is sadly ironic that a program intended to create
equity would permit such an inequitable hiring practice.
Like many of my colleagues, I have been gratified by the opportunity
to visit with those at the front lines that are providing Head Start
services to our disadvantaged children. They know the benefits of Head
Start. They see how families are helped by comprehensive Head Start
services. They know that we must augment, not annihilate the valued
tenets of the Head Start program. Any reform to essential programs must
be thoughtful, balanced, and reflect our citizens' most essential needs
for successful lives. As Karen Swenson, executive director of Greater
East Texas Community Action, wrote to me about this legislation, ``I do
not want children to suffer just because of the idea of change.''
Mr. Chairman, this terrible legislation will cause children to
suffer. Knowing this, I am forced to vote against it today.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, I would like to take this opportunity
to discuss a section of H.R. 2210 which is critical to my district.
Section 640(a)(2) of the Head Start Act directs the Secretary of Health
and Human Services to reserve 13 percent of the amount appropriated for
Head Start to be divided between Indian Head Start programs, services
for children with disabilities, migrant and seasonal Head Start
programs, and American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Marinas, and the
Virgin Islands.
Mr. Chairman, American Samoa has a population of almost 60,000. Six
out of every 10 residents in American Samoa live below the poverty
level and more than 3,000 children qualify for Head Start services.
American Samoa currently provides Head Start services for 1,532
children. American Samoa also has the highest enrollment of any other
Pacific island group.
Given this, I am concerned about the lack of funding American Samoa
is receiving and the allocation process being utilized by the Secretary
of Health and Human Services. It was my intent to offer an amendment
which would direct the Secretary to conduct a full review of how to
more equitably distribute Head Start funding among Indian Head Start
programs, services for children with disabilities, migrant and seasonal
Head Start programs, and American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Marianas,
and the Virgin Islands, and it is my hope that language will be
inserted into the conference report which will direct the Secretary to
review the formula being utilized. If this is not possible, then I am
hopeful that this statement will establish that it is the intent of
Congress for the allocation process to be immediately reviewed.
Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Chairman, I don't understand why the administration
wants to fix a program that's not broken.
Head Start is one Federal program that works and gives parents a
voice in how to best meet their children's educational needs.
I have visited a number of Head Start classrooms, and I have seen
firsthand that Head Start is working well for ``at-risk'' preschoolers
and their families.
I oppose this bill to recast Head Start because it would disrupt Head
Start's comprehensive mission of education, health and nutrition.
Comprehensive services, along with parental involvement, are the
foundation that make Head Start successful.
This bill diverts funds from local programs to the States, while
relieving States of the responsibility to meet current performance
standards.
Early childhood experts agree that the proposed changes would be
devastating for Head Start and the children and families it serves. The
last thing Congress should do is experiment with a successful program.
I urge my colleagues to vote against this legislation.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of Head Start
and against H.R. 2210, the so-called ``School Readiness act of 2003''.
The only thing this bill ``readies,'' is the dismantling of the
successful, time-tested Head Start program. I am an avid supporter of
Head Start and have been since its beginning in 1965 when I taught Head
Start classes. The Head Start program was founded on the basic
principle that children cannot learn when they are hungry or sick or
when their parents are not actively involved in their lives. Currently,
this program serves only 60 percent of eligible pre-schoolers, 3
percent of eligible infants and toddlers, and 19 percent of migrant and
seasonal farm workers. Congress should be working to strengthen the
program and expand the ability of low-income families to access its
benefits. Instead, this bill does not even authorize enough funds for
the program to cover the cost of inflation.
There is a major difference between what H.R. 2210 claims to do and
what it actually does. H.R. 2210 promises quality improvements by
increasing teacher credential requirements, but fails to provide any
funds to increase teacher salary or assist teachers in obtaining
education. Head Start teachers earn half of the average salary for
kindergarten teachers--this bill allows only for a modest raise. The
bill increases teacher credential requirements--requiring 50 percent of
Head Start teachers to have a B.A. by 2008--while decreasing the amount
of funds that are spent on training and technical assistance.
Further placing the future of Head Start at risk, this bill would
allow eight states to replace their successful Head Start programs with
other unproven pre-school programs. At a time when our states are
facing severe budget crises, this bill would turn complete control of
the program over to the states. It allows states to set their own
quality standards and to determine whether or not they meet those
standards. It guts that Head Start program--allowing increases in class
size, unproven curricula, and shorter programs that do not provide the
crucial nutrition, health, and social services children need to
succeed.
More insidious than the full-frontal attack H.R. 2210 wages on Head
Start is the attack it wages on civil rights. H.R. 2210 repeals long-
standing civil rights protections to allow faith-based organizations to
discriminate on the basis of religion. The bill allows these
organizations to use Federal dollars to practice discriminatory hiring
policies. This is an assault on two of our Nation's most fundamental
principles: the separation of church and state and equal protection
under the law. The Federal Government should never be in the business
of permitting discrimination nor should it break down the historic
separation of church and state.
We must stand up for our nations neediest. Head Start provides
children in difficult, often impoverished, situations the developmental
tools needed to give them a head start in their lives--an equal
starting place in life so they can catch up to their more fortunate
peers. Children, and their families, cannot afford the loss of any of
those services. We must reject H.R. 2210.
Ms. MAJETTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of Head Start, the
most successful program our country has in the war against poverty. The
Head Start program gives children the tools they need to break the
cycle of poverty. As the philosopher, Plato, once noted, ``The
direction in which education starts a man will determine this future
life.''
Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Congressman John Lewis, A. Philip
Randolph, and hundreds of thousands of others marched on Washington 40
years ago to demand that the President and Congress give every man,
woman, and child an equal opportunity to be the best we can be. That
opportunity can only come about when every child has equal access to
education.
Indeed, providing a firm foundation for the education of our children
is the most important investment we as a nation can make in our future.
When President Lyndon B. Johnson convinced Congress to put this program
in place almost 40 years ago, we began a war on poverty that has
benefited this country in countless ways.
Poverty in America weakens our greatest resource by sapping our
children of their hope that they can realize their dreams. These
children can, and do, realize their dreams when they take part in Head
Start.
Head Start is not a simple daycare program it focuses on the whole
child. These children receive balanced, nutritional meals. They also
receive basic health care, including dental, medical and vision
screenings and vaccinations. Head Start children not only learn their
colors, they are enveloped in nurturing relationships, and by age four
or five come to school ready to learn. Head Start focuses on the whole
child, and Head Start works.
It's a fact that Head Start children are:
Less likely to be held back in school.
Less likely to be placed in special education classes.
More likely to succeed in school.
More likely to graduate.
More likely to be rated as behaving well in class and being better
adjusted in school.
[[Page H7560]]
And five times less likely to end up in jail as adults.
Mr. Chairman, I'd like to bring up a sad state of affairs in America
today: Right now, there are over 2 million Americans in prison.
The evidence shows that we can actually reduce incarcerations if we
act early enough because children who participate in Head Start are
five times less likely to end up in jail. There is no disagreement
about this face: Head Start reduces the likelihood that a child will
become one of those two million in jail.
Unfortunately, Head Start serves fewer than 1 million children: only
helping 1 out of 5 needy children in Georgia and across the Nation.
Even though the money we put into this program now will save us much
more in the long run by, among other things, reducing the amounts we
need to spend on prisons. Head Start is quite simply the best
investment opportunity we can offer our constituents for their tax
dollars. We are being penny wise and pound foolish.
Despite this huge investment opportunity, taxpayers are currently
supporting twice as many prisoners as Head Start students. The
administration does not have its priorities straight. Just look at the
cost: We spent less than $7 billion on Head Start this year, while we
spend over $74 billion a year on the prison system. It costs only $18 a
day to place a child into Head Start, and over $50 a day to keep
someone incarcerated in jail. This is not fuzzy math--it is crystal
clear. We can save money if we realign our priorities. We must fully
fund with Head Start to guarantee that we leave no child behind.
This is not just any ``program,'' it is an incredible investment in
our future. Head Start takes our poorest children and cures their
toothaches, fills their stomachs, and gives them eyeglasses. With that
vision, children are able to see far beyond the blackboard. Full
funding of Head Start would enable us to fulfill our Nation's promise
to give everyone an equal opportunity in life. In short, Head Start
gives children a reason to hope, and the ability to succeed.
And isn't that what our Nation is all about? The promise that
everyone, regardless of their background, can pursue their own
happiness and achieve their own dreams. Every day people come to
America in the hope that their children will have better opportunities
than they did. Head Start is a critical part of our commitment to
fulfill this promise. It is our Nation's attempt to be sure that every
child gets to take advantage of an education. A good education
represents everyone's best hope of realizing the American dream. Head
Start is our program, painstakingly designed over 35 years, to ``aid
participating children in attaining their full potential.'' This bill
removes this language, but this ideal is still a part of Head Start.
Do we want children who get a head start to come to school ready to
learn, graduate and become productive members of our society, or do we
want to watch our prison population continue to explode and scratch our
heads, wondering what went so wrong?
Today we have the capability to reduce the number of Americans in
prison, to reduce the burden on taxpayers and at the same time give
millions more children a reason to hope. Head Start is the smartest
investment we can make in our future. For just $12.5 billion over the
next 5 years, we can set every child on the road with their best foot
forward and show them a world of possibilities.
We are spending $1 billion a week in Iraq. Should we do less for the
children of America?
If some citizens don't succeed, it may not be our fault, but if we
fail to show them how to succeed in the first place, we have only
ourselves to blame.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I have always stood by the
saying that ``education is the great equalizer''. Yet, in this bill, we
are allowing education to be easily accessible to the haves and more
difficult to obtain for our Nation's have-nots. This attitude toward
education is a giant step backwards to 40 years ago. Low-income
children, children with disabilities and individuals who want to go to
college are the ones that are being hurt substantially in this bill.
Although, the 2004 budget resolution was to provide the Department of
Education with a $3 billion increase, this bill only allows for a $2.3
billion increase over Fiscal Year 2003. The Title I program is one that
is hit the heaviest. Title I schools have the least experienced
teachers, less competitive teacher salaries, higher teacher turnover, a
less rigorous curriculum, the least amount of resources and students
with greater academic deficits, which all adds up to these schools
being less able to meet the No Child Left Behind Act's mandates.
Instead of providing a substantial increase to offset the disadvantage
these schools are already facing, this bill only provides a $666
million increase, compared to the $1 billion in the 2004 budget
resolution.
On April 30, this House passed the IDEA reauthorization bill with the
promise attached from the 2004 budget resolution to provide a $2.2
billion increase over the current level. Yet, this bill falls $1.2
billion short of that promise. As deficit stricken states continue to
cut from their school funding, schools will have to continue to absorb
the costs of providing special education for nearly 6.7 million school
children as well as even cut other school programs or hope for a local
referendum to pass to offset the shortfall.
A college graduate can expect to earn 80 percent more than a high
school graduate, or $1 million over the course of a lifetime. This
obviously allows for an individual to have a better quality of life by
having a higher skilled job, better health insurance, pension and the
ability to provide a better life for their children. Yet, this bill in
essence abandons higher education federal student aid. All the federal
student aid programs: Pell Grants, Supplemental Educational Opportunity
Grants (SEOG), Federal Work Study, Perkins Loan Program, LEAP, and
Graduate Education are level funded. This may not sound too bad but for
example the Pell Grants maximum award was kept at $4,050 which will
only cover 38 percent or less of expenses in a 4-year public college
compared to 84 percent of expenses covered by Pell Grants in 1975, when
the program originated. Unfortunately, the Federal Government is
abandoning higher education while the states suffer record breaking
deficits. These simultaneous occurrences result in cuts in grant aid to
students facing rising cost in higher education. Loyola University
Chicago lost $1 million in state grant aid for needy students due to
Illinois $5 billion deficit. How much more will their students lose
without any increases to the federal student aid programs?
Mr. Chairman, If we pass this bill, we are sending the message that
we do not care enough about all of our nation's children and young
people. We need to ensure that we are helping those who are in most
need of help--low-income children, children with disabilities, and
those who have the desire to continue their education but who just can
not afford to go without assistance of state and federal aid. Our
message needs to be clear. But most importantly, our message needs to
be more than just words. Let's see increases in funding where they are
most needed.
Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R.
2201, a bill that will dismantle the successful Head Start program. I
am troubled that the Republican majority is trying to pass a bill that
will hurt America's children under the guise of ``reform.''
The current Head Start program provides low-income children across
the Nation with cost-free, high-quality early education. In my
district, and other traditionally underserved communities, Head Start
not only helps ensure the academic success of our children, but also
provides a holistic approach to school readiness that includes
individualized services in the areas of early childhood development,
parental involvement, nutrition, and medical, dental, and mental
health. This multi-pronged approach recognizes the fact that children
need to be healthy in order to facilitate learning. Under the
Republican plan, all these services are in jeopardy because guaranteed
comprehensive services are made optional.
Nationally, Head Start serves more than 900,000 children, nearly a
third of whom are Latino. Yet, this bill fails to provide resources for
programs important to Latino and other immigrant children. For example,
this bill does not include one new cent to train teachers to help
limited English proficient students and provides no new resources for
the more than 130,000 children eligible for the Migrant and Seasonal
Head Start program.
Mr. Chairman, in closing the Republican bill not only fails to
protect important provisions of one of the most successful Federal
programs in the history of our country, but by all accounts, ends a
program that has given countless children the opportunity to reach
their full potential.
That is why, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to defeat the flawed
Republican bill, known as the School Readiness Act, and to pass the
Democratic substitute that will truly strengthen our children's pre-
literacy, language and pre-math skills, without sacrificing essential
comprehensive health and family services. The Democratic substitute, in
every way, helps to ensure that every child in the United States is
given all the tools needed to succeed in school.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the School
Readiness Act, H.R. 2210, and I implore my colleagues to vote against
it as this bill is a blatant attempt to dismantle the Head Start
program.
Mr. Chairman, Head Start is a very successful Federal program run at
the local level. As we are all well aware the program provides
education, health care, nutrition and parent involvement programs to
nearly 1 million low-income preschool children and their families. The
language in the bill we are considering right now will weaken Head
Start and jeopardize the comprehensive educational and social services
Head Start now provides to hundreds of thousands of families.
[[Page H7561]]
On July 15, I released a report, prepared at my request by the House
Government Reform Committee, entitled ``Proposed Overhaul of Head Start
Could Affect Thousands of Children in Maryland's 7th Congressional
District.'' If the administration's changes are implemented in
Maryland, the report indicates that almost 3,000 children in Baltimore
City, Baltimore County, and Howard County would be adversely affected
in the following way:
2,742 children would not be guaranteed dental care;
2,433 families may be left out of participating in their child's
education;
472 children may not receive mental health care that they currently
get in Head Start;
444 children would be at risk for not getting treatment for asthma,
anemia and vision problems; and
341 children could possibly lose guaranteed access to disability
services.
What we may not be aware of is that by block granting, we are cutting
the number of children currently served and leaving millions of
eligible low-income children without the needed resources in advance is
not wise. Many Head Start advocates are concerned that states that
accept block grants will weaken educational standards. And let me tell
you how, because I think it is a nuance that many of my compassionate
conservative colleagues miss. This bill allows a demonstration project
in eight states which essentially allows these States to take their
Head Start monies and use them as they see fit for early childhood
education programs. In a phrase blockgranting. We know block granting
does not work because in tough economic times with a record $544
billion national deficit, states make tough budget choices and programs
like Head Start get shortchanged. Block grants are a veiled way to kill
the Head Start program as we know it. Blockgranting makes it easier to
cut programs and as a result more programs begin to dwindle.
Eventually, Head Start will not exist. The comprehensive nature of the
program supports the notion that success inside the classroom requires
that children be physically and mentally healthy, with a stable home
life.
Head Start works and is highly successful. The broad nature of the
program has resulted in the following accomplishments:
Head Start has proven to narrow the gap between disadvantaged
children and other children in vocabulary skills, writing and social
behavior;
Children who participate in Head Start programs are less likely to
repeat a grade, require special education or be convicted of a crime;
The program's graduates show higher IQ gains compared to low-income
children who have not attended Head Start;
And finally, children who attend Head Start are more likely to
graduate from high school, and college.
But one does not have to read this report to realize the positive
impact Head Start can make on a child.
Any of my colleagues who questions the positive difference that Head
Start can make should listen to my constituent, Ms. Portia DeShields.
When her son Marcus was three, Ms. DeShields realized that he was
struggling with a speech and language disability. Recalling how she had
gained from her childhood participation in Head Start, Ms. DeShields
and her husband enrolled Marcus in a Head Start program sponsored by
Baltimore's Union Baptist Church.
Beginning in September of last year, a Head Start speech pathologist
worked with Marcus two or three times each week. A mental health
specialist helped Marcus learn how to control his anger, and ``positive
parenting'' classes taught his parents how to better meet his needs.
Today, at age 4, Marcus's speech and language skills have improved to
the point where he is functioning at near-kindergarten level.
Head Start is working for Marcus and nearly 1 million other children.
As such, I urge my colleagues to reject the underlying bill and
support the Democratic substitute that builds on the proven success of
Head Start by strengthening school readiness, improving program quality
and accountability, and expanding access so more eligible children. The
Democratic substitute accomplishes this while maintaining local control
and high performance standards in its programming.
That is why the Democratic Substitute is supported by many
organizations including the National Head Start Association, the
National Education Association, the Children's Defense Fund, the
American Federation of Teachers, the ACLU, and the National League of
Cities.
H.R. 2210 is opposed by these same groups because these groups
understand that block grants put this important program in a perilous
position. But not only that, this bill does not improve Head Start--if
it's not broken, don't tinker with it to break it!
Mr. Chairman, we cannot shortchange the early education of millions
of children because to do so would be to shortchange the rest of their
lives. I urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle,
compassionate conservatives too, to put children first and to make good
on the promise that ``no child be left behind.''
This bad bill puts the future of these children in jeopardy. H.R.
2210 dismantles ore than 38 years of bipartisan support for this
critical early education program. Reject the H.R. 2210 and support the
Democratic substitute. Only by supporting the Democratic substitute
will children indeed have a head start.
Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman. I rise in strong opposition to H.R.
2210. My opposition is based on the following reasons. The bill will
make it legal for faith-based institutions that receive Federal funds
and run Head Start programs to discriminate in their hiring practices.
I contend that our focus should be on continuing to fund a wonderful
pre-school educational program. Unfortunately, this bill undermines
current anti-discrimination laws, and will allow institutions to
establish a litmus test in their hiring programs. Let me make it clear,
I respect and admire the tremendous work performed by faith-based
organizations. However, the Head Start Program is being used as a
political vehicle to institutionalize discrimination in an early
learning environment.
We all believe in educating our youth in their embryonic learning
states. I am struck though by the rhetoric from my majority colleagues
that they are motivated to help disadvantaged students. That is a
laudable goal, but the goal can be achieved through the current Head
Start program. I am struck by the hypocrisy of the bill before us. The
majority abhors affirmative action, yet they seek legal protection to
discriminate based on religion. They allege that affirmative action is
discriminatory. Yet they seek to sanction religious-based
discrimination through the pre-school educational process. The logic
and the method are flawed.
I also oppose this bill because it purports to administer Head Start
through a state block grant. States can also use block grant money to
supplant Federal funds, in addition to not requiring performance
standards. I question the wisdom of relying on states to use their
discretion in this manner. Increasingly, we have witnessed the
administration promote policies that the House and the Senate pass as
laws that re-direct power to the states. The majority recipe has
produced catastrophic results, the most glaring example is the No Child
Left Behind Act. The majority promised wholesale reform, and it is
delivering widespread misery. If H.R. 2210 is enacted, more misery is
surely on the way for America's poor and disadvantaged children. I urge
my colleagues to reject the false premises put forward by the
proponents of H.R. 2210, and to embrace the Woolsey amendment that
restores civil rights to Head Start teachers, and the Miller substitute
amendment that retains Federal-to-local funding and which strikes
hiring discrimination.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to
the School Readiness Act of 2003, which will reauthorize the Head Start
program.
I strongly support Head Start programs because they provide low-
income preschool-aged children a comprehensive array of services such
as child development, education, health, nutritional, social and other
activities which help them receive greater advantages in life.
Some of these services include health screenings and services.
Statistics have shown that children who receive crucial services such
as dental and eye care, or a hot breakfast every morning, have
increased school readiness.
In my congressional district, one of the most successful Head Start
programs is the Alexandria Head Start. This is a collaboration among
the Campagna Center, the city of Alexandria, and the Alexandria City
Public Schools formed 35 years ago.
AHS serve 253 Head Start children, and because of a wonderful group
of dedicated educators, parents and teachers, these children have truly
been given a ``head start.''
While many of my low-income constituents in the city of Alexandria
are served by Head Start, I am concerned with the devastating statistic
that 40 percent of eligible children nationwide will continue to be
underserved under H.R. 2210.
In fact, after a COLA adjustment for staff salaries and increased
rent costs, H.R. 2210 just barely covers inflation and allows almost no
program expansion. Due to ``insufficient funds,'' a large number of
children who need these services will be unable to obtain them.
Let's look at the facts right now. The President's budget request for
fiscal year 2004 is $7.2 billion below the level needed to maintain
current services for domestic priorities.
Unfortunately with slashes in domestic discretionary spending coupled
with massive tax cuts, the result has been fiscal crises at the State
and Federal levels, which have translated into the underfunding of
critical programs and services such as affordable housing, Medicare and
Head Start.
[[Page H7562]]
Due to this stark economic climate, supporters of H.R. 2210 want to
block-grant Head Start to eight States whose preschool programs are
untested and unproven.
A year and a half ago, we all celebrated when the President Bush
signed into law, the No Child Left Behind legislation, which was touted
as the plan to bring stronger accountability and stronger standards to
our Nation's schools.
H.R. 2210 will in fact do the exact opposite of NCLB, by allowing
States that have not demonstrated expertise or the commitment to
providing quality service to these children, to be eligible for this
block grant.
Where are the standards? This block-grant will allow States to strip
the Head Start program of the qualified services that it provides to
children nationwide, and more importantly, that they and their families
rely on. This was not what President Johnson intended when he founded
this vital program.
It was once said that ``Education is the great equalizer in a
democratic society, and if people are not given access to a quality
education, then what we are doing is creating an underclass of people
who will ultimately challenge our very way of life.''
This statement has never been more true than today. The Head Start
program was designed to give preschoolers a quality education while
also ensuring that their social and physical needs were met, which
helps put them on the path to success.
Yet, the bill before us today will weaken and underfund the Head
Start program while continuing to leave 40 percent of eligible children
unserved.
Instead, I ask all my colleagues to support the Miller amendment
which will continue to build upon the successes of the Head Start
program while striving to ensure that all eligible children in our
country are served by Head Start and obtain the services that they need
to receive a true ``head start'' in life.
Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2210, the
School Readiness Act.
Last year, President Bush proposed strengthening Head Start to help
the program produce more kindergarten-ready children. Research shows
that early learning skills such as letter, number, shape and color
recognition are crucial to a child's future success in school. In fact,
technological advances have made it possible to predict how well a
child will read in the 10th grade based on his or her knowledge of the
alphabet in kindergarten. Unfortunately, Head Start graduates
consistently score in the lowest 25 percent in key early knowledge
areas.
More than 1,000 children attend Head Start in Douglas County, NE.
Last November, the Child and Family Development Corporation that runs
the program failed its Federal review. Government inspectors cited
mismanagement, health and safety concerns, and a lack of program goals.
This situation is a perfect example of why we need greater
accountability in Head Start programs. The children who graduated from
this failed program entered school at a disadvantage. We must demand
better for these children. We must give them the skills they need to
overcome poverty and low expectations.
The Omaha Public School District and a charitable foundation tried to
partner Head Start with a successful, private preschool program last
year. Almost a hundred additional low-income children could have been
helped. Unfortunately, Head Start backed out at the last minute.
Construction had already begun on the new $6 million preschool
building. From conversations with involved parties, I am convinced this
decision was made in the interest of self-preservation rather than
concern for disadvantaged children. Head Start pulled out to hide the
failures of their program from parents, educators, and government
officials. At least one member of the Head Start parents advisory board
resigned in protest over this debacle.
H.R. 2210 is necessary to put the future of our children before the
small-mindedness of entrenched bureaucrats. Partnerships between public
schools, private foundations and Head Start programs are essential.
Chicago and Atlanta have successfully implemented this model to benefit
children, and another partnership is being created in Milwaukee. The
Federal Government should not be allowed to stand in the way of such
caring community partnerships to rescue disadvantaged children from
hopeless futures. This is a travesty and an immeasurable disservice to
the next generation.
It is crucial that school districts be involved in preparing low-
income children for academic success. These children already face
tremendous obstacles. Research conducted by D.E. Caspar highlights the
differences between environments in which children from poor, middle-
class and affluent families grow up. For example, affluent children are
exposed to 45 million words before kindergarten; working-class children
26 million; and children in poverty only 13 million words.
These conditions affect a child's language development and word
comprehension, skills necessary for learning to read. President Bush
has called reading ``the new civil right.'' We now know that children
who are reading at grade-level by the third grade have a greater chance
for success throughout their school years.
The disparity between low-income and affluent children is even more
obvious in the amount of positive reinforcement they receive. Children
from affluent families are given 32 positive affirmations an hour;
working class children 12 per hour, and poor children only 5. Without
assistance from caring educators in the community, disadvantaged
children will not have the social, emotional or academic skills to
succeed in school and life. We must allow States and local school
districts the chance to partner with Head Start and provide these
children with quality early education programs.
I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for H.R. 2210 to give
disadvantaged children a real head start in life.
The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
In lieu of the amendment recommended by the Committee on Education
and the Workforce printed in the bill, it shall be in order to consider
as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the 5-minute
rule an amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in part A of
the House report 108-232. That amendment in the nature of a substitute
shall be considered read.
The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as
follows:
H.R. 2210
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``School Readiness Act of
2003''.
TITLE I--HEAD START REAUTHORIZATION AND PROGRAM IMPROVEMENTS
SEC. 101. PURPOSE.
Section 636 of the Head Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9831) is
amended to read as follows:
``SEC. 636. STATEMENT OF PURPOSE.
``It is the purpose of this subchapter to promote school
readiness by enhancing the development of low-income
children, through educational instruction in prereading
skills, premathematics skills, and language, and through the
provision to low-income children and their families of
health, educational, nutritional, social and other services
that are determined, based on family needs assessments, to be
necessary.''.
SEC. 102. DEFINITIONS.
Section 637 of the Head Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9832) is
amended as follows:
(1) In paragraph (17) by striking ``, but for fiscal
years'' and all that follows down to the period.
(2) By adding the following at the end thereof:
``(18) The term `eligible entities' means an institution of
higher education or other agency with expertise in delivering
training in early childhood development, family support, and
other assistance designed to improve the quality of early
childhood educations programs.
``(19) The term `homeless children' has the meaning given
such term in subtitle B of title VII of the McKinney-Vento
Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11431 et seq.).''.
SEC. 103. AUTHORIZATION.
Section 639 of the Head Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9834) is
amended to read as follows:
``SEC. 639. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
``(a) In General.--There are authorized to be appropriated
for carrying out the provisions of this subchapter
$6,870,000,000 for the fiscal year 2004, $6,988,750,000 for
fiscal year 2005, $7,106,500,000 for fiscal year 2006,
$7,245,000,000 for fiscal year 2007, and $7,427,000,000 for
fiscal year 2008.
``(b) Specific Programs.--From the amount appropriated
under subsection (a), the Secretary shall make available not
more than $20,000,000 for fiscal year 2004, and such sums as
may be necessary for fiscal year 2005 through 2008 to carry
out such other research, demonstration, and evaluation
activities, including longitudinal studies, under section
649.
``(1) not more than $7,000,000 for each of fiscal years
2004 through 2008 to carry out impact studies under section
649(g); and
``(2) not more than $13,000,000 for fiscal year 2004, and
such sums as may be necessary for each of fiscal years 2005
through 2008, to carry out other research, demonstration, and
evaluation activities, including longitudinal studies, under
section 649.
``(c) Administrative Expenses.--There are authorized to be
appropriated $5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2004 through
2008 to assist participating States with the administrative
expenses associated with implementing a program under section
643A.''.
SEC. 104. ALLOTMENT OF FUNDS; LIMITATIONS ON ASSISTANCE.
Section 640 of the Head Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9835) is
amended as follows:
(1) In subsection (a)(2):
(A) By striking ``1998'' in subparagraph (A) and inserting
``2003''.
(B) By amending subparagraph (B) to read as follows:
[[Page H7563]]
``(B) payments, subject to paragraph (7) to Guam, American
Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and
the Virgin Islands of the United States;''.
(2) By striking the last sentence of paragraph (2) of
subsection (a).
(3)(A) By amending subsection (a)(2)(C) to read as follows:
``(C) training and technical assistance activities that are
sufficient to meet the needs associated with program
expansion and to foster program and management improvement as
described in section 648 of this subchapter, in an amount for
each fiscal year which is equal to one percent of the amount
appropriated for such fiscal year, of which--
``(i) not less than 50 percent shall be made available to
local Head Start agencies to comply with the standards
described in section 641A(a)(1), of which not less than 50
percent shall be used to comply with the standards described
in section 641A(a)(1)(B) and for the uses described in
clauses (iii), (iv), and (vii) of subsection (a)(3)(B);
``(ii) not less than 30 percent shall be made available to
support a State system of early childhood education training
and technical assistance;
``(iii) not less than 20 percent shall be made available to
the Secretary to assist local programs in meeting the
standards described in section 641A(a)(1); and
``(iv) not less than $3,000,000 of the amount in clause
(iii) appropriated for such fiscal year shall be made
available to carry out activities described in section
648(c)(4);''.
(B) By inserting the following at the end of subsection
(a)(2):
``Of an additional one percent of the amount appropriated for
such fiscal year, the Secretary shall use not less than 25
percent of such funds to fund the expansion of services to
migrant and seasonal Head Start children. If sufficient
migrant and seasonal eligible children are not available to
use such funds, then enrollment priority shall be given to
other disadvantaged populations referred to in subparagraph
(A). Not less than 60 percent of such one percent amount
shall be used to fund quality improvement activites as
described in sec 640(a)(3)(B) and (C)''.
(4) In subsection (a)(3)(A) by inserting at the end
thereof:
``(iii) After the reservation of amounts under paragraph
(2) and the 60 percent amount referred to in subparagraph (A)
of this paragraph, a portion of the remaining funds shall be
made available for quality to expand services to underserved
populations, such as children receiving services under the
Early Head Start and Migrant and Seasonal Head Start
programs.''.
(5) In subsection (a)(3)(A)(i)(I) by striking ``1999'' and
all that follows down to the semicolon and inserting ``2004
through 2008''.
(6) By amending subsection (a)(3)(B) to read as follows:
``(B) Funds reserved under this paragraph (referred to in
this paragraph as `quality improvement funds') shall be used
to accomplish any or all of the following goals:
``(i) Ensuring that Head Start programs meet or exceed
standards pursuant to section 641A(a)(1).
``(ii) Ensuring that such programs have adequate numbers of
qualified staff, and that such staff is furnished adequate
training, including developing skills to promote the
development of language skills, premathematic skills, and
prereading in young children and in working with children
with non-English language background, children referred by
child welfare services, and children with disabilities, when
appropriate.
``(iii) Developing and financing the salary scales
described under section 644(a) and section 653, in order to
ensure that salary levels and benefits are adequate to
attract and retain qualified staff for such programs.
``(iv) Using salary increases to improve staff
qualifications, and to assist with the implementation of
programs specifically designed to enable lead instructors to
become more effective educators, for the staff of Head Start
programs, and to encourage the staff to continually improve
their skills and expertise by informing the staff of the
availability of Federal and State incentive and loan
forgiveness programs for professional development.
``(v) Improving community-wide strategic planning and needs
assessments for such programs and collaboration efforts for
such programs, including collaborations to increase program
participation by underserved populations of eligible
children.
``(vi) Ensuring that the physical environments of Head
Start programs are conducive to providing effective program
services to children and families, and are accessible to
children with disabilities and their parents.
``(vii) Ensuring that such programs have qualified staff
that can promote language skills and literacy growth of
children and that can provide children with a variety of
skills that have been identified, through scientifically
based reading research, as predictive of later reading
achievement.
``(viii) Providing assistance to complete post-secondary
course work needed to attain baccalaureate degrees in early
childhood education.
``(ix) Making such other improvements in the quality of
such programs as the Secretary may designate.
``(x) To promote the regular attendance and stability of
highly mobile children, including migrant and homeless
children.''.
(7) By amending subsection (a)(3)(C) to read as follows:
``(C) Quality improvement funds shall be used to carry out
any or all of the following activities:
``(i)(I) Not less than one-half of the amount reserved
under this paragraph, to improve the compensation (including
benefits) of classroom teachers and other staff of Head Start
agencies providing instructional services and thereby
enhancing recruitment and retention of qualified staff,
including recruitment and retention pursuant to achieving the
requirements set forth in section 648A(a). The expenditure of
funds under this clause shall be subject to section 653.
Salary increases, in excess of cost-of-living allowance,
provided with such funds shall be subject to the specific
standards governing salaries and salary increases established
pursuant to section 644(a).
``(II) If a Head Start agency certifies to the Secretary
for such fiscal year that part of the funds set aside under
subclause (I) to improve wages cannot be expended by such
agency to improve wages because of the operation of section
653, then such agency may expend such part for any of the
uses specified in this subparagraph (other than wages).
``(III) From the remainder of the amount reserved under
this paragraph (after the Secretary carries out subclause
(I)), the Secretary shall carry out any or all of the
activities described in clauses (ii) through (vii), placing
the highest priority on the activities described in clause
(ii).
``(ii) To train classroom teachers and other staff to meet
the education standards described in section 641A(a)(1)(B),
through activities--
``(I) to promote children's language and prereading growth,
through techniques identified through scientifically based
reading research;
``(II) to promote the acquisition of the English language
for non-English background children and families;
``(III) to foster children's school readiness skills
through activities described in section 648A(a)(1); and
``(IV) to educate and provide training necessary to improve
the qualifications particularly with respect to such
assistance to enable more instructors to meet the degree
requirements under section 648A(a)(2)(A) and to support staff
training, child counseling, and other services necessary to
address the problems of children participating in Head Start
programs, including children from dysfunctional families,
children who experience chronic violence in their
communities, and children who experience substance abuse in
their families.
``(iii) To employ additional Head Start staff, including
staff necessary to reduce the child-staff ratio lead
instructors who meet the qualifications of section 648A(a)
and staff necessary to coordinate a Head Start program with
other services available to children participating in such
program and to their families.
``(iv) To pay costs incurred by Head Start agencies to
purchase insurance (other than employee benefits) and thereby
maintain or expand Head Start services.
``(v) To supplement amounts provided under paragraph (2)(C)
to provide training necessary to improve the qualifications
of the staff of the Head Start agencies, and to support staff
training, child counseling, and other services necessary to
address the problems of children participating in Head Start
programs, including children from dysfunctional families,
children who experience chronic violence in their
communities, and children who experience substance abuse in
their families.
``(vi) To conduct outreach to homeless families in an
effort to increase the program participation of eligible
homeless children.
``(vii) Such other activities as the Secretary may
designate.
``(viii) To conduct outreach to migrant and seasonal farm-
working families and families with children with a limited
English proficiency.''.
(8) In subsection (a)(4) by striking ``1998'' in
subparagraph (A) and inserting ``2003''.
(9) In subsection (a)(5)(B)--
(A) by striking ``may'' and inserting ``shall''; and
(B) by inserting ``early childhood education'' after
``regarding''.
(10) By amending subsection (a)(5)(C) to read as follows:
``(C) In order to improve results for children, a State
that receives a grant under subparagraph (B) shall--
``(i) appoint an individual to serve as the State Director
of Collaboration between--
``(I) the appropriate regional office of the Administration
for Children and Families;
``(II) the State educational agency;
``(III) the State Department of Health and Human Services;
``(IV) the State agency that oversees child care;
``(V) the State agency that assists children with
developmental disabilities;
``(VI) the State Head Start Association;
``(VII) the State network of child care resource and
referral agencies;
``(VIII) local educational agencies;
``(IX) community-based and faith-based organizations;
``(X) State representatives of migrant and seasonal Head
Start programs;
``(XI) State representatives of Indian Head Start programs;
``(XII) State and local providers of early childhood
education and child care; and
``(XIII) other entities carrying out programs serving low-
income children and families in the State;
[[Page H7564]]
``(ii) ensure that the State Director of Collaboration
holds a position with sufficient authority and access to
ensure that the collaboration described in subparagraph (B)
is effective and involves a range of State agencies;
``(iii) involve the entities described in section clause
(i) to develop a strategic plan for the coordinated outreach
to identify eligible children and implementation strategies
based on a needs assessment conducted by the Office of the
State Director of Collaboration which shall include an
assessment of the availability of high quality
prekindergarten services for low-income children in the
State. Such assessment shall be completed within one year
after the date of enactment of the `School Readiness Act of
2003' and be updated on an annual basis and shall be made
available to the general public within the State;
``(iv) ensure that the collaboration described in
subparagraph (B) involves coordination of Head Start services
with health care, welfare, child care, child protective
services, education, and community service activities, family
literacy services, activities relating to children with
disabilities (including coordination of services with those
State officials who are responsible for administering part C
and section 619 of the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act), and services for homeless children (including
coordination of services with the Office of Coordinator for
Education of Homeless Children and Youth designated under
section 722 (g)(1)(J)(ii) of the McKinney-Vento Homeless
Education Assistance Improvements Act of 2001;
``(v) consult with the chief State school officer, local
educational agencies, and representatives of local Head Start
agencies and providers of early childhood education and care
in unified planning regarding early care and education
services at both the State and local levels, including
collaborative efforts to develop school readiness standards;
and
``(vi) consult with the chief State school officer, local
educational agencies, State child care administrators, State
human services administrators, representatives of local
resource and referral agencies, local early childhood
councils, providers of early childhood education and care and
other relevant State and local agencies, and representatives
of the State Head Start Associations to plan for the
provision of full-working-day, full calendar year early care
and education services for children.''.
(11) By amending clause (i) of subsection (a)(5)(D) by
inserting ``and providers of services supporting early
childhood education and child care'' after ``Associations''.
(12) By amending subsection (a)(6)(A) to read as follows:
``(A) From amounts reserved and allotted pursuant to
paragraphs (2) and (4), the Secretary shall use, for grants
for programs described in section 645A(a) of this subchapter,
a portion of the combined total of such amounts equal to at
least 10 percent for fiscal years 2004 through 2008, of the
amount appropriated pursuant to section 639(a), except as
provided in subparagraph (B).''
(13) By inserting the following before the period at the
end of subsection (f): ``, including models that leverage the
existing capacity and capabilities of the delivery system of
early childhood education and child care''.
(14) By inserting the following after ``manner that will''
in subsection (g)(2)(G): ``leverage the existing delivery
systems of such services and''.
(15) By amending subsection (g)(2)(C) to read as follows:
``(C) the extent to which the applicant has undertaken
community-wide strategic planning and needs assessments
involving other community organizations and public agencies
serving children and families (including organizations and
agencies providing family support services and protective
services to children and families, and organizations serving
families in whose homes English is not the language
customarily spoken), and organizations and public entities
serving children with disabilities and homeless children
(including the local educational agency liaison designated
under section 722(g)(1)(J)(ii) of the McKinney-Vento Homeless
Education Assistance Improvements Act of 2001);''.
(16) By inserting in subsection (g)(2)(H) after ``serving
the community involved'' the following: ``, including the
liaison designated under section 722(g)(1)(J)(ii) of the
McKinney-Vento Homeless Education Assistance Improvements Act
of 2001,''.
(17) By adding the following new subsections at the end
thereof:
``(m) Enrollment of Homeless Children.--The Secretary shall
by regulation prescribe policies and procedures to remove
barriers to the enrollment and participation of eligible
homeless children in Head Start programs. Such regulations
shall require Head Start agencies to:
``(1) implement policies and procedures to ensure that
eligible homeless children are identified and prioritized for
enrollment,
``(2) allow homeless families to apply to, enroll in and
attend Head Start programs while required documents, such as
proof of residency, immunization and other medical records,
birth certificates and other documents, are obtained within a
reasonable time frame, and
``(3) coordinate individual Head Start centers and programs
with efforts to implement Subtitle VII-B of the McKinney-
Vento Homeless Assistance Act.
``(n) Savings Provision.--Nothing in this Act shall be
construed to require a State to establish a program of early
education for children in the State, to require any child to
participate in a program of early education, to attend
school, or to participate in any initial screening prior to
participation in such program, except as provided under
section 612(a)(3), (consistent with section 614(a)(1)(C)), of
the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
``(o) Materials.--All curricula and instructional materials
funded under this subchapter shall be scientifically based
and age appropriate. Parents shall have the ability to
inspect, upon request, any curricula or instructional
materials.''.
SEC. 105. DESIGNATION OF AGENCIES.
Section 641 of the Head Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9836) is
amended as follows:
(1) In subsection (a)--
(A) by inserting after ``community'' in the first place it
appears ``, including a community-based or faith-based
organization'';
(B) by inserting ``(1)'' after ``(a)'';
(C) by redesignating paragraphs (1) and (2) as
subparagraphs (A) and (B), respectively; and
(D) by adding the following at the end thereof:
``(2) In order to be designated as a Head Start agency and
to receive a grant under this subchapter, a grantee shall
establish grantee-determined goals for improving the school
readiness of children participating in a program under this
subchapter, which shall include goals for--
``(A) educational instruction in prereading,
premathematical, and language skills; and
``(B) the provision of health, educational, nutritional,
social, and other services.
``(3) In order to receive a grant subsequent to the initial
grant provided following the date of enactment of this
subchapter, the grantee shall demonstrate that it has met the
goals described in paragraph (2).
``(4) Progress in meeting such goals shall not be measured
primarily or solely by the results of assessments.''
(2) By amending subsection (c) to read as follows:
``(c) In the administration of the provisions of this
section, the Secretary shall, in consultation with the chief
executive officer of the State involved if such State expends
non-Federal funds to carry out Head Start programs, give
priority in the designation of Head Start agencies to any
local public or private nonprofit or for-profit agency which
is receiving funds under any Head Start program on the date
of the enactment of this Act that fulfills the program and
financial management requirements, standards described in
section 641A(a)(1), results-based performance measures
developed by the Secretary under section 641A(b), or other
requirements established by the Secretary.''.
(3) By amending subsection (d) to read as follows:
``(d) If no entity in a community is entitled to the
priority specified in subsection (c), then the Secretary may
designate a Head Start agency from among qualified applicants
in such community. In selecting from among qualified
applicants for designation as a Head Start agency, the
Secretary shall give priority to any qualified agency that
functioned as a Head Start delegate agency in the community
and carried out a Head Start program that the Secretary
determines met or exceeded such performance standards and
such results-based performance measures. In selecting from
among qualified applicants for designation as a Head Start
agency, the Secretary shall consider the effectiveness of
each such applicant to provide Head Start services, based
on--
``(1) any past performance of such applicant in providing
services comparable to Head Start services, including how
effectively such applicant provided such comparable services;
``(2) the capacity of such applicant to serve eligible
children with scientifically-based programs that promote
school readiness of children participating in the program;
``(3) the plan of such applicant to meet standards set
forth in section 641A(a)(1), with particular attention to the
standards set forth in subparagraphs (A) and (B) of such
section;
``(4) the plan of such applicant to provide comprehensive
health, nutritional, educational, social, and other services
needed to prepare children to succeed in school;
``(5) the plan of such applicant to coordinate the Head
Start program it proposes to carry out with other preschool
programs, including Early Reading First and Even Start
programs under title I, part B, subparts 1 and 2 of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965; other
preschool programs carried out under title I of the Act;
programs under part C and section 619 of the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act; State prekindergarten programs;
and with the educational programs such children will enter at
the age of compulsory school attendance;
``(6) the plan of such applicant to coordinate the Head
Start program it proposes to carry out with private entities
with resources available to assist the Head Start Program
meet its program needs;
``(7) the plan of such applicant--
``(A) to seek the involvement of parents of participating
children in activities (at home and in the center involved
where practicable) designed to help such parents become full
partners in the education of their children;
``(B) to afford such parents the opportunity to participate
in the development, conduct, and overall performance of the
program at the local level;
[[Page H7565]]
``(C) to offer (directly or through referral to local
entities, such as entities carrying out Even Start programs
under part B of chapter 1 of title I of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 2741 et seq.),
public and school libraries, and family support programs) to
such parents--
``(i) family literacy services; and
``(ii) parenting skills training;
``(D) to offer to parents of participating children
substance abuse counseling (either directly or through
referral to local entities), including information on drug-
exposed infants and fetal alcohol syndrome;
``(E) at the option of such applicant, to offer (directly
or through referral to local entities) to such parents--
``(i) training in basic child development;
``(ii) assistance in developing communication skills;
``(iii) opportunities for parents to share experiences with
other parents; or
``(iv) any other activity designed to help such parents
become full partners in the education of their children;
``(F) to provide, with respect to each participating
family, a family needs assessment that includes consultation
with such parents about the benefits of parent involvement
and about the activities described in subparagraphs (C) (D),
and (E) in which such parents may choose to become involved
(taking into consideration their specific family needs, work
schedules, and other responsibilities); and
``(G) to extend out reach to fathers in order to strengthen
the role of fathers in families by working directly with
fathers and father-figures through such activities as
including fathers in home visits; implementing father
outreach efforts, providing opportunities for direct father-
child interactions; and targeting increased male
participation in the program;
``(8) the ability of such applicant to carry out the plans
described in paragraphs (2), (3), and (4);
``(9) other factors related to the requirements of this
subchapter;
``(10) the plan of such applicant to meet the needs of non-
English background children and their families, including
needs related to the acquisition of the English language;
``(11) the plan of such applicant to meet the needs of
children with disabilities;
``(12) the plan of such applicant who chooses to assist
younger siblings of children who will participate in the
proposed Head Start program to obtain health services from
other sources;
``(13) the plan of such applicant to collaborate with other
entities carrying out early childhood education and child
care programs in the community; and
``(14) the plan of such applicant to meet the needs of
homeless children.''.
SEC. 106. QUALITY STANDARDS; MONITORING OF HEAD START
AGENCIES AND PROGRAMS.
Section 641A of the Head Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9836a) is
amended as follows:
(1) In subsection (a)(1)(B) by amending clause (ii) to read
as follows:
``(ii) additional education standards to ensure that the
children participating in the program, at a minimum develop
and demonstrate--
``(I) language skills;
``(II) prereading knowledge and skills, including interest
in and appreciation of books, reading and writing either
alone or with others;
``(III) premathematics knowledge and skills, including
aspects of classification, seriation, number, spatial
relations, and time;
``(IV) cognitive abilities related to academic achievement;
``(V) social and emotional development important for
environments constructive for child development, early
learning, and school success; and
``(VI) in the case of limited-English proficient children,
progress toward acquisition of the English language.''.
(2) By amending subsection (a)(2)(B) to read as follows:
``(B) take into consideration--
``(i) past experience with use of the standards in effect
under this subchapter on October 27, 1998;
``(ii) changes over the period since October 27, 1998, in
the circumstances and problems typically facing children and
families served by Head Start agencies;
``(iii) developments concerning best practices with respect
to early childhood education and development, children with
disabilities, family services, program administration, and
financial management;
``(iv) projected needs of an expanding Head Start program;
``(v) guidelines and standards currently in effect or under
consideration that promote child health services, and
projected needs of expanding Head Start programs;
``(vi) changes in the population of children who are
eligible to participate in Head Start programs, including the
language background and family structure of such children;
``(vii) the need for, and state-of-the-art developments
relating to, local policies and activities designed to ensure
that children participating in Head Start programs make a
successful transition to schools; and
``(viii) the unique challenges faced by individual
programs, including those that are seasonal or short term,
and those that serve rural populations; and''.
(3) In subsection (a)(2)(C)(ii) by striking all that
follows ``in effect on'' down to the period and inserting
``October 27, 1998''.
(4) By amending subsection (b)(2) to read as follows:
``(2) Characteristics of measures.--The performance
measures developed under this subsection shall--
``(A) be used to assess the impact of the various services
provided by Head Start programs and, to the extent the
Secretary finds appropriate, administrative and financial
management practices of such programs;
``(B) be adaptable for use in self-assessment, peer review,
and program evaluation of individual Head Start agencies and
programs;
``(C) be developed for other program purposes as determined
by the Secretary;
``(D) be appropriate for the population served; and
``(E) be reviewed no less than every 4 years, based on
advances in the science of early childhood development.
The performance measures shall include the performance
standards described in subsection (a)(1)(A) and (B).''.
(5) By amending subsection (b)(4) to read as follows:
``(4) Educational measures.--Results based measures shall
be designed for the purpose of promoting the competencies of
children participating in Head Start programs specified in
subsection (a)(1)(B)(ii), with an emphasis on measuring those
competencies that have a strong scientifically-based
predictability of a child's school readiness and later
performance in school.''.
(6) In subsection (c)(1)(C) by striking ``the standards''
and inserting ``one or more of the performance measures
developed by the Secretary under subsection (b)''.
(7) By amending subsection (c)(2) to read as follows:
``(2) Conduct of reviews.--The Secretary shall ensure that
reviews described in subparagraphs (A) through (C) of
paragraph (1)--
``(A) that incorporate a monitoring visit, do so without
prior notice of the visit to the local agency or program;
``(B) are conducted by review teams that shall include
individuals who are knowledgeable about Head Start programs
and, to the maximum extent practicable, the diverse
(including linguistic and cultural) needs of eligible
children (including children with disabilities) and limited-
English proficient children and their families;
``(C) include as part of the reviews of the programs, a
review and assessment of program effectiveness, as measured
in accordance with the results-based performance measures
developed by the Secretary pursuant to subsection (b) and
with the standards established pursuant to subparagraphs (A)
and (B) of subsection (a)(1);
``(D) seek information from the communities and the States
involved about the performance of the programs and the
efforts of the Head Start agencies to collaborate with other
entities carrying out early childhood education and child
care programs in the community;
``(E) seek information from the communities where Head
Start programs exist about innovative or effective
collaborative efforts, barriers to collaboration, and the
efforts of the Head Start agencies and programs to
collaborate with the entities carrying out early childhood
education and child care programs in the community;
``(F) include as part of the reviews of the programs, a
review and assessment of whether a program is in conformity
with the income eligibility requirements, as defined in
section 645 and regulations promulgated thereunder;
``(G) include as part of the reviews of the programs, a
review and assessment of whether programs have adequately
addressed the population and community needs (including
populations of children with a limited English proficiency
and children of migrant and seasonal farm-working families);
and
``(H) include as part of the review the extent to which the
program addresses the community needs and strategic plan
identified in section 640(g)(2)(C).''.
(8) By amending so much of subsection (d)(1) as precedes
subparagraph (A) to read as follows:
``(1) Determination.--If the Secretary determines, on the
basis of a review pursuant to subsection (c), that a Head
Start agency designated pursuant to section 641 fails to meet
the standards described in subsection (a) or results-based
performance measures developed by the Secretary under
subsection (b), or fails to adequately address the community
needs and strategic plan identified in 640(g)(2)(C), the
Secretary shall--''
(9) By amending subsection (d)(2) to read as follows:
``(2) Quality improvement plan.--
``(A) Agency and program responsibilities.--In order to
retain a designation as a Head Start agency under this
subchapter, or in the case of a Head Start Program, in order
to continue to receive funds from such agency, a Head Start
agency, or Head Start program that is the subject of a
determination described in paragraph (1) (other than an
agency or program required to correct a deficiency
immediately or during a 90-day period under clause (i) or
(ii) of paragraph (1)(B)) shall--
``(i) develop in a timely manner, a quality improvement
plan which shall be subject to the approval of the Secretary,
or in the case of a program, the sponsoring agency, and which
shall specify--
``(I) the deficiencies to be corrected;
[[Page H7566]]
``(II) the actions to be taken to correct such
deficiencies; and
``(III) the timetable for accomplishment of the corrective
actions specified; and
``(ii) eliminate each deficiency identified, not later than
the date for elimination of such deficiency specified in such
plan (which shall not be later than 1 year after the date the
agency or program received notice of the determination and of
the specific deficiency to be corrected).
``(B) Secretarial responsibility.--Not later than 30 days
after receiving from a Head Start agency a proposed quality
improvement plan pursuant to subparagraph (A), the Secretary
shall either approve such proposed plan or specify the
reasons why the proposed plan cannot be approved.
``(C) Agency responsibility for program improvement.--Not
later than 30 days after receiving from a Head Start program,
a proposed quality improvement plan pursuant to subparagraph
(A), the sponsoring agency shall either approve such proposed
plan or specify the reasons why the proposed plan cannot be
approved.''.
(10) In subsection (d)(3) by inserting ``and programs''
after ``agencies''.
(11) Subsection (e) is amended to read as follows:
``(e) Summaries of Monitoring Outcomes.--Not later than 120
days after the end of each fiscal year, the Secretary shall
publish a summary report on the findings of reviews conducted
under subsection (c) and on the outcomes of quality
improvement plans implemented under subsection (d), during
such fiscal year. Such information shall be made available to
all parents with students receiving assistance under this Act
in a understandable and uniform format, and to the extent
practicable, provided in a language that the parents can
understand, and in addition, make the information widely
available through public means such as distribution through
public agencies, and at a minimum posting such information on
the Internet immediately upon publication.''.
SEC. 107. POWERS AND FUNCTIONS OF HEAD START AGENCIES.
Section 642 of the Head Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9837(b)) is
amended as follows:
(1) By amending subsection (b) to read as follows:
``(b) In order to be so designated, a Head Start agency
shall also--
``(1) establish a program with standards set forth in
section 641A(a)(1), with particular attention to the
standards set forth in subparagraphs (A) and (B) of such
section;
``(2) demonstrate capacity to serve eligible children with
scientifically-based curricula and other interventions that
help promote the school readiness of children participating
in the program;
``(3) establish effective procedures by which parents and
area residents concerned will be enabled to directly
participate in decisions that influence the character of
programs affecting their interests;
``(4) provide for their regular participation in the
implementation of such programs;
``(5) provide technical and other support needed to enable
parents and area residents to secure on their own behalf
available assistance from public and private sources;
``(6) seek the involvement of parents of participating
children in activities designed to help such parents become
full partners in the education of their children, and to
afford such parents the opportunity to participate in the
development, conduct, and overall performance of the program
at the local level;
``(7) conduct outreach to schools in which Head Start
children enroll, local educational agencies, the local
business community, community-based organizations, faith-
based organizations, museums, and libraries to generate
support and leverage the resources of the entire local
community in order to improve school readiness;
``(8) offer (directly or through referral to local
entities, such as entities carrying out Even Start programs
under part B of chapter 1 of title I of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 2741 et seq.)), to
parents of participating children, family literacy services
and parenting skills training;
``(9) offer to parents of participating children substance
abuse counseling (either directly or through referral to
local entities), including information on drug-exposed
infants and fetal alcohol syndrome;
``(10) at the option of such agency, offer (directly or
through referral to local entities), to such parents--
``(A) training in basic child development;
``(B) assistance in developing communication skills;
``(C) opportunities to share experiences with other
parents;
``(D) regular in-home visitation; or
``(E) any other activity designed to help such parents
become full partners in the education of their children;
``(11) provide, with respect to each participating family,
a family needs assessment that includes consultation with
such parents about the benefits of parent involvement and
about the activities described in paragraphs (4) through (7)
in which such parents may choose to be involved (taking into
consideration their specific family needs, work schedules,
and other responsibilities);
``(12) consider providing services to assist younger
siblings of children participating in its Head Start program
to obtain health services from other sources;
``(13) perform community outreach to encourage individuals
previously unaffiliated with Head Start programs to
participate in its Head Start program as volunteers; and
``(14)(A) inform custodial parents in single-parent
families that participate in programs, activities, or
services carried out or provided under this subchapter about
the availability of child support services for purposes of
establishing paternity and acquiring child support; and
``(B) refer eligible parents to the child support offices
of State and local governments.''.
(2) Amend subsection (c) to read as follows:
``(c) The head of each Head Start agency shall coordinate
and collaborate with the State agency responsible for
administering the State program carried out under the Child
Care and Development Block Grant Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 9858
et seq.), and other early childhood education and development
programs, including programs under subtitle VII-B of the
McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11431-
11435), Even Start programs under part B of chapter 1 of
title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965
(20 U.S.C. 2741 et seq.), and programs under Part C and
section 619 of the Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act (20 U.S.C. 1431-1445, 1419), and the Child Abuse
Prevention and Treatment Act (42 U.S.C. 5106a), serving the
children and families served by the Head Start agency to
carry out the provisions of this subchapter.''.
(3) In subsection (d) by redesignating paragraphs (2)
through (4) as paragraph (3) through (5) and inserting the
following new paragraph after paragraph (1):
``(2) In communities where both public prekindergarten
programs and Head Start programs operate, a Head Start agency
shall coordinate with the local educational agency or other
public agency responsible for the operation of the
prekindergarten program and providers of prekindergarten,
including for outreach to identify eligible children.''.
(5) In paragraph (3) (as redesignated) of subsection (d),
strike ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (A) and insert the
following after subparagraph (A) and redesignate subparagraph
(B) as (C):
``(B) collaborating to increase the program participation
of underserved populations of eligible children; and''.
SEC. 108. HEAD START ALIGNMENT WITH K-12 EDUCATION.
Section 642A of the Head Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9837a) is
amended as follows:
(1) The heading is amended to read as follows:
``SEC. 642A. HEAD START ALIGNMENT WITH K-12 EDUCATION.''.
(2) In paragraph (2) after ``social workers,'' insert the
following: ``McKinney-Vento liaisons as established under
section 722 (g)(1)(J)(ii) of the McKinney-Vento Homeless
Education Assistance Improvements Act of 2001,''.
(3) Add the following new paragraph after paragraph (2) and
redesignated paragraphs (3) through (7) as (4) through (8):
``(3) developing continuity of developmentally appropriate
curricula between Head Start and local educational agencies
to ensure an effective transition and appropriate shared
expectations for children's learning and development as they
make such transition to school;''.
(4) Paragraph (6)(as redesignated by paragraph (3) of this
section) is amended to read as follows:
``(6) developing and implementing a family outreach and
support program in cooperation with entities carrying out
parental involvement efforts under Title I of the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act of 1965 and family outreach and
support efforts under subtitle VII-B of the McKinney-Vento
Homeless Assistance Act;''.
(4) In paragraph (7)(as redesignated by paragraph (3) of
this section) by inserting ``and continuity in parental
involvement activities'' after ``developmental continuity''.
(5) Strike ``and'' at the end of paragraph (7)(as
redesignated by paragraph (3) of this section) and strike the
period at the end of paragraph (8)(as redesignated by
paragraph (3) of this section) and insert a semicolon.
(6) Add the following after paragraph (8):
``(9) helping parents to understand the importance of
parental involvement in a child's academic success while
teaching them strategies for maintaining parental involvement
as their child moves from Head Start to elementary school;
and
``(10) developing and implementing a system to increase
program participation of underserved populations of eligible
children.''.
SEC. 109. ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS AND STANDARDS.
Section 644 of the Head Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9839) is
amended in subsection (f)(2) by redesignating subparagraphs
(A) through (E) as (B) through (F) and inserting the
following new subparagraph before subparagraph (B) (as so
redesignated):
``(A) a description of the consultation conducted by the
Head Start agency with the providers in the community
demonstrating capacity and capability to provide services
under this Act, and of the potential for collaboration with
such providers and the cost effectiveness of such
collaboration as opposed to the cost effectiveness of the
purchase of a facility;''
SEC. 110. ELIGIBILITY.
Section 645(a) of the Head Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9843) is
amended as follows:
(1) By striking ``to a reasonable extent'' in paragraph
(1)(B)(i) and inserting ``not to exceed 10 percent of the
total enrollment'' and
[[Page H7567]]
by striking ``benefit from such programs'' and inserting
``benefit from such programs, including children referred by
child welfare services,'' .
(2) By adding the following new paragraph at the end
thereof:
``(3) The amount of a basic allowance provided under
section 403 of title 37, United States Code, on behalf of an
individual who is a member of the uniformed services for
housing that is acquired or constructed under the authority
of subchapter IV of chapter 169 of title 10, United States
Code, or any other related provision of law, shall not be
considered to be income for purposes of determining the
eligibility of a child of the individual for programs
assisted under this subchapter.''.
SEC. 111. EARLY HEAD START PROGRAMS.
(a) In General.--Section 645A of the Head Start Act (42
U.S.C. 9643) is amended as follows:
(1) By amending paragraphs (4) and (5) of subsection (b) to
read as follows:
``(4) provide services to parents to support their role as
parents (including parenting skills training and training in
basic child development) and to help the families move toward
self-sufficiency (including educational and employment
services as appropriate);
``(5) coordinate services with services (including home-
based services) provided by programs in the State and
programs in the community (including programs for infants and
toddlers with disabilities) to ensure a comprehensive array
of services (such as health and mental health services, and
family support services);''.
(2) By amending paragraph (8) of subsection (b) to read as
follows:
``(8) ensure formal linkages with the agencies and entities
described in section 644(b) of the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1444(b)) and providers
of early intervention services for infants and toddlers with
disabilities under the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq.) and the agency
responsible for administering the Section 106 of the Child
Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (42 U.S.C. 5106a); and''.
(3) In subsection (g)(2)(B) by striking ``and'' at the end
of clause (iii), by striking the period at the end of clause
(iv) and inserting ``; and'' and by inserting the following
at the end:
``(v) providing professional development designed to
increase program participation for underserved populations of
eligible children.''.
(b) Migrant and Seasonal Programs.--Section 645A(d)(1) of
the Head Start Act (42 US.C. 9643(d)(1)) is amended to read
as follows:
``(1) entities operating Head Start programs under this
subpart, including migrant and seasonal Head Start programs;
and''.
(c) Community- and Faith-Based Organizations.--Section
645A(d)(2) of the Head Start Act (42 US.C. 9643(d)(21)) is
amended by inserting ``, including community- and faith-based
organizations'' after ``entities'' in the second place it
appears.
SEC. 112. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND TRAINING.
Section 648 of the Head Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9843) is
amended as follows:
(1) By inserting the following new subsection after
subsection (a) and redesignating subsections (b) through (e)
as subsections (c) through (f):
``(b) The Secretary shall make available to each State the
money reserved in section 640(a)(2)(C)(ii) to support a
State-based system delivering training and technical
assistance that improves the capacity of Head Start programs
within a State to deliver services in accordance with the
Head Start standards in section 641A(a)(1), with particular
attention to the standards set forth in subparagraphs (A) and
(B) of such section. The Secretary shall--
``(1) ensure eligible entities within a State are chosen by
the Secretary, in consultation with the State Collaboration
Board described in section 640(a)(5)(C)(i), through a
competitive bid process;
``(2) ensure that existing agencies with demonstrated
expertise in providing high quality training and technical
assistance to improve the delivery of Head Start services,
including the State Head Start Association, State agencies,
migrant and seasonal Head Start programs operating in the
State, and other entities currently providing training and
technical assistance in early education, be included in the
planning and coordination of the State system of training and
technical assistance; and
``(3) encourage States to supplement the funds authorized
in section 640(a)(2)(C)(ii) with State, Federal, or local
funds other than Head Start funds, to expand activities
beyond Head Start agencies to include other providers of
other early childhood services within a State.''.
(2) In subsection (d) (as redesignated):
(A) In paragraph (2), after ``disabilities'' insert ``and
for activities described in section 1221(b)(3) of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965''.
(B) In paragraph (5) after ``assessment'' insert ``,
including the needs of homeless children and their
families''.
(C) By striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (10), by
striking the period at the end of paragraph (11) and
inserting ``; and'' and by inserting the following at the
end:
``(12) assist Head Start agencies and programs in
increasing program participation of eligible homeless
children.''.
(3) In subsection (e) (as redesignated by paragraph (1)) by
inserting ``, including community- and faith-based
organizations'' after ``entities''.
(4) By amending subsection (f) (as redesignated by
paragraph (1)) to read as follows:
``(f) The Secretary shall provide, either directly or
through grants or other arrangements, funds from programs
authorized under this subchapter to support an organization
to administer a centralized child development and national
assessment program leading to recognized credentials for
personnel working in early childhood development and child
care programs, training for personnel providing services to
non-English language background children (including services
to promote the acquisition of the English language), training
for personnel providing services to children determined to be
abused or neglected, training for personnel providing
services to children referred by or receiving child welfare
services, training for personnel in helping children cope
with community violence, and resource access projects for
personnel working with disabled children.''.
(5) Insert at the end of the section:
``(g) Helping Personnel Better Serve Migrant and Seasonal
Farm-Working Communities and Homeless Families.--The
Secretary shall provide, either directly or through grants,
or other arrangements, funds for training of Head Start
personnel in addressing the unique needs of migrant and
seasonal working families, families with a limited English
proficiency, and homeless families.
``(h) Authorized Activities.--The majority of funds
expended under this section shall be used to provide high
quality, sustained, intensive, and classroom-focused training
and technical assistance in order to have a positive and
lasting impact on classroom instruction. Funds shall be used
to carry out activities related to any or all of the
following:
``(1) Education and early childhood development.
``(2) Child health, nutrition, and safety.
``(3) Family and community partnerships.
``(4) Other areas that impact the quality or overall
effectiveness of Head Start programs.
``(i) Prohibition on Use of Funds.--Funds under this
subchapter used for training shall be used for needs
identified annually by a grant applicant or delegate agency
in their program improvement plan, except that funds shall
not be used for long-distance travel expenses for training
activities available locally or regionally or for training
activities substantially similar to locally or regionally
available training activities.
``(j) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term
`eligible entities' means an institution of higher education
or other entity with expertise in delivering training in
early childhood development, family support, and other
assistance designed to improve the delivery of Head Start
services.''.
SEC. 113. STAFF QUALIFICATIONS AND DEVELOPMENT.
Section 648A of the Head Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9843a) is
amended as follows:
(1) By amending paragraph (2) of subsection (a) to read as
follows:
``(2) Degree requirements.--
``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall ensure that not
later than September 30, 2008, at least 50 percent of all
Head Start teachers nationwide in center-based programs
have--
``(i) a baccalaureate, or advanced degree in early
childhood education; or
``(ii) a baccalaureate, or advanced degree in a field
related to early childhood education, with experience in
teaching preschool children.
``(B) Progress.--Each Head State agency shall provide to
the Secretary a report indicating the number and percentage
of classroom instructors with child development associate
credentials and associate, baccalaureate, or advanced
degrees. The Secretary shall compile all program reports and
make them available to the Committee on Education and the
Workforce of the United States House of Representatives and
the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions of
the United States Senate.
``(C) Requirement for new head start teachers.--Within 3
years after the date of enactment of this clause, the
Secretary shall require that all Head Start teachers
nationwide in center-based programs hired following the date
of enactment of this subparagraph--
``(i) have an associate, baccalaureate, or advanced degree
in early childhood education;
``(ii) have an associate, baccalaureate, or advanced degree
in a field related to early childhood education, with
experience in teaching preschool children; or
``(iii) be currently enrolled in a program of study leading
to an associate degree in early childhood education and agree
to complete degree requirements within 3 years from the date
of hire.
``(D) Service requirements.--The Secretary shall establish
requirements to ensure that individuals who receive financial
assistance under this Act in order to comply with the
requirements under section 648A(a)(2) shall subsequently
teach in a Head Start center for a period of time equivalent
to the period for which they received assistance or repay the
amount of the funds.''.
(2) By adding the following at the end thereof:
``(f) Professional Development Plans.--Every Head Start
agency and program shall create, in consultation with an
employee, a
[[Page H7568]]
professional development plan for all full-time employees who
provide direct services to children.''.
SEC. 114. RESEARCH, DEMONSTRATIONS, AND EVALUATION.
Section 649 of the Head Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9844) is
amended as follows:
(1) By amending subsection (a)(1)(B) to read as follows:
``(B) use the Head Start programs to develop, test, and
disseminate new ideas and approaches for addressing the needs
of low-income preschool children (including children with
disabilities and children determined to be abused or
neglected) and their families and communities (including
demonstrations of innovative non-center based program models
such as home-based and mobile programs), and otherwise to
further the purposes of this subchapter.''.
(2) By striking paragraph (9) of subsection (d) and
inserting ``(9) Repealed.--''.
(3) By striking clause (i) of subsection (g)(1)(A) and
redesignating clauses (ii) and (iii) as clauses (i) and (ii).
(4) In subsection (g)(7)(C)(i) by striking ``1999'' and
inserting ``2003'', striking ``2001'' and inserting ``2005'',
and striking ``2003'' and inserting ``2006''.
(5) By amending subsection (h) to read as follows:
``(h) NAS Study.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall use funds allocated
in section 640(a)(2)(C)(iii) to contract with the National
Academy of Sciences for the Board on Children, Youth, and
Families of the National Research Council to establish an
independent panel of experts to review and synthesize
research, theory and applications in the social, behavioral
and biological sciences and shall make recommendations on
early childhood pedagogy with regard to each of the
following:
``(A) Age and developmentally appropriate Head Start
academic requirements and outcomes, including but not limited
to the domains in 641A(a)(B).
``(B) Differences in the type, length, mix and intensity of
services necessary to ensure that children from challenging
family and social backgrounds including: low-income children,
children of color, children with special needs, and children
with limited English proficiency enter kindergarten ready to
succeed.
``(C) Appropriate assessments of young children for the
purposes of improving instruction, services, and program
quality, including systematic observation assessment in a
child's natural environment, parent and provider interviews,
and accommodations for children with disabilities and
appropriate assessments for children with special needs,
including English language learners.
``(2) Composition.--The panel shall consist of multiple
experts in each of the following areas:
``(A) Child development and education, including cognitive,
social, emotional, physical, approaches to learning, and
other domains of child development and learning.
``(B) Professional development, including teacher
preparation, to individuals who teach young children in
programs.
``(C) Assessment of young children, including screening,
diagnostic and classroom-based instructional assessment;
children with special needs, including children with
disabilities and limited English proficient children.
``(3) Timing.--The National Academy of Sciences and the
Board shall establish the panel not later than 90 days after
the date of enactment of this paragraph. The panel should
complete its recommendations within 18 months of its
convening.
``(4) Application of panel report.--The results of the
panel study shall be used as guidelines by the Secretary to
develop, inform and revise, where appropriate, the Head Start
education performance measures and standards and the
assessments utilized in the Head Start program.''.
SEC. 115. REPORTS.
Section 650 of the Head Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9845) is
amended as follows:
(1) The first sentence of subsection (a) is amended to read
as follows: ``At least once during every 2-year period, the
Secretary shall prepare and submit, to the Committee on
Education and the Workforce of the House of Representatives
and the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions of
the Senate, a report concerning the status of children
(including disabled, homeless, and non-English language
background children) in Head Start programs, including the
number of children and the services being provided to such
children.''.
(2) Paragraph (8) of subsection (a) is amended by inserting
``, homelessness'' after ``background''.
SEC. 116. HEAD START NONDISCRIMINATION PROVISIONS.
Section 654 of the Head Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9849) is
amended to read as follows:
``SEC. 654. NONDISCRIMINATION PROVISIONS.
``(a)(1) The Secretary shall not provide financial
assistance for any program, project, or activity under this
subchapter unless the grant or contract with respect thereto
specifically provides that no person with responsibilities in
the operation thereof will discriminate with respect to any
such program, project, or activity because of race, creed,
color, national origin, sex, political affiliation, or
beliefs.
``(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to a recipient of
financial assistance under this subchapter that is a
religious corporation, association, educational institution,
or society, with respect to the employment of individuals of
a particular religion to perform work connected with the
carrying on by such corporation, association, educational
institution, or society of its activities. Such recipients
shall comply with the other requirements contained in this
subsection.
``(b) No person in the United States shall on the ground of
sex be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits
of, be subjected to discrimination under, or be denied
employment in connection with any program or activity
receiving assistance under this subchapter. The Secretary
shall enforce the provisions of the preceding sentence in
accordance with section 602 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Section 603 of such Act shall apply with respect to any
action taken by the Secretary to enforce such sentence. This
section shall not be construed as affecting any other legal
remedy that a person may have if such person is excluded from
participation in, denied the benefit of, subjected to
discrimination under, or denied employment (except as
provided in subsection (a)(2)), in the administration of any
program, project, or activity receiving assistance under this
subchapter.
``(c) The Secretary shall not provide financial assistance
for any program, project, or activity under this subchapter
unless the grant or contract relating to the financial
assistance specifically provides that no person with
responsibilities in the operation of the program, project, or
activity will discriminate against any individual because of
a handicapping condition in violation of section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, except as provided in subsection
(a)(2).''.
SEC. 117. EFFECTIVE DATE.
The amendments made by this Act shall be effective with
respect to fiscal years beginning on and after October 1,
2003.
TITLE II--STATE DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM
SEC. 201. STATE DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM.
The Head Start Act is amended by inserting after section
643 the following new section:
``SEC. 643A. STATE DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM.
``(a) Grants.--
``(1) In general.--
``(A) Eligible states.--In the case of each eligible State
that submits to the Secretary an application that fulfills
the requirements of this section, the Secretary, from amounts
appropriated under section 639(a), shall make a grant to the
State to carry out a State demonstration program under this
section, except that the Secretary shall not make such grants
to more than 8 eligible States.
``(B) Determination.--The Secretary shall make awards to
those States that demonstrate--
``(i) that the State standards generally meet or exceed the
standards that ensure the quality and effectiveness of
programs operated by Head Start agencies;
``(ii) the capacity to deliver high quality early childhood
education services to prepare children, including low-income
children, for school; and
``(iii) success in improving the school readiness of
children.
``(2) State eligibility.--A State shall be eligible to
participate in the program under this section if it meets
each of the following criteria:
``(A) The State has an existing State supported system
providing public prekindergarten to children prior to entry
into kindergarten.
``(B) The State has implemented standards as of fiscal year
2003 for school readiness that include standards for
language, prereading and premathematics development for
prekindergarten that are aligned with State kindergarten
through twelfth grade academic content standards and which
shall apply to all programs receiving funds under this part
or provides an assurance that such standards will be aligned
by the end of the second fiscal year of participation.
``(C) State and locally appropriated funds for
prekindergarten services and Head Start services in the base
year under this section shall not be less than 50 percent of
the Federal funds that the grantees in the State received
under this Act in the base year for services to Head Start
eligible children, excluding amounts for services provided
under section 645A.
``(D) The State has established a means for inter-agency
coordination and collaboration in the development of the plan
under subsection (h).
``(b) Lead Agency.--A program under this section shall be
administered by a State governmental entity designated by the
Chief Executive Officer of the State as the lead State
agency.
``(c) State Operation of Program.--The State may conduct
all or any part of the program under this section (including
the activities specified in subsection (g)) directly or by
grant, contract, or cooperative agreement.
``(d) Transition.--
``(1) In general.--For 60 months after the effective date
of this section, the State shall continue to provide funds to
each local grantee who--
``(A) was receiving funds under this subchapter, as in
effect prior to the date of enactment of this section; and
``(B) is serving the geographic area covered by the plan in
section 643A(h).
Such continuing grants shall be made in accordance with the
terms of the grant made to the local grantee immediately
prior to
[[Page H7569]]
such date of enactment. This paragraph shall not apply to a
grant applicant who has experienced substantial uncorrected
deficiencies on Department of Health and Human Services
monitoring reports during any year of the most recent 5-year
period, or to a grantee that, as determined by the State,
does not comply with the State plan described in subsection
643A(h) submitted to the Secretary.
``(e) Federal Financial Assistance.--
``(1) Allocation of federal allotments to state programs.--
From each total amount described in paragraph (2) allotted to
a State for a fiscal year, the Secretary shall pay to a State
with a program approved under this section for such fiscal
year an amount equal to--
``(A) if the State program is statewide, 100 percent of
such total amount; and
``(B) if the State program is limited to a geographic area
or areas, the sum of--
``(i) an amount equal to the amount received by grantees in
such geographic area or areas for the Federal fiscal year
preceding the first fiscal year of the State program under
this section; plus
``(ii) an amount bearing the same ratio to the excess (if
any) above the total amount for such preceding fiscal year as
the number of children less than 5 years of age from families
whose income is below the poverty line in the geographic area
or areas included in the program bears to the total number of
such children in the State (as determined using the same data
used pursuant to section 640(a)(4)(B)).
``(2) Funds allocated.--For purposes of paragraph (1),
amounts described in this paragraph are:
``(A) Basic state allotments.--Amounts allotted to States
pursuant to section 640(a)(4), including amounts reserved
pursuant to section 640(a)(5), excluding amounts for services
provided under section 645A.
``(B) State allotments of expansion funds.--Amounts
allotted to States pursuant to section 640(a)(3)(D)(i)(I) for
program expansion.
``(C) Quality improvement funds.--Quality improvement funds
(if any) reserved pursuant to section 640(a)(3).
``(D) Training and technical assistance funds.--An amount
bearing the same ratio to the amount set aside for training
and technical assistance activities pursuant to section
640(a)(2)(C)(i) and (ii) as the State's share of amounts
allotted under section 640(a)(4)(B) bears to the total amount
so allotted (and for purposes of subparagraph (A), such
amount shall be considered an amount allotted to the State
for the fiscal year).
``(3) Non-federal match.--(A) In determining the amount of
Federal and non-Federal contributions for purposes of this
section, the amounts required to be expended by the State
under subsection (h)(14)(B) (relating to maintenance of
effort) shall be excluded.
``(B) Financial assistance made available to a State under
this subchapter shall be in an amount equal to 95 percent of
the total amount expended for such programs. The Secretary
shall require non-Federal contributions in an amount equal to
5 percent of the total amount expended under this subchapter
for such programs.
``(C) Non-Federal contributions may be made in cash or in
kind, fairly evaluated, including plant, equipment, or
services.
``(4) Combined operations with other early childhood
education programs.--A State may combine funds for a program
under this section with funds for other early childhood
programs serving children in the same age group, as long as
all applicable requirements of this subchapter are met with
respect to either--
``(A) the entire combined program; or
``(B) each child served in such combined program for whom
the services provided are funded from appropriations under
this subchapter or non-Federal matching contributions under
this subchapter.
``(5) Use of funds without regard to allotment purposes.--A
State may use funds received pursuant to this section for any
program purpose set forth in section 636, without regard to
the purposes for such funds specified in section 640.
``(6) Other funds.--Funds received under this section shall
not supplant any non-Federal, State or local funds that would
otherwise be used for activities authorized under this
section or similar activities carried out in the State.
``(f) Coordination and Choice.--
``(1) In general.--A State demonstration Program shall be
coordinated with the education programs of local educational
agencies in the State to ensure that the program is
effectively designed to develop in children in the program
the knowledge and behaviors necessary to transition
successfully to kindergarten and to succeed in school.
``(2) Programs concerned.--
``(A) Required programs.--Such coordination shall occur
regarding the implementation of the following:
``(i) The Early Reading First and Even Start programs under
title I, part B, subparts 2 and 3 of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965, and other preschool programs
carried out under title I of that Act.
``(ii) State prekindergarten programs.
``(iii) The Ready-to-Learn Television Program under subpart
3 of Part D of title II of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act.
``(B) Optional programs.--Such coordination may occur
regarding the implementation of the following:
``(i) Programs under the Child Care and Development Block
Grant Act.
``(ii) Other publicly funded early childhood education
programs.
``(3) Parental choice.--The program shall allow parents to
choose the preschool program for their child.
``(g) Required Services.--With funds under this section,
the State shall provide services described in section 641A at
least as extensive as were provided, and to at least as many
low-income children and families in each fiscal year as were
provided such services, with such funds in the base year in
the State (or, if applicable, in the geographic area included
in the State program). A program under this section shall
include the following comprehensive activities designed to
promote school readiness and success in school:
``(1) Child development and education.--Activities with
enrolled children that promote--
``(A) cognitive development, language development,
prereading, and premathematics knowledge and skills;
``(B) physical development, health, and nutrition
(including through coordination with, and referral of
children and families to local health service entities; and
``(C) social development important for environments
constructive for child development, early learning, and
school success.
``(2) Parent education and involvement.--Activities with
the parents of enrolled children directed at enhancing and
encouraging--
``(A) involvement in, and ability to support, their
children's educational development;
``(B) parenting skills and understanding of child
development; and
``(C) ability to participate effectively in decisions
relating to the education of their children.
``(3) Social and family support services.--Activities
directed at securing appropriate social and family support
services for enrolled children and their families, primarily
through referral and coordination with local, State, and
Federal entities that provide such services.
``(4) Head start services.--For purposes of paragraph (1)
Head Start services furnished in a State program under this
section shall include all Head Start services, other than--
``(A) Indian Head Start programs and migrant and seasonal
Head Start programs supported with funds reserved under
section 640(a)(2)(A); and
``(B) Early Head Start services provided under section
645A.
``(h) State Plan.--A State proposing to administer a
program under this section shall submit a State plan to the
Secretary. The State plan shall include the following:
``(1) Lead state agency.--The plan shall identify the
entity designated by the Chief Executive Officer of the State
as the lead State agency.
``(2) Geographic area.--The plan shall specify whether the
program is statewide, and, if it is not, identify the
geographic area or areas covered by the plan. A geographic
area may be a city, county, standard metropolitan statistical
area, or such other geographic area in the State.
``(3) Program period.--A State program under this section
shall be in effect for 5 Federal fiscal years.
``(4) Program description.--The plan shall describe the
services under subsection (f) to be provided in the program
and arrangements the State proposes to use to provide the
services specified in subsection (g), including how the State
will leverage existing delivery systems for such services.
``(5) Needs assessment.--The plan shall describe the
results of a State needs assessment and shall provide an
assurance that the State will use the results to identify the
needs for early childhood education services within a State
or geographic area to be served and is targeting services to
those areas of greatest need and to expand and improve
services to disadvantaged children in the State.
``(6) Assurance of compliance.--The plan shall provide an
assurance that the State program will comply with the
requirements of this section, including each of the
following:
``(A) Priority for low-income children.--Requirements
established pursuant to section 645(a) concerning the
eligibility and priority of individuals for participation in
Head Start programs.
``(B) Continuation for existing providers.--An applicant
who received funds under this subchapter in prior fiscal
years and has not corrected any substantial deficiencies
identified in the past 5 years shall not be eligible to
receive any grants, contract, or cooperative agreements under
this section.
``(C) Participation of children with disabilities.--
Requirements pursuant to section 640(d) concerning Head Start
enrollment opportunities and services for children with
disabilities.
``(D) Provisions concerning fees and copayments.--The
provisions of section 645(b) concerning the charging of fees
and the circumstances under which copayments are permissible.
``(E) Federal share; state and local matching.--The
provisions of section 640(b) limiting Federal financial
assistance for
[[Page H7570]]
Head Start programs, and providing for non-Federal
contributions.
``(F) Administrative costs.--The provisions of section
644(b) limiting the share of program funds that may be used
for developing and administering a program.
``(G) Federal property interest.--Applicable provisions of
this subchapter regarding the Federal Government interest in
property (including real property) purchased, leased, or
renovated with Federal funds.
``(7) Identification of barriers.--The plan shall identify
barriers in the State to the effective use of Federal, State,
and local public funds, and private funds, for early
education and care that are available to the State on the
date on which the application is submitted.
``(8) State guidelines for school readiness.--The plan
shall include--
``(A) a State definition of school readiness;
``(B) a description of the State's general goals for school
readiness, including how the State intends to--
``(i) promote and maintain ongoing communication and
collaboration between providers of early care and education
and local educational agencies in the State;
``(ii) align early childhood and kindergarten curricula to
ensure program continuity; and
``(iii) ensure that children successfully transition to
kindergarten.
``(9) Teacher qualifications.--The plan shall assure that
the qualifications and credentials for early childhood
teachers meet or exceed the standards in section
648A(a)(2)(A), (B), and (C).
``(10) Professional development.--The plan shall provide a
description of the State plan for assuring the ongoing
professional development of early childhood educators and
administrators including how the State intends to--
``(A) improve the competencies of early childhood educators
in meeting the cognitive and other developmental needs of
young children through effective instructional strategies,
methods, and skills;
``(B) develop and implement initiatives to effectively
recruit and promote the retention of well-qualified early
childhood educators;
``(C) encourage institutions of higher education, providers
of community-based training, and other qualified providers to
develop high-quality programs to prepare students to be early
childhood education professionals; and
``(D) improve the quality of professional development
available to meet the needs of teachers that serve preschool
children.
``(11) Quality standards.--The State shall describe the
State's standards, applicable to all agencies, programs, and
projects that receive funds under this subchapter, including
a description of--
``(A) standards with respect to services required to be
provided, including health, parental involvement,
nutritional, social, transition activities described in
section 642(d) of this subchapter, and other services;
``(B)(i) education standards to promote the school
readiness of children participating in a State program under
Title II of this subchapter; and
``(ii) additional education standards to ensure that the
children participating in the program, at a minimum develop
and demonstrate--
``(I) language skills;
``(II) prereading knowledge and skills, including interest
in and appreciation of books, reading and writing either
alone or with others;
``(III) premathematics knowledge and skills, including
aspects of classification, seriation, number, spatial
relations, and time;
``(IV) cognitive abilities related to academic achievement;
``(V) social development important for environments
constructive for child development, early learning, and
school success; and
``(VI) in the case of limited-English proficient children,
progress toward acquisition of the English language;
``(C) the State's minimum standards for early childhood
teacher credentials and qualifications;
``(D) the student-teacher ratio for each age-group served;
``(E) administrative and financial management standards;
``(F) standards relating to the condition and location of
facilities for such agencies, programs, and projects; and
``(G) such other standards as the State finds to be
appropriate.
``(12) State accountability system.--
``(A) In general.--The State plan shall--
``(i) ensure that individual providers are achieving
results in advancing the knowledge and behaviors identified
by the State as prerequisites for kindergarten success; and
``(ii) specify the measures the State will use to evaluate
the progress toward achieving such results and the
effectiveness of the State program under this section, and of
individual providers in such program.
``(B) Publication of results.--
``(i) In general.--Subject to clause (ii), the results
shall be made publicly available in the communities served by
the program.
``(ii) Confidentiality safeguards.--The system shall have
in effect privacy safeguards ensuring that information on
children included in data and results made public in
accordance with clause (i) shall be in aggregated form, and
shall not include information allowing identification of
individual children.
``(13) Transition plan.--The initial State plan shall make
provision for transition from the direct Federal program
under section 640 to the demonstration program.
``(14) Cooperation with research studies.--The plan shall
provide assurances that the State will cooperate with
research activities described in section 649.
``(15) Maintenance of effort.--The State plan shall--
``(A) contain a commitment to provide data, at such times
and in such format as the Secretary requires, concerning non-
Federal expenditures and numbers of children and families
served in preschool and Head Start programs during the base
year and each fiscal year covered under the State plan,
sufficient to satisfy the Secretary that the State program
will meet its obligation with respect to the maintenance of
effort requirement under subparagraph (B); and
``(B) assure that the resources (which may be cash or in-
kind) contributed by the State government to child care for
preschool-aged children and other preschool programs,
including Head Start, in the State (or, if applicable, in the
geographic area included in the State program) for each
fiscal year in which the program under this section is in
effect shall be in an amount at least equal to the total
amount of such State governmental resources contributed to
support such programs in the State (or geographic area) for
the base year.
``(16) Training and technical assistance.--The State plan
shall describe the training and technical assistance
activities that shall provide high quality, sustained,
intensive, and classroom-focused training and technical
assistance in order to have a positive and lasting impact on
classroom instruction.
``(i) Records, Reports and Audits.--The State agency
administering the State program, and each entity
participating as a Head Start service provider, shall
maintain such records, make such reports, and cooperate with
such audits as the Secretary may require for oversight of
program activities and expenditures.
``(j) Inapplicability of Provisions Concerning Priority in
Agency Designation.--The provisions of subsections (c) and
(d) of section 641 (concerning priority in designation of
Head Start agencies, successor agencies, and delegate
agencies) shall not apply to a State program under this
section.
``(k) Consultation.--A State proposing to administer a
program under this section shall submit, with the plan under
this section, assurances that the plan was developed through
timely and meaningful consultation with appropriate public
and private sector entities, including--
``(1) representatives of agencies responsible for
administering early education and care programs in the State,
including Head Start providers;
``(2) parents;
``(3) the State educational agency and local educational
agencies;
``(4) early childhood education professionals;
``(5) kindergarten teachers and teachers in grades 1
through 4;
``(6) child welfare agencies;
``(7) child care resource and referral agencies;
``(8) child care providers; and
``(9) a wide array of persons interested in and involved
with early care and early education issues in the State, such
as representatives of--
``(A) health care professionals;
``(B) the State agency with responsibility for the special
supplemental nutrition program for women, infants, and
children established by section 17 of the Child Nutrition Act
of 1966;
``(C) institutions of higher education;
``(D) community-based and faith-based organizations;
``(E) the business community;
``(F) State legislators and local officials;
``(G) museums and libraries;
``(H) other relevant entities in the State; and
``(I) other agencies that provide resources for young
children.
``(l) State Plan Submission.--An application shall be
submitted by a State pursuant to this section to the
Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of Education,
and shall be deemed to be approved by the Secretary unless
the Secretary makes a written determination, prior to the
expiration of a reasonable time beginning on the date on
which the Secretary received the application, that the
application is not in compliance with this section.
``(m) Treatment of Funds.--If a State or local government
contributes its own funds to supplement activities carried
out under the applicable programs, the State or local
government has the option to separate out the Federal funds
or commingle them. If the funds are commingled, the
provisions of this subchapter shall apply to all of the
commingled funds in the same manner, and to the same extent,
as the provisions apply to the Federal funds.
``(n) Federal Oversight Authority; Corrective Action;
Withdrawal of Approval.--
``(1) Federal oversight.--The Secretary shall retain the
authority to oversee the operation of the State program under
this section, including through review of records and
reports, audits, and onsite inspection of records and
facilities and monitoring of program activities and
operations.
``(2) Correction of deficiencies.--If the Secretary
determines that a State program
[[Page H7571]]
under this section substantially fails to meet the
requirements of this section, the Secretary shall notify the
State of the deficiencies identified and require corrective
action as follows:
``(A) Deficiencies causing immediate jeopardy.--The
Secretary shall require immediate corrective action to
eliminate a deficiency that the Secretary finds threatens the
health or safety of staff or program participants or poses a
threat to the integrity of Federal funds.
``(B) Other deficiencies.--The Secretary, taking into
consideration the nature and magnitude of a deficiency not
described in subparagraph (A), and the time reasonably
required for correction, may--
``(i) require the State to correct the deficiency within 90
days after notification under this paragraph; or
``(ii) require the State to implement a quality improvement
plan designed to correct the deficiency within one year from
identification of the deficiency.
``(3) Withdrawal of approval.--If the deficiencies
identified under paragraph (2) are not corrected by the
deadlines established by the Secretary, the Secretary shall
initiate proceedings to withdraw approval of the State
program under this section.
``(4) Procedural rights.--A State subject to adverse action
under this subsection shall have the same procedural rights
as a Head Start agency subject to adverse action under
section 641A.
``(o) Independent Evaluation.--
``(1) In General.--The Secretary shall contract with an
independent organization outside of the Department to design
and conduct a multi-year, rigorous, scientifically valid,
quantitative evaluation of the State demonstration program.
``(2) Process.--The Secretary shall award a contract within
180 days of the date of enactment of the School Readiness Act
of 2003, to an organization that is capable of designing and
carrying out an independent evaluation described in this
subsection.
``(3) Analysis.--The evaluation shall include an analysis
of each State participating in the State demonstration
program, including--
``(A) A quantitative description of the State
prekindergarten program and Head Start programs within such
State, as such programs existed prior to participation in the
State demonstration program, including--
``(i) data on the characteristics of the children served,
including the overall number and percentages of children
served disaggregated by socioeconomic status, race and
ethnicity of those served;
``(ii) the quality and characteristics of the services
provided to such children; and
``(iii) the education attainment of instructional staff.
``(B) A quantitative and qualitative description of the
State program after each year of participation in the State
demonstration, which shall include each of the following:
``(i) A description of changes in the administration of the
State program, including the Head Start program, within such
State.
``(ii) The rate of progress of the State in improving the
school readiness of disadvantaged children in the key domains
of development.
``(iii) Data as described in subparagraph (A), as updated
annually.
``(iv) The extent to which each State has met the goals
established by such State with respect to annual goals as
described under section 643(h)(10).
``(4) Report.--(A) The Secretary shall provide an interim
report on the progress of such evaluation and of the progress
of States participating in the State demonstration in
increasing the availability of high quality prekindergarten
services for low-income children not later than October 1,
2006 to the Committee on Education and the Workforce in the
House of Representatives and the Committee on Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions in the Senate.
``(B) The Secretary shall provide a final report to the
Committee on Education and the Workforce in the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Health, Education,
Labor, and Pensions in the Senate, not later than October 1,
2007, which shall include an overall evaluation of the State
demonstration program, including an assessment of its success
in increasing the overall availability of high quality
prekindergarten services for low income children in each of
the participating States as compared to a representative
sample of non-participating States.
``(p) State Participation Agreement.--Following the
submission of an application fulfilling all requirements of
this section, a State that meets all eligibility requirements
set forth in section 643A(a)(2) and is selected by the
Secretary to participate in the demonstration program under
this section shall--
``(1) maintain or increase fiscal year 2003 State funding
levels for early childhood education;
``(2) provide an additional contribution of non-federal
funds equal to five percent of the State's federal Head Start
allotment;
``(3) use Head Start funding only for the purposes of Head
Start as described in section 636;
``(4) provide all comprehensive social services currently
available to Head Start children, including health and
nutrition;
``(5) develop a strategy to maximize parental involvement
to enable parents to become full partners in the education of
their children;
``(6) demonstrate that the qualifications and credentials
for early childhood teachers meet or exceed the standards in
section 648A(a)(2)(A), (B), and (C);
``(7) enforce quality standards for school readiness that
are aligned with K-12 educational standards and generally
meet or exceed the Federal Head Start performance standards;
``(8) continue funding, for a period of 60 months, all
current Head Start grantees as described in section 643A(d);
``(9) provide services described in section 641A that are
at least as extensive as were provided, and to at least as
many low-income children and families in the State, in each
fiscal year as were provided such services in the base year;
``(10) establish a comprehensive collaboration effort to
integrate Head Start, state-funded pre-kindergarten programs,
Even Start, Title I preschool, and Early Reading First;
``(11) participate in independent evaluations of the
demonstration program authorized under this subchapter; and
``(12) submit to Federal oversight by the Secretary.''.
``(q) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term
`base year' means the fiscal year 2003.''.
The CHAIRMAN. No amendment to that amendment shall be in order except
those printed in part B of the report. 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 read, 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 a division of the question.
It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in House
report 108-232.
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Ms. Woolsey
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 1 offered by Ms. Woolsey:
Page 57, strike lines 6 through 14.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 336, the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Woolsey) and a Member opposed each will control 10
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Chairman, this is a very simple amendment. It strikes the
provision in the bill which would allow faith-based providers of Head
Start services to discriminate based on religion against employees who
are paid with public funds.
Faith-based providers are already participating in Head Start, Mr.
Chairman, and they abide by current law which says they cannot
discriminate based on religion when they use taxpayers' dollars to hire
employees. H.R. 2210 changes that.
If H.R. 2210 becomes law with this employment discrimination
exception in it, it will be the first time, the first time Congress has
ever repealed a law that prohibits religious discrimination. And
contrary to what my colleagues on the other side have been saying, H.R.
2210 is not consistent with title VII of the civil rights law.
Title VII allows faith-based organizations to discriminate using
their own money. H.R. 2210 will allow public taxpayers' money to be
used for religious discrimination.
Faith-based organizations do not want this, Mr. Chairman. That is why
the Coalition Against Religious Discrimination sent a letter signed by
30 faith-based organizations asking Members to vote for the Woolsey-
Edwards-Frank-Scott-Van Hollen amendment.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment and any
attempt to deny organizations their long-standing civil rights
protections. The amendment before us is a direct attack on faith-based
service providers seeking to participate in the Head Start program,
where they can make a valuable difference in the lives of disadvantaged
children.
Make no mistake, the amendment before us would not only be stripping
faith-based organizations of their rights, but worse, will eliminate an
entire category of potential Head Start
[[Page H7572]]
service providers simply because they choose to maintain their legally
protected right to make staffing decisions consistent with their
organizational character and with the protections provided them under
title VII of the Civil Rights Act.
This debate must be understood in real terms. Let us take the
Catholic church, for example. Often these churches have strong roots in
the community and a vast network of volunteers and employees who work
together to make a difference for those who need a helping hand. They
participate in many activities that are not about religion, but simply
about making a difference in the lives of those in need. These
organizations are a natural choice to participate in the Head Start
program. After all, the infrastructure is in place, the members of the
community already consider church a resource for social services, and
workers are ready and willing to take in these needy children and give
them the comprehensive support they need to get ready to enter school.
So what is the catch? Catholic churches have a tendency to hire
Catholics. The Supreme Court does not see a problem with this. In fact,
the Supreme Court has unanimously upheld the right of religious
organizations to be religious and make staffing decisions based on that
decision. There is no debate about that right. Until today, that is,
when we consider this amendment that would make it illegal for these
churches to continue to hire Catholics if they choose to participate in
the Head Start program.
That is what we are talking about here, a double standard applying
only to faith-based organizations, which tells them that they cannot
serve disadvantaged children in Head Start unless they relinquish their
identity, especially when it comes to hiring.
Faith-based organizations are a priceless national resource,
providing help and hope to communities across America. And by their
very nature, faith-based organizations often reach out to those in need
when others may turn a blind eye. Improving lives is all in a day's
work for faith-based organizations. That is why the President has
called on Congress to level the playing field when these compassionate
service providers are seeking to play a role in Federal initiatives
like the Head Start program, to serve those who need our help.
{time} 2200
Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat
this amendment. We should not ask religious groups to forfeit their
religious character and identity as a condition of participating in
Head Start. If we have discourage faith-based organizations from
participating, we will be giving Head Start children less than we are
capable of giving them. I think we must stand firm to protected the
civil rights exemption for faith-based organizations so they can do
their good works and community all across the Nation.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Scott).
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is simple. It
preserves the law just as it has been since the Head Start program
began. Faith-based organizations can and do sponsor Head Start
programs. In fact, 8 percent of the Head Start programs today are
sponsored by faith-based organizations. They administer the Head Start
programs just as any other sponsor of a federally funded program,
including compliance with traditional anti-discrimination laws.
The underlying bill allows many programs to discriminate in
employment based on religion. Make no mistake, if there is
discrimination based on religion, there can be discrimination based on
race, because eleven o'clock on Sunday is still the most racially
segregated hour of the week.
So if an organization can select employees based on which church,
synagogue, mosque or temple someone belongs to, that will have racial
overtones. There used to be a time in America when certain people were
routinely denied the opportunity to even be considered for good jobs
and all African American parents at one time or another had to explain
to their children why they had to sit in the back of the bus or why
they could not be considered for jobs at certain companies. That
invidious discrimination was so ugly that our Nation passed laws to
make it illegal to discriminate in employment based on race, color,
creed, national origin or sex in most cases, even with private funds,
but illegal to discriminate in all cases with Federal funds.
Now, churches can discriminate with their own money, but not with
Federal taxpayers' money. If this amendment is not adopted, the days of
invidious discrimination could return and some parents will have to
explain to their children why other parents could become teachers but
not them solely because of the family's religion. Just what kind of
head start lesson is that?
So this vote is important because it will decide and we will decide
tonight just what kind of head start our next generation will have.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn), a member of our committee.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, a few weeks ago in my district we held
a government reform subcommittee hearing on the effectiveness of faith-
based organizations. And our chairman is exactly right. These are
priceless national resources. There is an issue that I am familiar with
and today I must rise in opposition to the Woolsey amendment to strike
the faith-based provision from the School Readiness Act.
I have listened to the debate on this bill in subcommittee and here
on the floor, and actually I have been surprised at the level of false
information being used to defeat what is an excellent aspect of this
legislation. This bill does not ignore or undermine civil rights laws.
Instead, it brings the Head Start program up to date with them. The
Civil Rights Act was amended in 1972 by the Equal Employment
Opportunity Act because Congress recognized that there needed to be a
more defined relationship between church and State. Indeed, these
changes were made in response to concerns that government might
interfere with the affairs of religious organizations.
As the law is written now, a church or religious institution can set
up a Head Start center, but they have to give up their right to hire
based on a person's religion, something that most are not willing to
do. And in many communities there is a great need to establish more
Head Start centers. Think how many more children would be served if the
restriction were removed.
One of the fundamental tenants of faith is that we must help people
in need and work to better one's community. When religious
organizations cannot participate in establishing and running Head Start
centers, children lose out on an opportunity to learn, to prepare for
school, and to be nurtured.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Edwards).
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, no American citizen, not one, should have
to pass someone else's religious test to qualify for a federally funded
job. That is the principle behind the Woolsey amendment. Frankly, I am
appalled that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 would be mischaracterized by
some to defend the act of religious discrimination and bigotry when
using Federal tax dollars.
Mr. Chairman, I want you to imagine for a moment that you are
applying for a Head Start job which is funded by Federal tax dollars.
You have a college degree in early childhood education. You have
excellent references and 10 years of experience in working with
prekindergarten children. Prior to your job interview, you prepare for
days for possible questions regarding teaching methods and enhancing
children's self-esteem. Then when you sit down for your job interview,
the first question asked of you is this: Are you Jewish or Catholic?
Puzzled about why you would be asked such a question for a Head Start
job interview, you answer that your faith is a private matter and it
has nothing to do with your job qualifications. But the job interviewer
responds by saying, no, your job interview is over. You are not being
hired because we do not hire Catholics or Jews. Offended, you say you
are an American citizen and you cannot be denied a federally funded job
based solely
[[Page H7573]]
on your private, personal religious faith.
The interviewer says, no, you are wrong. On July 24 of 2003, the
House of Representatives in Washington passed the Head Start bill which
allows me to make hiring and firing decisions based solely on your
personal religious faith.
Mr. Chairman, I find this scenario to be deeply offensive and so do
the vast majority of Americans. I would repeat: no American citizen
should have to pass someone else's religious test to qualify for a
federally funded tax-supported job. Yet, by saying no to the Woolsey
amendment, Members of this House would be legalizing Federal subsidies
of religious discrimination and bigotry. That is wrong. Stand up for
the fundamental right of religious freedom. Vote for the Woolsey
amendment.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Green).
Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this
amendment because quite simply it is an exceptionally bad idea.
Children who are served by Head Start have the right to receive those
services in the most effective way possible. In many cases it will be a
traditional public sector provider; but in at least some, in some, it
may be a faith-based organization. We should encourage faith-based
groups from coming forward. This would do the opposite. It is a bad
idea. Vote down the amendment.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen).
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding me
time.
Mr. Chairman, let me start by talking about what this amendment is
not about. It is not about whether faith-based organizations can
provide valuable services. They can and they do. In fact, many are
currently running Head Start programs. The issue is whether those Head
Start programs, faith-based programs that are receiving taxpayers
dollars can discriminate in hiring based on religion; whether someone
who comes to them with a terrific background in early childhood
education can have the door shut on them because they do not pass a
particular religious test, because they are not Jewish or not Christian
or not Muslim or whatever the particular test is.
Now, I have talked to many people around this country involved in the
Head Start program, and not one of them has said to me, gee, we could
do a much better job teaching children how to read, we could do a much
better job teaching children arithmetic if only we could discriminate,
if only we could fire the Jews in our organization, if only we could
fire the Christians, if only we could fire the Baptists. No one has
said that we need to do that, and it is a sad day that that comes up on
this bill.
Nothing should be more universal. Nothing is more universal in this
country than the desire of everyone to provide their children with a
good start in life, a head start in life. And yet what this provision
of the bill does that we are stripping out is sends a terrible message
to the children of this country that it is okay to discriminate based
on religion.
When we are teaching children in their earliest years the values that
we want them to learn, we do not want to teach them the lesson of
religious intolerance and religious bigotry. We must support the
Woolsey amendment. I urge my colleagues to do so.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Carter), a new member of our committee.
Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2210 and in
opposition to the Woolsey amendment.
The United States Supreme Court has ruled and has looked at this
issue in the Corporation of the Presiding Bishop v. Amos and has upheld
the title VII exemption as constitutional under our law. Finding that
the exemption did not violate the establishment clause, the Supreme
Court has made it clear that ``it is a permissible legislative purpose
to alleviate significant governmental interference with the ability of
religious organizations to define and carry out their religious
missions.''
This is not a matter of discrimination or teaching children
discrimination. This is a matter of abiding by the law. The Clinton
administration passed numerous legislation that followed this same
idea. These faith-based organizations provide good services. They
should be able to hire the people that they feel are important to their
cause, and this would in no way interfere with the rights of the
students that come before the Head Start program. It is a good idea led
by good people. I urge its support.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains on both sides?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) has 3
minutes. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) has 3\1/2\ minutes.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Scott).
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, a couple of things that have
been said that I think need direct response to.
One is you could serve more children if you allow people to
discriminate. That is not true. You will serve more people if you put
more money into the Head Start program. There are plenty of sponsors
who are willing to provide services without discriminating.
Second, you lose your right to discriminate. You do not lose your
right to discriminate with your church money if you sponsor a federally
funded program, but you cannot discriminate with the taxpayers' money.
I think that needs to be said in response to some of the comments
previously made.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Souder), a former member of our committee.
(Mr. SOUDER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for his leadership on
this difficult bill. When you make changes that are important to help
poor kids in America, those who are disadvantaged, you will get
controversy. You have plenty of it, but I congratulate you on trying to
improve a good program.
Let me directly address this amendment. This amendment would in
effect say that if you have strong religious values of any faith, check
it at the door or do not apply. In fact, it was also said by another
Member that many organizations and people who are currently serving
these kids are not asking for this amendment. Of course not. They have
the contracts.
Let us be frank here. In these inner-city areas where the Head Start
programs are concentrated or in the rural poorer areas, we are mostly
looking at black and Hispanic small churches that have been cut out of
the system. We are also looking at rural white churches, the only
institutions that have often stayed in those communities and they would
like to be involved and some of those of deepest passion.
If you are a Christian church, you believe your church is supposed to
reflect the glory of God. You do not want to be forced to hire who the
government says you must hire. If you have somebody who has had things
that violate your faith, you do not want to be told that you cannot
violate them. You want to be involved in helping people. You want to
practice that compassion, whether you are Muslim, whether you are
Jewish, whether you are Christian. This amendment would say to those
small churches who are the pillars of those institutions, no, you are
not eligible.
Of course the people who have the contracts want this. This has
already been ruled constitutional by the Supreme Court. They have said
that there is a constitutional right, even when you get public funds,
to keep your religious liberty to hire and fire who you want. This is a
question of do we believe these programs are effective. Do we believe
the local-based programs in these communities have a value there; that
the minority churches that I have visited in the urban centers who want
to get involved with the kids and give them a chance, should these
churches be allowed to participate without accepting the mandates of
the Federal Government.
{time} 2215
This is not about big white suburban churches coming in and
discriminating. This is mostly going to be minority churches in these
poor areas who want to apply for these grants, and you are saying,
unless you are willing to take
[[Page H7574]]
the Federal Government telling you who to hire, who to fire, do not
apply. And that is wrong, and it is a constitutionally protected right,
and this amendment would be a disaster to many of those small churches
who want to participate.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, would the Chair advise me, please, who has
the right to close.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) has the right to
close.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, as to the history, it is
clear, as it has been for 31 years, that the law says that if you take
Federal funds, you cannot take the money you took from all the
taxpayers and then tell some of those taxpayers many of them are
ineligible because of their religion.
The gentleman from Indiana is wrong. We are not having the Federal
Government tell you who to hire. We are saying that the Federal
Government tells you you cannot refuse to hire most of the people who
pay taxes that you are now spending because they do not like your
religious beliefs. And I have to say, you tell me that this drives
religions away. What are we talking about, the Taliban? I mean, what is
it that is so terrible?
We are saying when you run your church, you run your church. When you
hire people with your own money then you hire whoever you want, but
when you take Federal tax dollars for a secular purpose, remember by
definition, you cannot get Federal funds for religious purposes. So you
are getting Federal funds for secular purposes, nonreligious purposes.
Every taxpayer contributes and you are telling people then you can hire
only people of your religion as they believe. That means racial
segregation de facto.
How many whites will the black Muslims hire? How many blacks will the
Orthodox Jews hire? Religion unfortunately de facto means segregation.
But they also have to say what is it that is so terrible?
What we are saying to religious people is, in doing these good works
with Federal money, we ask you please to associate with people of other
religions, and you are telling us that asking religious people to
associate with people of other religions defiles them. You ought to
call your position the Antiheretic and Infidel Association Act.
Unclean. Get away from me, unbeliever.
Well, if you want to say, get away from me, unbeliever, go ahead, but
do not take the unbeliever's money through taxes and say, thank you for
the tax money, now get out of here before you profane my day care
center, before you profane my Head Start center.
How can you tell people that everybody has to pay taxes, but only
those who meet a certain religious test, and it is not a broad
religious test, it is a specific one, you believe in evolution, you
cannot do Head Start here? You believe in all kinds of things, out you
go.
So we are simply asking that the law be maintained. Our amendment
maintains current law, and we ask you, please do not take the Taliban
as the model for American social service.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, can the Chair advise me how much time I
have remaining?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) has 30
seconds remaining. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) has 1\1/2\
minutes remaining.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remainder of the time.
Mr. Chairman, the people in this country will not believe what they
are hearing tonight, that this amendment will allow thousands of
dedicated Head Start teachers to be fired for no other reason than
religious prejudice.
Our amendment will reinstate the fundamental American protections
against religious discrimination in employment. It will protect the
jobs of thousands of Head Start teachers and the stability of children
and families in Head Start programs.
Voting for this amendment means that my colleagues are voting against
religious discrimination.
Why would anyone do otherwise?
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time.
I think there are is some misunderstanding. Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act says that religious organizations can discriminate in their
hiring based on religion. That is what it says.
Look at Federal laws that provide grants to community-based
organizations. Some of those require these organizations to give up
their title VII protections, like the Head Start program we have before
us. We have other programs, dozens of them, where they can maintain
their title VII protections, and as I have told the Members on the
other side over the last several months, as we bring these
reauthorizations through our committee, like the Workforce Investment
Act, like Head Start, I am going to provide some consistency.
President Clinton signed five programs into law that allowed faith-
based organizations to have their title VII exemption with Federal
funds, and all we want to do is to say if you take Federal funds and
you provide Head Start services, you do not have to give up your title
VII protections that are granted to you, plain and simple.
I urge my colleagues to defeat the gentlewoman's amendment.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I support the Woolsey-Scott
amendment to H.R. 2210 to remove the provision allowing religious
discrimination in employment from the underlying bill. The Head Start
Act, a bill that should be designed to improve the education of
children, is no place to encourage discrimination. In fact, there is no
place for religious discrimination in American law just as there should
be no place in America for that kind of backwards thinking.
H.R. 2210, in its current state, erodes fundamental civil rights
protections for Head Start workers and families by exempting faith-
based organizations from compliance with the current Head Start law.
Presently, under our country's existing laws, in Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act, employing institutions using private funds were exempt from
employment discrimination protections. However, Head Start programs are
federally funded and as such do not fall under the jurisdiction of the
Title VII statute. Simply put: Public funds are not allowed to be used
to encourage religious discrimination in employment and that should not
change.
Each of my colleagues should understand that without the Woolsey-
Scott amendment, we are advocating the notion that one's ability to
nurture and develop the minds of our children is contingent on the
religious institution to which the individual belongs. What if anything
is accomplished by attempting to create religious hierarchies in the
workplace? What benefit does that provide the Head Start child? None.
And thus the language allowing religious discrimination should be
stricken from the bill. As should all language that does not add to the
well being of children.
The Founding Fathers of this country found it necessary to say that
no one should be unfairly judged or discriminated against on the basis
of their religion. This Congress should do no less. We should not
create law that does harm. We should not encourage discrimination of
any kind, religious or otherwise.
Surely, this country prides itself on its diversity and its
willingness to open its doors to people of different religions, races,
and ethnic backgrounds. Yet on the floor of the people's House we are
faced with an attempt by the Republicans to create a monolithic sub-
culture within our Head Start programs. Despite the rhetoric on the
other side of the aisle, H.R. 2210 as it currently reads will not only
result in the loss of jobs for teachers who do not identify with their
employer's religious beliefs but more importantly it will cause the
loss of role models and advocates for youth who are already at-risk.
The Woolsey-Scott amendment will effectively retain civil rights
protections for employees of Head Start programs. This amendment simply
retains their freedom of religious choice and their freedom not to be
discriminated against due to their religion. This amendment adds
nothing to the law rather it maintains current law. Without the
addition of the Woolsey-Scott amendment, however, the body elected to
serve all of the people of this country will have endorsed employment
discrimination with federal dollars. We simply cannot allow this to
happen. We must do everything we can to preserve the fundamentals of
Head Start. I urge my colleagues to vote to ensure that our child
readiness programs are not muddied and degraded by the promotion of
religious discrimination. Therefore, I stand in full support of the
Woolsey-Scott amendment and I urge my colleagues to do the same.
The CHAIRMAN. All time on this amendment has expired.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Woolsey).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
[[Page H7575]]
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending
that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California
will be postponed.
The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed in House
Report 108-232.
Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute Offered by Mr. George Miller of
California
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment
in the nature of a substitute.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment in the nature of
a substitute.
The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as
follows:
Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr.
George Miller of California:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``School Readiness Act of
2003''.
SEC. 2. PURPOSE.
Section 636 of the Head Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9831) is
amended to read as follows:
``SEC. 636. STATEMENT OF PURPOSE.
``It is the purpose of this subchapter to promote school
readiness by enhancing the development of low-income
children, through educational instruction in prereading
skills, premathematics skills, and language, and through the
provision to low-income children and their families of
health, educational, nutritional, social and other services
that are determined, based on family needs assessments, to be
necessary.''.
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
Section 637 of the Head Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9832) is
amended as follows:
(1) In paragraph (17) by striking ``, but for fiscal
years'' and all that follows down to the period.
(2) By adding the following at the end thereof:
``(18) The term `eligible entities' means an institution of
higher education or other agency with expertise in delivering
training in early childhood development, family support, and
other assistance designed to improve the quality of early
childhood educations programs.
``(19) The term `homeless children' has the meaning given
such term in subtitle B of title VII of the McKinney-Vento
Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11431 et seq.).''.
SEC. 4. AUTHORIZATION.
Section 639 of the Head Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9834) is
amended to read as follows:
``SEC. 639. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
``(a) In General.--There are authorized to be appropriated
for carrying out the provisions of this subchapter
$6,870,000,000 for the fiscal year 2004 and such sums as may
be necessary for fiscal years 2005 through 2008.
``(b) Specific Programs.--From the amount appropriated
under subsection (a), the Secretary shall make available not
more than $20,000,000 for fiscal year 2004, and such sums as
may be necessary for each of fiscal years 2005 through 2008,
to carry out such other research, demonstration, and
evaluation activities, including longitudinal studies, under
section 649.
``(1) not more than $7,000,000 for each of fiscal years
2004 through 2008 to carry out impact studies under section
649(g); and
``(2) not more than $13,000,000 for fiscal year 2004, and
such sums as may be necessary for each of fiscal years 2005
through 2008, to carry out other research, demonstration, and
evaluation activities, including longitudinal studies, under
section 649.
``(c) Administrative Expenses.--There are authorized to be
appropriated $5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2004 through
2008 to assist participating States with the administrative
expenses associated with implementing a program under section
643A.''.
SEC. 5. ALLOTMENT OF FUNDS; LIMITATIONS ON ASSISTANCE.
Section 640 of the Head Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9835) is
amended as follows:
(1) In subsection (a)(2):
(A) By striking ``1998'' in subparagraph (A) and inserting
``2003''.
(B) By amending subparagraph (B) to read as follows:
``(B) payments, subject to paragraph (7) to Guam, American
Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and
the Virgin Islands of the United States;''.
(2) By striking the last sentence of paragraph (2) of
subsection (a).
(3)(A) By amending subsection (a)(2)(C) to read as follows:
``(C) training and technical assistance activities that are
sufficient to meet the needs associated with program
expansion and to foster program and management improvement as
described in section 648 of this subchapter, in an amount for
each fiscal year which is not less than one percent, and
shall not exceed 2 percent, of the amount appropriated for
such fiscal year, of which--
``(i) not less than 50 percent shall be made available to
local Head Start agencies to comply with the standards
described in section 641A(a)(1), of which not less than 50
percent shall be used to comply with the standards described
in section 641A(a)(1)(B) and for the uses described in
clauses (iii), (iv), and (vii) of subsection (a)(3)(B);
``(ii) not less than 30 percent shall be made available to
support a State system of early childhood education training
and technical assistance;
``(iii) not less than 20 percent shall be made available to
the Secretary to assist local programs in meeting the
standards described in section 641A(a)(1); and
``(iv) not less than $3,000,000 of the amount in clause
(iii) appropriated for such fiscal year shall be made
available to carry out activities described in section
648(c)(4);''.
(B) By inserting the following at the end of subsection
(a)(2):
``If less than 2 percent of the amount appropriated for such
fiscal year is made available for the activities authorized
in subparagraph (C), then the Secretary is authorized to use
at least 25 percent of such funds to fund migrant and
seasonal Head Start programs for expansion of services. If
sufficient migrant and seasonal eligible children are not
available to use such funds, then enrollment priority shall
be given to other disadvantaged populations referred to in
subparagraph (A).''.
(4) In subsection (a)(3)(A) by inserting at the end
thereof:
``(iii) After the reservation of amounts under paragraph
(2)(including the 2 percent amount referred to in paragraph
(2)(C)) and the 60 percent amount referred to in subparagraph
(A) of this paragraph, a portion of the remaining funds shall
be made available to expand services to underserved
populations, such as children receiving services under the
Early Head Start and Migrant and Seasonal Head Start
programs.''.
(5) In subsection (a)(3)(A)(i)(I) by striking ``1999'' and
all that follows down to the semicolon and inserting ``2004
through 2008''.
(6) By amending subsection (a)(3)(B) to read as follows:
``(B) Funds reserved under this paragraph (referred to in
this paragraph as `quality improvement funds') shall be used
to accomplish any or all of the following goals:
``(i) Ensuring that Head Start programs meet or exceed
standards pursuant to section 641A(a)(1).
``(ii) Ensuring that such programs have adequate numbers of
qualified staff, and that such staff is furnished adequate
training, including developing skills to promote the
development of language skills, premathematic skills, and
prereading in young children and in working with children
with non-English language background, children referred by
child welfare services, and children with disabilities, when
appropriate.
``(iii) Developing and financing the salary scales
described under section 644(a) and section 653, in order to
ensure that salary levels and benefits are adequate to
attract and retain qualified staff for such programs.
``(iv) Using salary increases to improve staff
qualifications, and to assist with the implementation of
programs specifically designed to enable lead instructors to
become more effective educators, for the staff of Head Start
programs, and to encourage the staff to continually improve
their skills and expertise by informing the staff of the
availability of Federal and State incentive and loan
forgiveness programs for professional development.
``(v) Improving community-wide strategic planning and needs
assessments for such programs and collaboration efforts for
such programs, including collaborations to increase program
participation by underserved populations of eligible
children.
``(vi) Ensuring that the physical environments of Head
Start programs are conducive to providing effective program
services to children and families, and are accessible to
children with disabilities and their parents.
``(vii) Ensuring that such programs have qualified staff
that can promote language skills and literacy growth of
children and that can provide children with a variety of
skills that have been identified, through scientifically
based reading research, as predictive of later reading
achievement.
``(viii) Providing assistance to complete post-secondary
course work needed to attain baccalaureate degrees in early
childhood education.
``(ix) Making such other improvements in the quality of
such programs as the Secretary may designate.
``(x) To promote the regular attendance and stability of
highly mobile children, including migrant and homeless
children.''.
(7) By amending subsection (a)(3)(C) to read as follows:
``(C) Quality improvement funds shall be used to carry out
any or all of the following activities:
``(i)(I) Not less than one-half of the amount reserved
under this paragraph, to improve the compensation (including
benefits) of classroom teachers and other staff of Head Start
agencies providing instructional services and thereby
enhancing recruitment and retention of qualified staff,
including recruitment and retention pursuant to achieving the
requirements set forth in section 648A(a). The expenditure of
funds under this clause shall be subject to section 653.
Salary increases, in excess of cost-of-living allowance,
provided with such funds shall be subject to the specific
standards governing salaries and salary increases established
pursuant to section 644(a).
[[Page H7576]]
``(II) If a Head Start agency certifies to the Secretary
for such fiscal year that part of the funds set aside under
subclause (I) to improve wages cannot be expended by such
agency to improve wages because of the operation of section
653, then such agency may expend such part for any of the
uses specified in this subparagraph (other than wages).
``(III) From the remainder of the amount reserved under
this paragraph (after the Secretary carries out subclause
(I)), the Secretary shall carry out any or all of the
activities described in clauses (ii) through (vii), placing
the highest priority on the activities described in clause
(ii).
``(ii) To train classroom teachers and other staff to meet
the education standards described in section 641A(a)(1)(B),
through activities--
``(I) to promote children's language and prereading growth,
through techniques identified through scientifically based
reading research;
``(II) to promote the acquisition of the English language
for non-English background children and families;
``(III) to foster children's school readiness skills
through activities described in section 648A(a)(1); and
``(IV) to educate and provide training necessary to improve
the qualifications particularly with respect to such
assistance to enable more instructors to meet the degree
requirements under section 648A(a)(2)(A) and to support staff
training, child counseling, and other services necessary to
address the problems of children participating in Head Start
programs, including children from dysfunctional families,
children who experience chronic violence in their
communities, and children who experience substance abuse in
their families.
``(iii) To employ additional Head Start staff, including
staff necessary to reduce the child-staff ratio lead
instructors who meet the qualifications of section 648A(a)
and staff necessary to coordinate a Head Start program with
other services available to children participating in such
program and to their families.
``(iv) To pay costs incurred by Head Start agencies to
purchase insurance (other than employee benefits) and thereby
maintain or expand Head Start services.
``(v) To supplement amounts provided under paragraph (2)(C)
to provide training necessary to improve the qualifications
of the staff of the Head Start agencies, and to support staff
training, child counseling, and other services necessary to
address the problems of children participating in Head Start
programs, including children from dysfunctional families,
children who experience chronic violence in their
communities, and children who experience substance abuse in
their families.
``(vi) To conduct outreach to homeless families in an
effort to increase the program participation of eligible
homeless children.
``(vii) Such other activities as the Secretary may
designate.
``(viii) To conduct outreach to migrant and seasonal farm-
working families and families with children with a limited
English proficiency.''.
(8) In subsection (a)(4) by striking ``1998'' in
subparagraph (A) and inserting ``2003''.
(9) In subsection (a)(5)(B)--
(A) by striking ``may'' and inserting ``shall''; and
(B) by inserting ``early childhood education'' after
``regarding''.
(10) By amending subsection (a)(5)(C) to read as follows:
``(C) In order to improve results for children, a State
that receives a grant under subparagraph (B) shall--
``(i) appoint an individual to serve as the State Director
of Collaboration between--
``(I) the appropriate regional office of the Administration
for Children and Families;
``(II) the State educational agency;
``(III) the State Department of Health and Human Services;
``(IV) the State agency that oversees child care;
``(V) the State agency that assists children with
developmental disabilities;
``(VI) the State Head Start Association;
``(VII) the State network of child care resource and
referral agencies;
``(VIII) local educational agencies;
``(IX) community-based and faith-based organizations;
``(X) State representatives of migrant and seasonal Head
Start programs;
``(XI) State representatives of Indian Head Start programs;
``(XII) State and local providers of early childhood
education and child care; and
``(XIII) other entities carrying out programs serving low-
income children and families in the State;
``(ii) ensure that the State Director of Collaboration
holds a position with sufficient authority and access to
ensure that the collaboration described in subparagraph (B)
is effective and involves a range of State agencies;
``(iii) involve the entities described in section clause
(i) to develop a strategic plan for the coordinated outreach
to identify eligible children and implementation strategies
based on a needs assessment conducted by the Office of the
State Director of Collaboration which shall include an
assessment of the availability of high quality
prekindergarten services for low-income children in the
State. Such assessment shall be completed within one year
after the date of enactment of the `School Readiness Act of
2003' and be updated on an annual basis and shall be made
available to the general public within the State;
``(iv) ensure that the collaboration described in
subparagraph (B) involves coordination of Head Start services
with health care, welfare, child care, child protective
services, education, and community service activities, family
literacy services, activities relating to children with
disabilities (including coordination of services with those
State officials who are responsible for administering part C
and section 619 of the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act), and services for homeless children (including
coordination of services with the Office of Coordinator for
Education of Homeless Children and Youth designated under
section 722 (g)(1)(J)(ii) of the McKinney-Vento Homeless
Education Assistance Improvements Act of 2001;
``(v) consult with the chief State school officer, local
educational agencies, and representatives of local Head Start
agencies and providers of early childhood education and care
in unified planning regarding early care and education
services at both the State and local levels, including
collaborative efforts to develop school readiness standards;
and
``(vi) consult with the chief State school officer, local
educational agencies, State child care administrators, State
human services administrators, representatives of local
resource and referral agencies, local early childhood
councils, providers of early childhood education and care and
other relevant State and local agencies, and representatives
of the State Head Start Associations to plan for the
provision of full-working-day, full calendar year early care
and education services for children.''.
(11) By amending clause (i) of subsection (a)(5)(D) by
inserting ``and providers of services supporting early
childhood education and child care'' after ``Associations''.
(12) By amending subsection (a)(6)(A) to read as follows:
``(A) From amounts reserved and allotted pursuant to
paragraphs (2) and (4), the Secretary shall use, for grants
for programs described in section 645A(a) of this subchapter,
a portion of the combined total of such amounts equal to at
least 10 percent for fiscal years 2004 through 2008, of the
amount appropriated pursuant to section 639(a), except as
provided in subparagraph (B).''
(13) By inserting the following before the period at the
end of subsection (f): ``, including models that leverage the
existing capacity and capabilities of the delivery system of
early childhood education and child care''.
(14) By inserting the following after ``manner that will''
in subsection (g)(2)(G): ``leverage the existing delivery
systems of such services and''.
(15) By amending subsection (g)(2)(C) to read as follows:
``(C) the extent to which the applicant has undertaken
community-wide strategic planning and needs assessments
involving other community organizations and public agencies
serving children and families (including organizations and
agencies providing family support services and protective
services to children and families, and organizations serving
families in whose homes English is not the language
customarily spoken), and organizations and public entities
serving children with disabilities and homeless children
(including the local educational agency liaison designated
under section 722(g)(1)(J)(ii) of the McKinney-Vento Homeless
Education Assistance Improvements Act of 2001);''.
(16) By inserting in subsection (g)(2)(H) after ``serving
the community involved'' the following: ``, including the
liaison designated under section 722(g)(1)(J)(ii) of the
McKinney-Vento Homeless Education Assistance Improvements Act
of 2001,''.
(17) By adding the following new subsections at the end
thereof:
``(m) Enrollment of Homeless Children.--The Secretary shall
by regulation prescribe policies and procedures to remove
barriers to the enrollment and participation of eligible
homeless children in Head Start programs. Such regulations
shall require Head Start agencies to:
``(1) implement policies and procedures to ensure that
eligible homeless children are identified and prioritized for
enrollment,
``(2) allow homeless families to apply to, enroll in and
attend Head Start programs while required documents, such as
proof of residency, immunization and other medical records,
birth certificates and other documents, are obtained within a
reasonable time frame, and
``(3) coordinate individual Head Start centers and programs
with efforts to implement Subtitle VII-B of the McKinney-
Vento Homeless Assistance Act.
``(n) Savings Provision.--Nothing in this Act shall be
construed to require a State to establish a program of early
education for children in the State, to require any child to
participate in a program of early education, to attend
school, or to participate in any initial screening prior to
participation in such program, except as provided under
section 612(a)(3), (consistent with section 614(a)(1)(C)), of
the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
``(o) Materials.--All curricula and instructional materials
funded under this subchapter shall be scientifically based
and age appropriate. Parents shall have the ability to
inspect, upon request, any curricula or instructional
materials.''.
[[Page H7577]]
SEC. 6. DESIGNATION OF AGENCIES.
Section 641 of the Head Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9836) is
amended as follows:
(1) In subsection (a)--
(A) by inserting after ``community'' in the first place it
appears ``, including a community-based or faith-based
organization'';
(B) by inserting ``(1)'' after ``(a)'';
(C) by redesignating paragraphs (1) and (2) as
subparagraphs (A) and (B), respectively; and
(D) by adding the following at the end thereof:
``(2) In order to be designated as a Head Start agency and
to receive a grant under this subchapter, a grantee shall
establish grantee-determined goals for improving the school
readiness of children participating in a program under this
subchapter, which shall include goals for--
``(A) educational instruction in prereading,
premathematical, and language skills; and
``(B) the provision of health, educational, nutritional,
social, and other services.
``(3) In order to receive a grant subsequent to the initial
grant provided following the date of enactment of this
subchapter, the grantee shall demonstrate that it has met the
goals described in paragraph (2).
``(4) Progress in meeting such goals shall not be measured
primarily or solely by the results of assessments.''
(2) By amending subsection (c) to read as follows:
``(c) In the administration of the provisions of this
section, the Secretary shall, in consultation with the chief
executive officer of the State involved if such State expends
non-Federal funds to carry out Head Start programs, give
priority in the designation of Head Start agencies to any
local public or private nonprofit or for-profit agency which
is receiving funds under any Head Start program on the date
of the enactment of this Act that fulfills the program and
financial management requirements, standards described in
section 641A(a)(1), results-based performance measures
developed by the Secretary under section 641A(b), or other
requirements established by the Secretary.''.
(3) By amending subsection (d) to read as follows:
``(d) If no entity in a community is entitled to the
priority specified in subsection (c), then the Secretary may
designate a Head Start agency from among qualified applicants
in such community. In selecting from among qualified
applicants for designation as a Head Start agency, the
Secretary shall give priority to any qualified agency that
functioned as a Head Start delegate agency in the community
and carried out a Head Start program that the Secretary
determines met or exceeded such performance standards and
such results-based performance measures. In selecting from
among qualified applicants for designation as a Head Start
agency, the Secretary shall consider the effectiveness of
each such applicant to provide Head Start services, based
on--
``(1) any past performance of such applicant in providing
services comparable to Head Start services, including how
effectively such applicant provided such comparable services;
``(2) the capacity of such applicant to serve eligible
children with scientifically-based programs that promote
school readiness of children participating in the program;
``(3) the plan of such applicant to meet standards set
forth in section 641A(a)(1), with particular attention to the
standards set forth in subparagraphs (A) and (B) of such
section;
``(4) the plan of such applicant to provide comprehensive
health, nutritional, educational, social, and other services
needed to prepare children to succeed in school;
``(5) the plan of such applicant to coordinate the Head
Start program it proposes to carry out with other preschool
programs, including Early Reading First and Even Start
programs under title I, part B, subparts 1 and 2 of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965; other
preschool programs carried out under title I of the Act;
programs under part C and section 619 of the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act; State prekindergarten programs;
and with the educational programs such children will enter at
the age of compulsory school attendance;
``(6) the plan of such applicant to coordinate the Head
Start program it proposes to carry out with private entities
with resources available to assist the Head Start Program
meet its program needs;
``(7) the plan of such applicant--
``(A) to seek the involvement of parents of participating
children in activities (at home and in the center involved
where practicable) designed to help such parents become full
partners in the education of their children;
``(B) to afford such parents the opportunity to participate
in the development, conduct, and overall performance of the
program at the local level;
``(C) to offer (directly or through referral to local
entities, such as entities carrying out Even Start programs
under part B of chapter 1 of title I of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 2741 et seq.),
public and school libraries, and family support programs) to
such parents--
``(i) family literacy services; and
``(ii) parenting skills training;
``(D) to offer to parents of participating children
substance abuse counseling (either directly or through
referral to local entities), including information on drug-
exposed infants and fetal alcohol syndrome;
``(E) at the option of such applicant, to offer (directly
or through referral to local entities) to such parents--
``(i) training in basic child development;
``(ii) assistance in developing communication skills;
``(iii) opportunities for parents to share experiences with
other parents; or
``(iv) any other activity designed to help such parents
become full partners in the education of their children;
``(F) to provide, with respect to each participating
family, a family needs assessment that includes consultation
with such parents about the benefits of parent involvement
and about the activities described in subparagraphs (C) (D),
and (E) in which such parents may choose to become involved
(taking into consideration their specific family needs, work
schedules, and other responsibilities); and
``(G) to extend out reach to fathers in order to strengthen
the role of fathers in families by working directly with
fathers and father-figures through such activities as
including fathers in home visits; implementing father
outreach efforts, providing opportunities for direct father-
child interactions; and targeting increased male
participation in the program;
``(8) the ability of such applicant to carry out the plans
described in paragraphs (2), (3), and (4);
``(9) other factors related to the requirements of this
subchapter;
``(10) the plan of such applicant to meet the needs of non-
English background children and their families, including
needs related to the acquisition of the English language;
``(11) the plan of such applicant to meet the needs of
children with disabilities;
``(12) the plan of such applicant who chooses to assist
younger siblings of children who will participate in the
proposed Head Start program to obtain health services from
other sources;
``(13) the plan of such applicant to collaborate with other
entities carrying out early childhood education and child
care programs in the community; and
``(14) the plan of such applicant to meet the needs of
homeless children.''.
SEC. 7. QUALITY STANDARDS; MONITORING OF HEAD START AGENCIES
AND PROGRAMS.
Section 641A of the Head Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9836a) is
amended as follows:
(1) In subsection (a)(1)(B) by amending clause (ii) to read
as follows:
``(ii) additional education standards to ensure that the
children participating in the program, at a minimum develop
and demonstrate--
``(I) language skills;
``(II) prereading knowledge and skills, including interest
in and appreciation of books, reading and writing either
alone or with others;
``(III) premathematics knowledge and skills, including
aspects of classification, seriation, number, spatial
relations, and time;
``(IV) cognitive abilities related to academic achievement;
``(V) social and emotional development important for
environments constructive for child development, early
learning, and school success; and
``(VI) in the case of limited-English proficient children,
progress toward acquisition of the English language.''.
(2) By amending subsection (a)(2)(B) to read as follows:
``(B) take into consideration--
``(i) past experience with use of the standards in effect
under this subchapter on October 27, 1998;
``(ii) changes over the period since October 27, 1998, in
the circumstances and problems typically facing children and
families served by Head Start agencies;
``(iii) developments concerning best practices with respect
to early childhood education and development, children with
disabilities, family services, program administration, and
financial management;
``(iv) projected needs of an expanding Head Start program;
``(v) guidelines and standards currently in effect or under
consideration that promote child health services, and
projected needs of expanding Head Start programs;
``(vi) changes in the population of children who are
eligible to participate in Head Start programs, including the
language background and family structure of such children;
``(vii) the need for, and state-of-the-art developments
relating to, local policies and activities designed to ensure
that children participating in Head Start programs make a
successful transition to schools; and
``(viii) the unique challenges faced by individual
programs, including those that are seasonal or short term,
and those that serve rural populations; and''.
(3) In subsection (a)(2)(C)(ii) by striking all that
follows ``in effect on'' down to the period and inserting
``October 27, 1998''.
(4) By amending subsection (b)(2) to read as follows:
``(2) Characteristics of measures.--The performance
measures developed under this subsection shall--
``(A) be used to assess the impact of the various services
provided by Head Start programs and, to the extent the
Secretary finds appropriate, administrative and financial
management practices of such programs;
``(B) be adaptable for use in self-assessment, peer review,
and program evaluation of individual Head Start agencies and
programs;
``(C) be developed for other program purposes as determined
by the Secretary;
[[Page H7578]]
``(D) be appropriate for the population served; and
``(E) be reviewed no less than every 4 years, based on
advances in the science of early childhood development.
The performance measures shall include the performance
standards described in subsection (a)(1)(A) and (B).''.
(5) By amending subsection (b)(4) to read as follows:
``(4) Educational measures.--Results based measures shall
be designed for the purpose of promoting the competencies of
children participating in Head Start programs specified in
subsection (a)(1)(B)(ii), with an emphasis on measuring those
competencies that have a strong scientifically-based
predictability of a child's school readiness and later
performance in school.''.
(6) In subsection (c)(1)(C) by striking ``the standards''
and inserting ``one or more of the performance measures
developed by the Secretary under subsection (b)''.
(7) By amending subsection (c)(2) to read as follows:
``(2) Conduct of reviews.--The Secretary shall ensure that
reviews described in subparagraphs (A) through (C) of
paragraph (1)--
``(A) that incorporate a monitoring visit, do so without
prior notice of the visit to the local agency or program;
``(B) are conducted by review teams that shall include
individuals who are knowledgeable about Head Start programs
and, to the maximum extent practicable, the diverse
(including linguistic and cultural) needs of eligible
children (including children with disabilities) and limited-
English proficient children and their families;
``(C) include as part of the reviews of the programs, a
review and assessment of program effectiveness, as measured
in accordance with the results-based performance measures
developed by the Secretary pursuant to subsection (b) and
with the standards established pursuant to subparagraphs (A)
and (B) of subsection (a)(1);
``(D) seek information from the communities and the States
involved about the performance of the programs and the
efforts of the Head Start agencies to collaborate with other
entities carrying out early childhood education and child
care programs in the community;
``(E) seek information from the communities where Head
Start programs exist about innovative or effective
collaborative efforts, barriers to collaboration, and the
efforts of the Head Start agencies and programs to
collaborate with the entities carrying out early childhood
education and child care programs in the community;
``(F) include as part of the reviews of the programs, a
review and assessment of whether a program is in conformity
with the income eligibility requirements, as defined in
section 645 and regulations promulgated thereunder;
``(G) include as part of the reviews of the programs, a
review and assessment of whether programs have adequately
addressed the population and community needs (including
populations of children with a limited English proficiency
and children of migrant and seasonal farm-working families);
and
``(H) include as part of the review the extent to which the
program addresses the community needs and strategic plan
identified in section 640(g)(2)(C).''.
(8) By amending so much of subsection (d)(1) as precedes
subparagraph (A) to read as follows:
``(1) Determination.--If the Secretary determines, on the
basis of a review pursuant to subsection (c), that a Head
Start agency designated pursuant to section 641 fails to meet
the standards described in subsection (a) or results-based
performance measures developed by the Secretary under
subsection (b), or fails to adequately address the community
needs and strategic plan identified in 640(g)(2)(C), the
Secretary shall--''
(9) By amending subsection (d)(2) to read as follows:
``(2) Quality improvement plan.--
``(A) Agency and program responsibilities.--In order to
retain a designation as a Head Start agency under this
subchapter, or in the case of a Head Start Program, in order
to continue to receive funds from such agency, a Head Start
agency, or Head Start program that is the subject of a
determination described in paragraph (1) (other than an
agency or program required to correct a deficiency
immediately or during a 90-day period under clause (i) or
(ii) of paragraph (1)(B)) shall--
``(i) develop in a timely manner, a quality improvement
plan which shall be subject to the approval of the Secretary,
or in the case of a program, the sponsoring agency, and which
shall specify--
``(I) the deficiencies to be corrected;
``(II) the actions to be taken to correct such
deficiencies; and
``(III) the timetable for accomplishment of the corrective
actions specified; and
``(ii) eliminate each deficiency identified, not later than
the date for elimination of such deficiency specified in such
plan (which shall not be later than 1 year after the date the
agency or program received notice of the determination and of
the specific deficiency to be corrected).
``(B) Secretarial responsibility.--Not later than 30 days
after receiving from a Head Start agency a proposed quality
improvement plan pursuant to subparagraph (A), the Secretary
shall either approve such proposed plan or specify the
reasons why the proposed plan cannot be approved.
``(C) Agency responsibility for program improvement.--Not
later than 30 days after receiving from a Head Start program,
a proposed quality improvement plan pursuant to subparagraph
(A), the sponsoring agency shall either approve such proposed
plan or specify the reasons why the proposed plan cannot be
approved.''.
(10) In subsection (d)(3) by inserting ``and programs''
after ``agencies''.
(11) Subsection (e) is amended to read as follows:
``(e) Summaries of Monitoring Outcomes.--Not later than 120
days after the end of each fiscal year, the Secretary shall
publish a summary report on the findings of reviews conducted
under subsection (c) and on the outcomes of quality
improvement plans implemented under subsection (d), during
such fiscal year. Such information shall be made available to
all parents with students receiving assistance under this Act
in a understandable and uniform format, and to the extent
practicable, provided in a language that the parents can
understand, and in addition, make the information widely
available through public means such as distribution through
public agencies, and at a minimum posting such information on
the Internet immediately upon publication.''.
SEC. 8. POWERS AND FUNCTIONS OF HEAD START AGENCIES.
Section 642 of the Head Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9837(b)) is
amended as follows:
(1) By amending subsection (b) to read as follows:
``(b) In order to be so designated, a Head Start agency
shall also--
``(1) establish a program with standards set forth in
section 641A(a)(1), with particular attention to the
standards set forth in subparagraphs (A) and (B) of such
section;
``(2) demonstrate capacity to serve eligible children with
scientifically-based curricula and other interventions that
help promote the school readiness of children participating
in the program;
``(3) establish effective procedures by which parents and
area residents concerned will be enabled to directly
participate in decisions that influence the character of
programs affecting their interests;
``(4) provide for their regular participation in the
implementation of such programs;
``(5) provide technical and other support needed to enable
parents and area residents to secure on their own behalf
available assistance from public and private sources;
``(6) seek the involvement of parents of participating
children in activities designed to help such parents become
full partners in the education of their children, and to
afford such parents the opportunity to participate in the
development, conduct, and overall performance of the program
at the local level;
``(7) conduct outreach to schools in which Head Start
children enroll, local educational agencies, the local
business community, community-based organizations, faith-
based organizations, museums, and libraries to generate
support and leverage the resources of the entire local
community in order to improve school readiness;
``(8) offer (directly or through referral to local
entities, such as entities carrying out Even Start programs
under part B of chapter 1 of title I of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 2741 et seq.)), to
parents of participating children, family literacy services
and parenting skills training;
``(9) offer to parents of participating children substance
abuse counseling (either directly or through referral to
local entities), including information on drug-exposed
infants and fetal alcohol syndrome;
``(10) at the option of such agency, offer (directly or
through referral to local entities), to such parents--
``(A) training in basic child development;
``(B) assistance in developing communication skills;
``(C) opportunities to share experiences with other
parents;
``(D) regular in-home visitation; or
``(E) any other activity designed to help such parents
become full partners in the education of their children;
``(11) provide, with respect to each participating family,
a family needs assessment that includes consultation with
such parents about the benefits of parent involvement and
about the activities described in paragraphs (4) through (7)
in which such parents may choose to be involved (taking into
consideration their specific family needs, work schedules,
and other responsibilities);
``(12) consider providing services to assist younger
siblings of children participating in its Head Start program
to obtain health services from other sources;
``(13) perform community outreach to encourage individuals
previously unaffiliated with Head Start programs to
participate in its Head Start program as volunteers; and
``(14)(A) inform custodial parents in single-parent
families that participate in programs, activities, or
services carried out or provided under this subchapter about
the availability of child support services for purposes of
establishing paternity and acquiring child support; and
``(B) refer eligible parents to the child support offices
of State and local governments.''.
(2) Amend subsection (c) to read as follows:
``(c) The head of each Head Start agency shall coordinate
and collaborate with the State agency responsible for
administering the State program carried out under the Child
Care and Development Block Grant Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 9858
et seq.), and other
[[Page H7579]]
early childhood education and development programs, including
programs under subtitle VII-B of the McKinney-Vento Homeless
Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11431-11435), Even Start programs
under part B of chapter 1 of title I of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 2741 et seq.), and
programs under Part C and section 619 of the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1431-1445, 1419), and
the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (42 U.S.C.
5106a), serving the children and families served by the Head
Start agency to carry out the provisions of this
subchapter.''.
(3) In subsection (d) by redesignating paragraphs (2)
through (4) as paragraph (3) through (5) and inserting the
following new paragraph after paragraph (1):
``(2) In communities where both public prekindergarten
programs and Head Start programs operate, a Head Start agency
shall coordinate with the local educational agency or other
public agency responsible for the operation of the
prekindergarten program and providers of prekindergarten,
including for outreach to identify eligible children.''.
(5) In paragraph (3) (as redesignated) of subsection (d),
strike ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (A) and insert the
following after subparagraph (A) and redesignate subparagraph
(B) as (C):
``(B) collaborating to increase the program participation
of underserved populations of eligible children; and''.
SEC. 9. HEAD START ALIGNMENT WITH K-12 EDUCATION.
Section 642A of the Head Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9837a) is
amended as follows:
(1) The heading is amended to read as follows:
``SEC. 642A. HEAD START ALIGNMENT WITH K-12 EDUCATION.''.
(2) In paragraph (2) after ``social workers,'' insert the
following: ``McKinney-Vento liaisons as established under
section 722 (g)(1)(J)(ii) of the McKinney-Vento Homeless
Education Assistance Improvements Act of 2001,''.
(3) Add the following new paragraph after paragraph (2) and
redesignated paragraphs (3) through (7) as (4) through (8):
``(3) developing continuity of developmentally appropriate
curricula between Head Start and local educational agencies
to ensure an effective transition and appropriate shared
expectations for children's learning and development as they
make such transition to school;''.
(4) Paragraph (6)(as redesignated by paragraph (3) of this
section) is amended to read as follows:
``(6) developing and implementing a family outreach and
support program in cooperation with entities carrying out
parental involvement efforts under Title I of the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act of 1965 and family outreach and
support efforts under subtitle VII-B of the McKinney-Vento
Homeless Assistance Act;''.
(4) In paragraph (7)(as redesignated by paragraph (3) of
this section) by inserting ``and continuity in parental
involvement activities'' after ``developmental continuity''.
(5) Strike ``and'' at the end of paragraph (7)(as
redesignated by paragraph (3) of this section) and strike the
period at the end of paragraph (8)(as redesignated by
paragraph (3) of this section) and insert a semicolon.
(6) Add the following after paragraph (8):
``(9) helping parents to understand the importance of
parental involvement in a child's academic success while
teaching them strategies for maintaining parental involvement
as their child moves from Head Start to elementary school;
and
``(10) developing and implementing a system to increase
program participation of underserved populations of eligible
children.''.
SEC. 10. ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS AND STANDARDS.
Section 644 of the Head Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9839) is
amended in subsection (f)(2) by redesignating subparagraphs
(A) through (E) as (B) through (F) and inserting the
following new subparagraph before subparagraph (B) (as so
redesignated):
``(A) a description of the consultation conducted by the
Head Start agency with the providers in the community
demonstrating capacity and capability to provide services
under this Act, and of the potential for collaboration with
such providers and the cost effectiveness of such
collaboration as opposed to the cost effectiveness of the
purchase of a facility;''
SEC. 11. ELIGIBILITY.
Section 645(a) of the Head Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9843) is
amended as follows:
(1) By striking ``to a reasonable extent'' in paragraph
(1)(B)(i) and inserting ``not to exceed 10 percent of the
total enrollment'' and by striking ``benefit from such
programs'' and inserting ``benefit from such programs,
including children referred by child welfare services,'' .
(2) By adding the following new paragraph at the end
thereof:
``(3) The amount of a basic allowance provided under
section 403 of title 37, United States Code, on behalf of an
individual who is a member of the uniformed services for
housing that is acquired or constructed under the authority
of subchapter IV of chapter 169 of title 10, United States
Code, or any other related provision of law, shall not be
considered to be income for purposes of determining the
eligibility of a child of the individual for programs
assisted under this subchapter.''.
SEC. 12. EARLY HEAD START PROGRAMS.
(a) In General.--Section 645A of the Head Start Act (42
U.S.C. 9643) is amended as follows:
(1) By amending paragraphs (4) and (5) of subsection (b) to
read as follows:
``(4) provide services to parents to support their role as
parents (including parenting skills training and training in
basic child development) and to help the families move toward
self-sufficiency (including educational and employment
services as appropriate);
``(5) coordinate services with services (including home-
based services) provided by programs in the State and
programs in the community (including programs for infants and
toddlers with disabilities) to ensure a comprehensive array
of services (such as health and mental health services, and
family support services);''.
(2) By amending paragraph (8) of subsection (b) to read as
follows:
``(8) ensure formal linkages with the agencies and entities
described in section 644(b) of the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1444(b)) and providers
of early intervention services for infants and toddlers with
disabilities under the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq.) and the agency
responsible for administering the Section 106 of the Child
Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (42 U.S.C. 5106a); and''.
(3) In subsection (g)(2)(B) by striking ``and'' at the end
of clause (iii), by striking the period at the end of clause
(iv) and inserting ``; and'' and by inserting the following
at the end:
``(v) providing professional development designed to
increase program participation for underserved populations of
eligible children.''.
(b) Migrant and Seasonal Programs.--Section 645A(d)(1) of
the Head Start Act (42 US.C. 9643(d)(1)) is amended to read
as follows:
``(1) entities operating Head Start programs under this
subpart, including migrant and seasonal Head Start programs;
and''.
(c) Community- and Faith-Based Organizations.--Section
645A(d)(2) of the Head Start Act (42 US.C. 9643(d)(21)) is
amended by inserting ``, including community- and faith-based
organizations'' after ``entities'' in the second place it
appears.
SEC. 13. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND TRAINING.
Section 648 of the Head Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9843) is
amended as follows:
(1) By inserting the following new subsection after
subsection (a) and redesignating subsections (b) through (e)
as subsections (c) through (f):
``(b) The Secretary shall make available to each State the
money reserved in section 640(a)(2)(C)(ii) to support a
State-based system delivering training and technical
assistance that improves the capacity of Head Start programs
within a State to deliver services in accordance with the
Head Start standards in section 641A(a)(1), with particular
attention to the standards set forth in subparagraphs (A) and
(B) of such section. The Secretary shall--
``(1) ensure eligible entities within a State are chosen by
the Secretary, in consultation with the State Collaboration
Board described in section 640(a)(5)(C)(i), through a
competitive bid process;
``(2) ensure that existing agencies with demonstrated
expertise in providing high quality training and technical
assistance to improve the delivery of Head Start services,
including the State Head Start Association, State agencies,
migrant and seasonal Head Start programs operating in the
State, and other entities currently providing training and
technical assistance in early education, be included in the
planning and coordination of the State system of training and
technical assistance; and
``(3) encourage States to supplement the funds authorized
in section 640(a)(2)(C)(ii) with State, Federal, or local
funds other than Head Start funds, to expand activities
beyond Head Start agencies to include other providers of
other early childhood services within a State.''.
(2) In subsection (d) (as redesignated):
(A) In paragraph (2), after ``disabilities'' insert ``and
for activities described in section 1221(b)(3) of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965''.
(B) In paragraph (5) after ``assessment'' insert ``,
including the needs of homeless children and their
families''.
(C) By striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (10), by
striking the period at the end of paragraph (11) and
inserting ``; and'' and by inserting the following at the
end:
``(12) assist Head Start agencies and programs in
increasing program participation of eligible homeless
children.''.
(3) In subsection (e) (as redesignated by paragraph (1)) by
inserting ``, including community- and faith-based
organizations'' after ``entities''.
(4) By amending subsection (f) (as redesignated by
paragraph (1)) to read as follows:
``(f) The Secretary shall provide, either directly or
through grants or other arrangements, funds from programs
authorized under this subchapter to support an organization
to administer a centralized child development and national
assessment program leading to recognized credentials for
personnel working in early childhood development and child
care programs, training for personnel providing services to
non-English language background children (including services
to promote the acquisition of the English language), training
for personnel providing services to children determined to be
abused or neglected, training for personnel providing
services to children referred
[[Page H7580]]
by or receiving child welfare services, training for
personnel in helping children cope with community violence,
and resource access projects for personnel working with
disabled children.''.
(5) Insert at the end of the section:
``(g) Helping Personnel Better Serve Migrant and Seasonal
Farm-working Communities and Homeless Families.--The
Secretary shall provide, either directly or through grants,
or other arrangements, funds for training of Head Start
personnel in addressing the unique needs of migrant and
seasonal working families, families with a limited English
proficiency, and homeless families.
``(h) Authorized Activities.--The majority of funds
expended under this section shall be used to provide high
quality, sustained, intensive, and classroom-focused training
and technical assistance in order to have a positive and
lasting impact on classroom instruction. Funds shall be used
to carry out activities related to any or all of the
following:
``(1) Education and early childhood development.
``(2) Child health, nutrition, and safety.
``(3) Family and community partnerships.
``(4) Other areas that impact the quality or overall
effectiveness of Head Start programs.
``(i) Prohibition on Use of Funds.--Funds under this
subchapter used for training shall be used for needs
identified annually by a grant applicant or delegate agency
in their program improvement plan, except that funds shall
not be used for long-distance travel expenses for training
activities available locally or regionally or for training
activities substantially similar to locally or regionally
available training activities.
``(j) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term
`eligible entities' means an institution of higher education
or other entity with expertise in delivering training in
early childhood development, family support, and other
assistance designed to improve the delivery of Head Start
services.''.
SEC. 14. STAFF QUALIFICATIONS AND DEVELOPMENT.
Section 648A of the Head Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9843a) is
amended as follows:
(1) By amending paragraph (2) of subsection (a) to read as
follows:
``(2) Degree requirements.--
``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall ensure that not
later than September 30, 2008, at least 50 percent of all
Head Start teachers nationwide in center-based programs
have--
``(i) a baccalaureate, or advanced degree in early
childhood education; or
``(ii) a baccalaureate, or advanced degree in a field
related to early childhood education, with experience in
teaching preschool children.
``(B) Progress.--Each Head State agency shall provide to
the Secretary a report indicating the number and percentage
of classroom instructors with child development associate
credentials and associate, baccalaureate, or advanced
degrees. The Secretary shall compile all program reports and
make them available to the Committee on Education and the
Workforce of the United States House of Representatives and
the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions of
the United States Senate.
``(C) Requirement for new Head Start teachers.--Within 3
years after the date of enactment of this clause, the
Secretary shall require that all Head Start teachers
nationwide in center-based programs hired following the date
of enactment of this subparagraph--
``(i) have an associate, baccalaureate, or advanced degree
in early childhood education;
``(ii) have an associate, baccalaureate, or advanced degree
in a field related to early childhood education, with
experience in teaching preschool children; or
``(iii) be currently enrolled in a program of study leading
to an associate degree in early childhood education and agree
to complete degree requirements within 3 years from the date
of hire.
``(D) Service requirements.--The Secretary shall establish
requirements to ensure that individuals who receive financial
assistance under this Act in order to comply with the
requirements under section 648A(a)(2) shall subsequently
teach in a Head Start center for a period of time equivalent
to the period for which they received assistance or repay the
amount of the funds.''.
(2) By adding the following at the end thereof:
``(f) Professional Development Plans.--Every Head Start
agency and program shall create, in consultation with an
employee, a professional development plan for all full-time
employees who provide direct services to children.''.
SEC. 15. RESEARCH, DEMONSTRATIONS, AND EVALUATION.
Section 649 of the Head Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9844) is
amended as follows:
(1) By amending subsection (a)(1)(B) to read as follows:
``(B) use the Head Start programs to develop, test, and
disseminate new ideas and approaches for addressing the needs
of low-income preschool children (including children with
disabilities and children determined to be abused or
neglected) and their families and communities (including
demonstrations of innovative non-center based program models
such as home-based and mobile programs), and otherwise to
further the purposes of this subchapter.''.
(1) By striking paragraph (9) of subsection (d) and
inserting ``(9) Repealed.--''.
(2) By striking clause (i) of subsection (g)(1)(A) and
redesignating clauses (ii) and (iii) as clauses (i) and (ii).
(3) In subsection (g)(7)(C)(i) by striking ``1999'' and
inserting ``2003'', striking ``2001'' and inserting ``2005'',
and striking ``2003'' and inserting ``2006''.
(4) By amending subsection (h) to read as follows:
``(h) NAS Study.--
``(1) In General.--The Secretary shall use funds allocated
in section 640(a)(2)(C)(iii) to contract with the National
Academy of Sciences for the Board on Children, Youth, and
Families of the National Research Council to establish an
independent panel of experts to review and synthesize
research, theory and applications in the social, behavioral
and biological sciences and shall make recommendations on
early childhood pedagogy with regard to each of the
following:
``(A) Age and developmentally appropriate Head Start
academic requirements and outcomes, including but not limited
to the domains in 641A(a)(B).
``(B) Differences in the type, length, mix and intensity of
services necessary to ensure that children from challenging
family and social backgrounds including: low-income children,
children of color, children with special needs, and children
with limited English proficiency enter kindergarten ready to
succeed.
``(C) Appropriate assessments of young children for the
purposes of improving instruction, services, and program
quality, including systematic observation assessment in a
child's natural environment, parent and provider interviews,
and accommodations for children with disabilities and
appropriate assessments for children with special needs,
including English language learners.
``(2) Composition.--The panel shall consist of multiple
experts in each of the following areas:
``(A) Child development and education, including cognitive,
social, emotional, physical, approaches to learning, and
other domains of child development and learning.
``(B) Professional development, including teacher
preparation, to individuals who teach young children in
programs.
``(C) Assessment of young children, including screening,
diagnostic and classroom-based instructional assessment;
children with special needs, including children with
disabilities and limited English proficient children.
``(3) Timing.--The National Academy of Sciences and the
Board shall establish the panel not later than 90 days after
the date of enactment of this paragraph. The panel should
complete its recommendations within 18 months of its
convening.
``(4) Application of Panel Report.--The results of the
panel study shall be used as guidelines by the Secretary to
develop, inform and revise, where appropriate, the Head Start
education performance measures and standards and the
assessments utilized in the Head Start program.''.
SEC. 16. REPORTS.
Section 650 of the Head Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9845) is
amended as follows:
(1) The first sentence of subsection (a) is amended to read
as follows: ``At least once during every 2-year period, the
Secretary shall prepare and submit, to the Committee on
Education and the Workforce of the House of Representatives
and the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions of
the Senate, a report concerning the status of children
(including disabled, homeless, and non-English language
background children) in Head Start programs, including the
number of children and the services being provided to such
children.''.
(2) Paragraph (8) of subsection (a) is amended by inserting
``, homelessness'' after ``background''.
SEC. 17. EFFECTIVE DATE.
The amendments made by this Act shall be effective with
respect to fiscal years beginning on and after October 1,
2003.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 336, the gentleman from
California (Mr. George Miller) and a Member opposed each will control
30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. George
Miller).
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4
minutes.
Mr. Chairman, there has been a lot of discussion tonight about those
who do not want to see change or are somehow suggesting that those who
oppose the block grants are against change. This amendment is an
amendment to strike the block grant and to retain title I of the
legislation as it has been reported from committee. Many Members on
this side of the aisle worked with our colleagues on the other side of
the aisle in committee on title I.
We had numerous discussions, and we all believe, as I said, that
there can be continuous improvement, and this is the purpose of the
reauthorization of Head Start, to provide for that continuous
improvement, to take the evaluations, to take the studies, to take the
things that we have learned and apply them to make this an even better
program for America's poorest children so that, in fact, they will have
a better opportunity at achieving an education
[[Page H7581]]
that will allow them to fully participate in American society and the
American economic system.
The fly in the ointment to that continuous improvement is the block
grant, because as many times as my colleagues will say it, that the
block grant requires the adherence with the quality standards and
performance standards in Head Start, the very quality standards and
performance standards that have made this the best program in the
Nation with room for improvement, that the States need not adhere to
that. There is no requirement that they do so. They can generally meet
or exceed those standards.
That is the beginning of the end. That is the reason we have so
carefully evaluated this program, because you are not going to find
those standards in the States. They do not exist. They do not have the
achievement standards that we have in this program, and they do not
have the success that we have in this program.
What they really do is, they say if the States put up some additional
money and the States have a pre-K program somewhere in the State, they
can make application and that application is deemed to be accepted.
Then the State is on its way. It can serve a different population of
children. It can serve more children. It just cannot have more money.
So by the end of the third year, we see that for the first time
children who were otherwise eligible to be served will be cut back from
this program.
They talk about how they are going to meet or exceed the commitment
to comprehensive services, but when we read the legislation, we find
out that that is not true. Again, they must generally meet or exceed,
but in this case, they can provide the services or they can provide a
referral to services.
Well, it will not take the governor long, unlike the State of
Delaware, it will not take a lot of other governors long to figure out
that they do not have to provide those services or all of those
services or the comprehensive nature of those services, and they can
then serve more children; and we start to see the dilution of the
program, the dilution of the quality of the program, and that is the
concern.
A great effort has been made by this Nation to maintain the integrity
and the quality of the Head Start program, and that is what is
threatened by the block grant. This is not a question of whether one is
for improving or against improving Head Start. This is not a question
of whether or not you think we can do it better or not. This is a
question of setting in motion a process that, just as sure as rain,
will bring about a diminution in the integrity and the high quality of
this program.
This amendment provides for striking that block grant program. They
can say, well, it is just a demonstration, it is just an experiment. It
conceivably could be as high as 30 to 40 percent of the children in the
Head Start program.
I appreciate that they say, we are going to fund the program for 5-
years and they ran around and told their moderates and others, this
program will be funded for 5 years; but there is a huge loophole. If
that program does not comply with the State plan in any fashion, there
is no guarantee of that funding taking place. What you read and what
you they say turn out to be two different things.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment and
claim the time in opposition.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) is recognized
for 30 minutes.
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the very distinguished
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Isakson), who is the former chairman of the
State Board of Education and a tremendous asset to the Committee on
Education and the Workforce.
Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Delaware (Mr.
Castle) for his work as a governor and as a leader, for his work on
this committee and for his hard work on this bill.
When I was a little boy, and I heard something that I was not quite
sure was correct, I used to always go to my daddy and I would say, Pop,
is this right? Being the kind of guy that wanted me to learn how to
find out for myself, he would say, Son, why do you not go look it up?
So tonight I have heard that we are going to serve less people with
demonstration grants, that the standards are not being held to as in
title I. I heard there were not any new things. I heard it was an
experiment.
So I decided to go look it up, and just for a second, please indulge
me.
I want to read on page 66, subparagraph (g), the required services of
the block grant. With the funds under this section, the States shall
provide services described in Section 641(a) which is every required
service, standard and audit of title I, and at least as extensive as
were provided previously and to at least as many low-income children,
families in each fiscal year. And then, further, it adds a page of new
requirements and new standards which I guess are the experiments.
I do not think a 4-year-old pre-kindergartener is an experiment. I do
not think physical development, health and nutrition is an experiment,
and I do not think social development is an experiment. I do not think
parental engagement and involvement is an experiment.
I think what we need to look at here tonight is what is really trying
to be done.
Title II allows States, on their own volition, to apply for grants in
such cases only when they already offer a 4-year-old pre-kindergarten
program and other services. It requires them to invest more money, not
less; serve at least as many children, not less; and meet every
standard that existed under 641(a). That is what it says. I looked it
up in the book.
Let me tell my colleagues what else it does. Out in America today
somewhere there are 3-year-olds soon to be eligible or currently
eligible for Head Start named Jose and Maria, Willy and Bob. There is
probably a little Johnny who cannot read somewhere out there, and if
they could write, which they cannot because they are three and they are
impoverished, or if they could call you, but they really cannot because
their parents do not have the money for a phone, I will tell you what
they would tell us.
{time} 2230
They would say, gosh, if you could, take all the benefits of Head
Start in title I and add to it a dimension of things like Even Start,
where my mom and I can learn to read together, and a 4-year-old
prekindergarten program that has, as this bill requires, an early
reading, early cognitive skill, and early language development
requirement aligned with the State requirements for criteria and for
curriculum in grades K through 12.
Now, it is not a block grant because it does not waive the standards
of 641(a), which is what is required on title I. If that is true, then
title I is a block grant. It is not an experiment. Education is not an
experiment. It is the great enabler. It is the great empowerer.
Yes, I do know that all those children that it needs to serve are
those who started out with a disadvantage far worse than the ones that
I did. But the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) in his original
remarks said that this bill turned back the clock. Well, if it turned
back the clock, that means it went to the year preceding Head Start,
which was 1964, where there were very few publicly funded kindergartens
much less prekindergartens, where nutrition programs were just
beginning to develop, where in my part of the country Brown v. Board of
Education and its promise of equal access to education had just really
begun.
This bill does not turn back the clock. It addresses the challenges
of the 21st century. It is permissive for challenging our States to
reach for the stars, to help those most impoverished to do better, and
to see to it that we take a program that has proven it can do well and
give States that want a chance to improve it through academic
enrichment and collaboration.
I close with this. My State developed a 4-year-old prekindergarten 10
years ago under Governor Zel Miller. Today, 600,000 4-year-olds have
gone through that program, and 68,000 will enter this August. We have
an Office of School Readiness where we collaborate with the Atlanta
Symphony that has an inner-city and minority classical musical program
for 3- and 4-year-olds based on the scientifically based brain research
to enrich the cognitive skills of children.
[[Page H7582]]
Should we not say to those States that want that opportunity that
they have the chance, just as long as they spend more money, meet every
standard as required in 641(a), serve every child, or at least every
one they did before? I think we want to say that. And I say we say
``no'' to the substitute and ``yes'' to the bill.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield for the
purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar).
(Mr. OBERSTAR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Miller amendment
and in opposition to H.R. 2110.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. In my district, 11
Head Start agencies, five of which are tribal programs, have served
12,683 children up to 5 years of age over the past 5 years. Yet, due to
inadequate funding, half of all eligible children in my district are
not served by Head Start and Early Start.
Ever since people began hearing about this bill, there has been an
out-pouring of support for Head Start from early childhood experts,
Head Start teachers, and Head Start families throughout my district.
They all say the same thing: Head Start has produced countless success
stories; it should not be restructured in the name of so-called reform.
Listen to Susan Woidyla, a Head Start teacher who serves children in
two counties in my district. She described the success of the Early
Head Start program's curriculum for prenatal women. The program serves
10 pregnant women, many of whom are teenagers who will be first-time
mothers. Woidyla wrote to me about one teenage mother who is homeless
and in an abusive relationship. As the only social service program in
her life, Head Start is not only providing her with critical
information about the brain development of her unborn child and the
potential effects of periodontal disease, but the program is also
helping this young woman find the services she needs to care for
herself and her developing child.
Julia Kicker, another constituent of mine, shared her family's
experience with Head Start. Although Julia and her husband knew that
their first son, Jacob, was lagging behind other children in his social
development, they were told differing information from local day care
providers. Some day care providers insisted that he was fine; others
believed he needed to be medicated; and still others suggested
parenting classes for the Kickers.
Then they enrolled Jacob in Head Start. The staff identified his
needs, and they encouraged special education professionals to become
involved with assessments and other services for Jacob, who is now
enrolled in kindergarten. He has a one-on-one para-professional helper
in the classroom and has been diagnosed with sensory delay and
emotional behavior disorder.
Not only did the program help Jacob, it helped Julia as well. It was
the support that Head Start has routinely offered parents and families
that gave Julia the self-confidence to run for and be elected to the
Policy Council for Head Start, the board of directors of the Community
Action Council, and the City Council.
The very strength of Head Start is in its comprehensive services.
Head Start improves academic achievement in very large part because, in
addition to academics, it also addresses basic health, mental health,
nutritional, dental, and other social needs of low-income children,
which facilitate learning.
We cannot expect underprivileged children to thrive academically
along with their privileged peers, when their learning is seriously
undermined by the devastating effects of poverty.
I will not for legislation that guts Head Start's comprehensive
services and parental involvement and unravels a successful program
that HHS itself has said is working. Instead, Head Start should be
adequately funded to meet the needs of all eligible children.
I urge a ``no'' vote on H.R. 2210.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1
minute.
The gentleman from Georgia is right, we should look it up, because
when it says at least as extensive, what it does is it exempts you from
the regulation. So you offer health care services because health care
is provided under the law. But what you are exempt from is the
legislation that requires screening for all the children in 45 days.
So what happens in my district? Some 150 Head Start children are
diagnosed with speech and language impairments, and with this knowledge
we can immediately provide the services because those are the
regulations and that is the screening that is required. But it is not
required under the block grant.
My colleagues can use euphemisms, they can play with the language;
but the fact of the matter is there is a huge credibility gap between
what they say the bill does and what the bill does. That is what we all
have to understand.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr.
Grijalva), a member of the committee.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished ranking member
from the committee for yielding me this time, and I want to thank the
chairman as well.
I rise again before my colleagues today to express my opposition to
the Republican plan to destroy Head Start and in support of the
substitute.
Head Start, a successful Federal program for nearly 40 years, has
never been a partisan issue. This year, though, my Republican
colleagues have hijacked the issue and it now risks becoming the victim
of a social political agenda, nothing to do with education. Head Start
has become part of the plan to eliminate social programs from Federal
responsibility. This cynical ``not my problem, let 'em eat cake''
agenda ignores our shared responsibility for poor children in this
country. Yes, a shared responsibility to these children, a shared
responsibility to fight poverty, and a shared responsibility to provide
equal opportunity to all children regardless of their parents income.
Mr. Chairman, it is simply irresponsible to neglect these children
when we can do so much to help them. I urge my colleagues to vote
``no'' on H.R. 2210 and ``yes'' on the substitute.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes
to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. Majette).
(Ms. MAJETTE asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. MAJETTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of Head Start and
in support of the Miller substitute.
Head Start gives children the tools that they need to break the cycle
of poverty. Each child deserves an equal opportunity to be the best
that he or she can be. That opportunity can only come when every child
has equal access to education.
Educating our children is not only our moral obligation; it is a
smart investment. Head Start focuses on the whole child. Children
receive balanced nutritional meals, basic health care, dental, medical,
vision screenings and vaccinations. It is a fact that Head Start
children are less likely to be held back in school, more likely to
graduate, and five times less likely to end up in jail as adults.
There are more than 2 million Americans in prison today, and the
evidence shows that Head Start children are five times less likely to
end up in jail. Head Start reduces the likelihood that children will
become one of those 2 million incarcerated.
Unfortunately, Head Start serves fewer than 1 million children at
this time, only helping one out of five needy children in Georgia and
across this Nation. When it comes to our children, we are being penny-
wise and pound-foolish. Taxpayers are supporting twice as many
prisoners as Head Start students.
Just look at the costs. We spent less than $7 billion on Head Start
this year while we spend more than $74 billion a year on the prison
system. It costs only $18 a day to place a child in Head Start and more
than $50 a day to keep someone incarcerated in jail. This is not fuzzy
math; it is crystal clear.
We must make sure that each and every child has the opportunity to
succeed, and Head Start is the smartest investment we can make in our
future. We are spending $1 billion a week in Iraq. We should do no less
for the children of America. I urge my colleagues to vote for the
Miller amendment.
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Illinois (Mrs. Biggert), a strong proponent for the children of our
country.
Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
this time and for his kind words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support H.R. 2210 and to oppose the
Democrat substitute. Mr. Chairman, I am probably the only Member of
Congress who has ever worked in a Head Start program, and that happened
in 1964, the first year of Head Start. I worked as a volunteer in the
summer when the program first started. So I really know
[[Page H7583]]
firsthand the tremendous benefits Head Start has delivered to children;
and I love the Head Start program, and I only want it to be better.
I have gone out to visit the Head Start programs in my community and
found them to be great schools. But to listen to some of my colleagues
and their notions of Head Start, you would actually think the sky is
falling. Let me make this clear. There really is no new block grant in
this Head Start authorization. There really is no lowering of the
standards or shrinking of Federal responsibility. There is no massive
restructuring, and there is no falling sky.
What there is in H.R. 2210 is a straightforward reauthorization with
some improvements for 42 of the 50 States in the Union. For the other
eight States, there is a new pilot program, a pilot program which is
voluntary, maintains high standards, and is limited to the highest-
quality States that have exhibited the strongest commitment to early
childhood learning. So why is that so frightening? For those eight
States with the strongest programs, there is an option of trying
something slightly new for 5 years. That is what pilot projects are
designed to do, to try something new that may work a little bit better.
Yes, the Head Start program is, in my view, one of the most
successful programs in history. But does that success rule out the
possibility of improvement and need for progress and opportunity to
make it even better? I do not think so. I will admit that when this
reauthorizing bill first was introduced earlier this year, I had a few
misgivings. Like many Members who have spoken this evening, why tinker
with a program that works was what crossed my mind. But I must admit
that many of my concerns later were addressed both in the improved
legislation that came out of the committee and in the substitute
amendment that the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) has proposed
that we are voting on tonight.
The State pilot program has the potential to make Head Start even
better, and that is why these changes are in the bill. For instance,
States must match a sizable proportion of the Head Start funds they
receive from the Federal Government with State funds, and Head Start
funds may not be used for any other purpose. These are good solid
safeguards that will allow for progress and improvements while
preventing abuses and unintended consequences.
In contrast, the Democrat substitute offers no incentive for States
to improve their early childhood programs, nor does it give local Head
Start centers the opportunity to coordinate with other programs to make
Head Start better. The Democrat substitute says Head Start is good and
cannot and will not be made better.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to reject the Democrat substitute
and support the improved H.R. 2210.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to
the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen), a member of the
committee.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, we have had bipartisan support for the
Head Start program since it was founded in 1965, so it is extremely
unfortunate that here tonight that bipartisan support is being
sacrificed for an ideological agenda of block granting.
As we have heard tonight, we agree on two things. We all agree Head
Start has been a great success story for millions of American children.
We also all agree that it can be improved, that it can be strengthened.
So here is the great irony. Our committee did strengthen and improve
Head Start in one part of this bill, the first part of the bill. That
is what we need. We improved the coordination, and that would help
millions of children in the Head Start program. Yet in the other part
of the bill we take those improvements away. We take the higher
performance standards away. We take away the benefits of the Head Start
program, so that what we have provided and strengthened on the one hand
we take away with the other.
It is a bad deal for America's children. We can do much better. I
urge us all to adopt the Miller substitute amendment.
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers), where they have the university
that stole their football uniforms from the University of Delaware, I
might add.
Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, there is an incredible amount of
misunderstanding about the bill, and apparently about football uniforms
as well.
Mr. Chairman, let me clarify a few points. I find so many people
misunderstand the intent dealing with faith-based organizations
receiving Federal funding. This is not money that is going to religious
groups to proselytize students or kids or indoctrinate them. This is
money provided to organizations who, in seeking to carry out their
religious faiths, are trying to help their communities by establishing
institutions that serve the people of their community. Head Start is
just one example of that. There are many other examples of charitable
organizations, faith-based organizations, which do good for the
community.
My community is almost a poster child for that. We have the second
largest private mental hospital in the world in my community. It is a
faith-based organization. People come from all over this country and
even from some other countries to get the service there because it is
so extremely good. We have the largest adoption agency in the world
headquartered in my district. It started there by a faith-based
organization to serve with adoptions.
{time} 2245
These are not people who are trying to proselytize. They are people
who are trying to serve and serve in the name of God. That is what we
are talking about.
I heard a reference from the gentleman from Massachusetts earlier
about this is awful, that we are taking unbelievers' money and giving
it to faith-based institutions. I would remind the gentleman that
religious people pay taxes as well, and I can guarantee you that the
amount of tax money collected from believers is considerably greater
than the amount of money going to faith-based institutions. That
statement simply makes no sense.
We have a long history in this Nation of supporting faith-based
institutions. I taught at a State university. I have taught at a
private religious college. The grants I received from the Federal
Government were the same at both institutions. The Federal Government
treats them evenhandedly.
I believe it is very important that we continue the faith-based
practice outlined in this bill.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes
to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop), a member of the committee.
Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my deep
concern over the proposed Head Start legislation on which we will be
voting this evening. Almost 1 million low-income children will be
served by Head Start this year and 2,000 of them reside in my district.
It is well established that Head Start gets children off to a positive
start in life by providing them with an improved vocabulary, better
writing skills and enhanced social skills, all tools they need in order
to succeed.
The reauthorization of Head Start was meant to help correct problems
within the existing program, but this bill goes way beyond that. Title
II of this bill would allow block-granting of Head Start in eight
States without requiring any of the Federal Head Start program
performance standards or guarantees as to the distribution or
allocation of Federal funds by the States. This action will turn a
program that has been a proven success over to States in fiscal crisis
with unproven expertise in coordinating these types of services.
The bill also lacks any real funding for teacher training and
retention. Although the bill does take the positive step of requiring
50 percent of Head Start teachers to have a bachelor's degree, it does
not provide the money and resources needed for them to achieve the
requirements that we have set forth for them. This is a good
requirement, but one that will be very difficult to achieve absent
significant additional funding. The average salary of a Head Start
teacher in my district is less than $20,000 a year. How will a Head
Start program attract highly qualified teachers if the funds are not
available to pay competitive salaries?
Similarly, how will current staff achieve a bachelor's degree if
funds are
[[Page H7584]]
not available to support their return to school?
H.R. 2210 is fundamentally flawed. I urge my colleagues to vote
``no'' on H.R. 2210 and ``yes'' on the Miller amendment.
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), clearly a person very concerned
about Head Start.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I urge my friends in the Chamber to oppose
the substitute that is being proposed because it does not offer us the
opportunity for the flexibility that we need.
Let me say at the outset, and this has been repeated over and over,
that the proposal before us does keep standards, it ensures standards,
it has fire walls to protect standards and it even increases standards
as we heard from the previous speaker, because for the first time we
will have teachers who have qualifications to teach our most
disadvantaged students.
We increase funding. There is no diminution of funding in this
legislation. The red herring that at some point funding will be
decreased or diverted is not possible under the provisions of this
legislation. Most importantly, we do improve quality.
I described earlier the problem that I face. I have some wonderful
Head Start programs. I represent some small areas and some large
metropolitan areas and some of the Head Start programs are great. I
have been to them; I have seen what they can do. But the substitute
before us would eliminate the flexibility that we need in some of our
other areas.
I described two Head Start programs, one with 200 children, one with
300 and not enough to support 34 noninstructive personnel that are
required under the standards that we cannot get any flexibility on. We
have pleaded to try to have that flexibility, to give these students a
chance. So here we have for the first time the opportunity to improve
the quality.
Let us talk about the students that we have, the children that we
have in these programs. These, Mr. Chairman, are our poorest children.
These are our most disadvantaged children. These are our children that
maybe are social problems throughout their lives. Here is an
opportunity to improve the quality. They have come from homes where
they cannot have that advantage, and Head Start can give them that
advantage. We can do more even with less money.
I measured the amount of money we are spending in this one program
that is over two counties. It is $8,439. I have no problem with
spending that. I would double the amount if the program is effective.
The best prep school, preschool program in my district costs,
ironically, $8,400. I could save $39 and send them to that and I am not
even proposing that. I urge my colleagues to take advantage of this
opportunity for flexibility and quality, improving the lives of our
most needy children.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to
the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez).
Announcement by the Chairman pro tempore
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would advise the gentlewoman that she should
remove the badge while she is addressing the Committee.
Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the
gentleman from California for yielding me this time.
For months now we have heard statements from politicians on both
sides of the aisle arguing about what works best for Head Start. I have
been listening here all night, and I have been hearing you talk about
children who are in households in poverty. I think most of you do not
know about that, or households where no English is spoken or households
where parents have no education, where parents do not know how to
access the education system, or with children who have a speech and
hearing problem.
Or imagine somebody who sits in a home like that and has all of that
and then you can imagine what I looked like 40 years ago. See, I know
about these kids, because I am one of those kids. It hurts to hear you
talk about how we are not successful, or how we are losers. But we are
very successful. We have had a lot of successes with Head Start. All
you have to do is ask us. You do not have to imagine it. We write to
you about it all the time.
Let us keep Head Start the way it is.
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra), head of the Subcommittee on
Select Education in the Committee on Education and the Workforce and a
strong force on our committee.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, I want to talk again about the right that is taken away
in this substitute, the right of religious organizations to retain
their religious character while receiving Federal funds. It takes away
something that even Al Gore supports. Al Gore during the campaign said
that ``faith-based organizations can provide jobs and job training,
counseling and mentoring, food and basic medical care. They can do so
with public funds, and without having to alter the religious character
that is so often the key to their effectiveness.''
Churches should be allowed to compete for Federal social services
funds and to remain churches while doing so. The only way a church can
remain a church is if it can staff itself, to the extent it desires,
with those who share the same faith. The underlying bill, unlike the
substitute, provides for the equal treatment of religious
organizations.
Members of faith-based organizations should enjoy the same rights to
associate with others sharing their unique vision as other nonreligious
groups currently enjoy. To deny them that right is to discriminate
against people simply because they are religious and have a religious,
rather than a purely secular, way of looking at the world. The
underlying bill provides for equal treatment. The amendment singles out
religious people for adverse treatment, and that is wrong.
The Supreme Court has upheld the title VII exemption for religious
organizations. In fact, the Supreme Court decided the Amos case on
grounds that support the constitutionality of the title VII exemption
as applied to employees of religious organizations that receive Federal
funds.
In Corporation of the Presiding Bishop v. Amos, the Supreme Court
unanimously upheld the exemption permitting religious organizations to
staff on a religious basis in matters concerning employment. Finding
that the exemption did not violate the establishment clause, the
Supreme Court has made clear that it is a permissible legislative
purpose to alleviate significant governmental interference with the
ability of religious organizations to define and carry out their
religious missions.
Even where the content of their activities is secular, in the sense
that activities do not include religious teaching, proselytizing,
prayer or ritual, Justice Brennan in the Amos case recognized that the
religious organization's performance of such functions is likely to be
``infused with a religious purpose.'' He also recognized that churches
and other religious entities ``often regard the provision of such
services as a means of fulfilling religious duty and of providing an
example of the way of life a church seeks to foster.''
Perhaps one of the greatest liberal Justices, then, recognized that
preserving the title VII exemption when religious organizations engage
in social services is a necessary element of religious freedom.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to
the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the distinguished
minority leader.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time. As I approached the podium here, I removed my sticker that said
``Head Start Works,'' but that is where I would like to begin my
remarks.
Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentleman from California for his
extraordinary leadership on behalf of children of America in every
aspect of their lives, their health, their education, the economic
security of their families, the environment in which they live.
Tonight, I particularly want to thank him for his leadership on this
Head Start legislation. His amendment to eliminate the block grant
segment of this bill is a very important one.
I also want to commend the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey)
for her stewardship of her amendment
[[Page H7585]]
through the process, another very important antidiscrimination addition
to tonight's debate.
Mr. Chairman, as I mentioned, Head Start Works is the motto of the
effort this evening. I first saw Head Start work as a young mother over
30 years ago on the playgrounds of New York. As I wheeled my babies to
the playground and played there every day, we saw a Head Start program.
My oldest child was born in 1964, the same year Head Start was born,
but this would be like a couple of years after that.
We saw the Head Start program right there and the facility next to
the program day in and day out. We would see children come, children
learn, children thrive and parents participate. It was pretty exciting
because it was a new experience for them, made a difference in their
lives personally; and it was a new experience for our country, and it
made a tremendous difference not only to those children but to all of
our children. Lifting up children, all children in America, is good for
our entire country.
And so imagine how exciting it was for me over 20 years later to come
to Congress, go to the appropriations committee and serve on the Labor-
HHS subcommittee which funds Head Start. Year in and year out our
committee reviewed the Head Start program, always seeking to improve
it, always, always, anything we do, looking at every initiative to make
it better, greatly assisted by the superior work of the authorization
committees, of course. On both committees, on appropriations and on
authorization committees, the work was always bipartisan and in good
spirit.
For decades, Head Start worked and for decades Head Start has been
helping children arrive at school ready to learn. Head Start children
do better in vocabulary, letter writing, letter recognition and social
behavior. They are less likely to need special education services,
repeat a grade and are more likely to graduate from high school and go
on to college. Again, it ensured that children got not only education
but nutrition and the medical treatment they needed for a head start.
I saw in the Committee on Appropriations, reviewing not only these
issues, but others, that the best way to undermine a program, to really
begin the end of it, was to turn it into a block grant. Central to the
Head Start successes were its standards. So once you block-granted this
and undermined the standards, you were changing the very nature of the
program and undermining the excellence of it.
{time} 2300
The block grants that are contained in H.R. 2210 will dismantle Head
Start in eight States because it creates new block grants programs for
eight States without requiring any of the Head Start performance
standards. It would allow States to run Head Start programs with lower
educational standards, minimal comprehensive service, less oversight
and accountability, no evidence that they do an equally good or better
job than Head Start, and relieves States of providing comprehensive
services currently provided by Head Start and are proven to improve
school readiness, to name but a few of the concerns that I have about
the block grants.
So as I said before, I worked on the Committee on Appropriations,
which I was pleased to serve with the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr.
Wicker), the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy), others who have
spoken here. It was always bipartisan when it came to Head Start and,
as I said earlier, not so today. The majority has put forth a bill that
dismantles Head Start by eliminating, as I say, the quality standards
that are the foundation of its success.
The Republican bill will not strengthen academic standards. Instead,
the bill removes minimum standards, and I keep repeating that, on
curriculum content, class size and child/staff ratios. The Republican
bill eliminates the comprehensive health, nutritional, and social
services available both to parents and children through Head Start.
The bottom line is that the Republican bill undermines opportunity.
It undermines the aspirations of hard-working parents who want the best
for their children, parents who dream of their children making the
honor roll, going to college.
Head Start is about giving every child an opportunity to succeed.
Head Start is about all Americans having the opportunity to fulfill
their dreams. With that, Mr. Chairman, I will prepare to put my sticker
back on that says ``Head Start Works'' and in doing so again commending
the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Woolsey), and all of the members on the Democratic side
of the committee for the fight that they are making to preserve Head
Start.
I urge my colleagues to support the Miller substitute and reject the
underlying bill.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).
(Mr. GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend and ranking
member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce for yielding me
this time.
I rise in opposition to H.R. 2210. Since 1965, Head Start has
successfully provided comprehensive child development and family
support services for more than 20 million low-income preschool children
and their families. Programs are designed locally and are administered
by a network of 1,500 public and private nonprofit agencies. Each year
this program serves more than 900,000 students, ensuring that these
children are better prepared when they enter kindergarten. It is an
extremely effective and popular program, one that we should be working
to strengthen. We should be working to strengthen the educational
component for the children and their parents. We should be continuing
the health care, not referrals away from the Head Start center sites.
We should strengthen accountability and cover more children.
We have great examples in my own congressional district that I
represent of successful public school- and Head Start-provided
cooperation, putting both Federal dollars and public dollars, and local
State dollars to effectiveness, serving more children. We do not need
to block grant it. I have watched States this year reduce educational
funds. We do not need to do that to Head Start. This is not reform.
This bill deforms Head Start.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 2210, the School
Readiness Act.
Since 1965, Head Start has successfully provided comprehensive child
development and family support services to more than 20 million low-
income preschool children and their families.
Programs are locally designed, and are administered by a network of
about 1,500 public and private nonprofit agencies. Each year, this
program serves more than 900,000 students, ensuring that these children
are better prepared when they enter kindergarten.
This is an extremely effective and popular program, and one that we
should be working together to strengthen.
We should be strengthening the educational component and better
health care effort but that is not the focus of H.R. 2210.
Instead, H.R. 2210 seeks to dismantle the program by moving it closer
to a State block grant, despite evidence that these are lower-quality,
less comprehensive programs.
Despite claims that the legislation we are considering today is
improved from previous versions, this bill still allows States to
weaken educational standard by increasing class size, increasing child-
teacher ratio, shortening program duration, cutting off 3-year-olds
from services, and using unproven curricula.
The bill would undermine the comprehensive nature of the program by
eliminating parent-classroom involvement, health and mental health
screenings and services, adult literacy services, vision and dental
services, and health and nutrition education.
This bill would also allowing States to use Head Start funds to
supplant other Federal funds. I don't know about you, but I don't want
Head Start funds to be paving highways and building bridges.
And as my colleague from California will point out, this legislation
repeals longstanding civil rights protections for employees of Head
Start programs operating through faith-based organizations. This bill
would allow taxpayer dollars to be used to support discrimination in
hiring based on religion.
Mr. Chairman, I know that the Head Start program isn't perfect, but
rather than working toward bipartisan improvements to the program, this
bill is a partisan effort at dismantling this program.
Our children deserve better. I urge my colleagues to reject H.R.
2210.
[[Page H7586]]
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes), a long awaited appearance.
(Mr. REYES asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
I have about four pages of things that I wanted to say, including
statistics about Head Start, but I would like to just put it in the
context of personal experience. Fifty-three years ago, a 6-year-old boy
was sent to school by his parents. I was born on a farm, and in Texas
one has to go to school when they are 6 years old. The problem was that
we only spoke Spanish in my house. So about 10 other kids and I were
moved to kindergarten from first grade because the teacher did not
speak Spanish, and we did not speak English. That did not work too
well; so they decided that we were holding back the kids of
kindergarten; so they devised a new grade that was called prekinder at
that time. That was 53 years ago.
So those that are wondering why we are apprehensive about the changes
that they want to make in a program that works, if that program had
been in place 53 years ago, I and nine other brothers and sisters that
followed me would have been much better off. We made it, but how many
kids do not make it? And if we change Head Start, Head Start that is
working today, shame on all of us as Americans.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the so-called ``School
Readiness Act.'' This bill is a direct attack on the Head Start
program. Head Start has been serving low-income children from birth to
age 5 and their families since 1964 in order to increase their school
readiness. Passage of this bill will lead to the dismantling of the
program as we know it.
Mr. Chairman, the Head Start Center in my district of El Paso, TX,
serves 3,803 children and their families, 94 percent of whom are of
Hispanic decent. There are even more children who can benefit from what
Head Start has to offer. This bill does not do nearly enough to
increase the number of needy children served. This bill also leaves
behind children of migrant and seasonal farm workers who are currently
not being targeted. This is unacceptable.
Under this bill, States would be allowed to run Head Start programs,
thus allowing for children to be held at lower educational and child
care standards. Accountability for these programs are key to their
success. Mr. Chairman, Head Start programs are already held to high
developmental and performance standards that were created by this body.
We need to be taking steps forward when preparing our children for
school. Passage of this bill will be a step backward.
This bill would also allow for Head Start providers to discriminate
in their hiring practices on the basis of religion. Under this bill,
faith-based organizations will be allowed to provide this service and
again not be held to the same Federal accountability standards.
I urge my colleagues to support the children of their districts and
oppose this bill. I also urge my colleagues to support the substitute
provided by Mr. Miller.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to
the gentleman from California (Mr. Honda).
(Mr. HONDA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HONDA. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from
California (Mr. George Miller) for yielding me this time.
I have about three or four pages of written comments; so I have to
say my comments within a minute.
I am opposing H.R. 2210. I was a classroom teacher and a principal.
And my wife has been a kindergarten teacher since 1965. So most of us
here, we talk about Head Start from personal experiences and from
professional experiences rather than sitting in the board rooms of
school board members and other things, volunteers to these programs;
and I am not going to question the motivations of those who are
proposing this bill. But I have to say from my gut that you are wrong.
You are wrong about the direction you are headed with Head Start. We
understand because we lived it, and we understand it because we worked
with the youngsters and we saw it work.
I had two primary schools. I established two Head Start programs. Our
teachers worked with youngsters who spoke Cambodian, Vietnamese,
Spanish; and our kindergarten teachers and first and third grade
teachers said it works. If it ain't broke, why do you want to adjust
it?
Mr. Chairman, as a former teacher and principal, I rise today to
voice my opposition to H.R. 2210, the Republican Head Start
Reauthorization bill.
We should be increasing funding for Head Start, so that all eligible
children can enroll. We should be increasing the salaries of Head Start
teachers, and providing the necessary resources to improve teacher
quality. We need to continue to impose the high standards that Head
Start has been required to meet for the past 38 years.
Instead, Republicans are advocating for the exact opposite. They
support trillion dollar tax cuts, but refuse to provide resources for
disadvantaged children. The Head Start Reauthorization bill would
dismantle this critical program by shortchanging teachers, denying
services to eligible children, and weakening accountability.
Republicans shortchange Head Start teachers. Currently, Head Start
teachers only make about half of what kindergarten teachers make.
Common sense tells us that increasing salaries is imperative for
attracting and retaining highly qualified teachers.
However, Republicans only provide an annual increase of $49 for
teacher salaries and education next year--this is over $300 million
short of what is needed in 2004, and $2 billion short of what is needed
over the lifetime of the bill.
As vice chairman of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus,
I am particularly alarmed by how these Republican cuts will hurt APA
communities. Nationwide, over 25,000 APA children are served by Head
Start.
In California alone, over 6,000 APA children are enrolled in Head
Start, with over half of them coming from homes where English is not
the primary language. By cutting funding for Head Start, Republicans
deny these children the opportunities they richly deserve.
Mr. Chairman, I urge all Members to put the needs of children first,
and vote against the Republican's proposal to destroy the Head Start
program.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to
the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the substitute because
Head Start is very dear to me. I love Head Start. Thirty-eight years
ago I helped to organize one of the first Head Start programs in the
Los Angeles area. Head Start happened to change my life, and I have
seen what Head Start can do for families and for the children.
They talk about wanting to make Head Start better. Let me tell the
Members, Head Start created new ways by which to deal with education
for poor children. Five children to every one adult. In the public
schools they still do not have the right ratios, classrooms all over
this country, 25 and 35 and 45 children to one adult. Nutrition for
every child, parental involvement for every child. All kinds of
services. Physical examinations. They are going to help make Head Start
better?
We have the President and people on other side of the aisle talking
about Leave No Child Behind. They need to put some money into the
public schools so they can receive these children from Head Start who
are doing better, who are ready to learn.
This is a sad moment for me. I never thought I would come to the
Congress of the United States and be involved with the demise of the
Head Start program. Shame on you, Republicans.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this bill. You don't fix
what isn't broken. Head Start has achieved tremendous successes in
helping the most vulnerable of our children. It does not need a
legislative fix. It needs funding so that Head Start can reach the 40
percent of eligible children it does not presently serve.
With this bill, the Republican party is undermining our efforts to
help these children get an education and break the cycle of poverty
that plagues so many of them.
This bill is just the latest example of Republicans choosing to leave
our children behind. They have consistently underfunded the President's
so-called signature education program, Leave No Child Behind. And, they
refuse to pass a child tax credit that would benefit millions of
children.
Now, they seek changes that would ruin the most successful early
childhood education program we have. It is a crime and every Member of
Congress should oppose this bill.
Mr. Chairman, there are two fundamental flaws contained in this bill.
The first is the block grant provision that will ruin the program.
Block granting will gut the high quality, comprehensive services that
are the hallmark
[[Page H7587]]
of Head Start and weaken the program's educational performance
standards. It also will weaken oversight and evaluation of the program.
But what I fear the most, is that block granting will significantly
waken the important role of parents in their children's education. We
all know that teaching effective parenting strategies and involving
parents in their children's education is strongly related to children's
achievement in school.
The Castle substitute purports to provide for parental involvement
while the original Republican bill did not. What is clear is that the
Castle substitute is not as strong on parent involvement as the
existing Head Start program. Why should we recklessly experiment when
we have a Head Start program that effectively involves parents in their
children's education? We should stick with what works.
In fact, experts have often cited the Head Start-parent partnership
as one of the most successful aspects of the Head Start program. To
retreat from our emphasis on the importance of this relationship, would
be to turn back the clock on our commitment to improving the lives of
adults. It also would be a profound insult to the millions of parents
who have been inspired to improve their parenting skills, volunteer in
the program or return to school.
My other concern is with section 654, which would allow Head Start
programs run by faith-based organizations to discriminate on the basis
of religion.
Mr. Chairman, this is appalling. One of the greatest strengths of
Head Start is the diversity of individuals who participate in, and
work, for the Head Start program. Yet, if the Congress supports this
provision, one of the historic foundations of Head Start will crumble.
Teachers will not be hired or parents will be unable to volunteer
simply because they do not share the views of the religious
organization's teachings. This provision will severely hamper the
program and goes against what we stand for as Americans.
Mr. Chairman, the groups that understand children, who understand the
struggles of low-income families, all oppose this bill. The scope of
groups that oppose H.R. 2210 is truly breathtaking. Civil rights
groups, labor, business, teachers, the National Head Start Association,
early education experts--they all oppose this bill because they
understand that the holistic approach that Head Start employs works.
And it works very, very well.
We have heard it before, but I'm going to say it again: ``Head Start
ain't broke, so don't try to fix it.''
Mr. Chairman, this is a bad bill. I urge my colleagues to reject it.
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
South Carolina (Mr. Wilson), another distinguished member of the
Committee on Education and the Workforce.
Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the
gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Boehner) for his leadership on improving
the educational opportunities for our poorest children and the
gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), former Governor of Delaware, for
his passion and dedication to this issue.
I strongly support the improvements to the Head Start program and the
School Readiness Act as the husband of a school teacher, as a parent,
and as a new grandparent since March 14. We cannot allow fear of change
to keep children from reaching their full potential. I hope we can all
work together to help low-income children to be better prepared to
learn as I learned from State superintendent of education Barbara
Nielson.
First, the School Readiness Act requires children to be taught early
reading, math, and writing skills. It also directs that 50 percent of
the Head Start teachers have a 4-year degree by 2008. Second, through
an eight-State pilot program, States like South Carolina that already
are committed to educating pre-K children will be able to combine
efforts with Head Start to maximize resources and experiences to
provide comprehensive, coordinated services that must generally meet or
exceed Head Start services.
The School Readiness Act does not dismantle Head Start. It
reinvigorates and improves it by focusing on academic skills and
allowing States to be innovative.
Our military has proven that tactics must be constantly examined and
improved to be successful in combat. The School Readiness Act brings
this same philosophy to a 40-year program for one purpose: to better
prepare our country's poorest children to succeed in schools. I urge my
colleagues to vote against the Miller amendment and support the
underlying bill.
God bless our troops.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to
the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy).
Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, Head Start works. Despite
the warnings from the National Academy of Sciences that, under this
bill, the poorly designed tests of young children can have a negative
impact on their education, under this legislation the Head Start Bureau
is plowing forward with plans to give a significantly flawed test to
these children starting in the fall. The use of this test will
jeopardize the integrity of Head Start, as teachers skew the test to
focus on the few skills that those children will be tested upon.
We risk labeling these children as failures before they even get on
track to advance in other equally important developmental domains. We
are negligent in our responsibilities under this legislation when it
comes to putting politics, not science, ahead of our discussions. Under
this bill, we put politics ahead of what the National Academy of
Sciences says is what is right when it comes to educating our young
people.
I support the Miller substitute and oppose the underlying bill.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Colorado (Mrs. Musgrave).
Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2210 and in
opposition to the substitute. I wish to emphasize the important work
that religious organizations do and to support their right to staff on
a religious basis.
The landmark Federal law prohibiting religious discrimination in
employment includes an explicit exemption for religious employers in
section 702(a) of title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and
nothing in title VII provides that a religious organization loses its
exemption because it receives Federal funds.
Any Federal legislation governing Federal social service funds should
continue to protect the rights of religious organizations to hire and
staff on a religious basis when they take part in Federal social
service efforts. To do otherwise would deny religious organization
rights they have enjoyed for decades under the Civil Rights Act of
1964.
As the New Republic's legal critic, Jeffrey Rosen, has made clear:
``Preserving churches' ability to fire or refuse to hire people who
reject their religious values is . . . necessary to protect religious
autonomy and State neutrality.''
{time} 2315
Faith-based organizations cannot be expected to sustain their
religious drive without the ability to employ individuals who share the
tenets and practices of their faith, because it is that faith that
motivates them to do the good work they do.
Faith is an idea, not an immutable characteristic. Faith is not tied
to the color of one's skin, to one's genetic makeup, or to one's ethnic
ancestry. It is a unique blend of emotion and intellect that can be
shared by anyone.
I strongly support a religious organization's right to staff on a
religious basis, and I commend them for the good work that they do and
the good work they will do in regard to Head Start.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah).
Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I think that the most important work that
our faith-based organizations could perhaps do on behalf of this Nation
is to pray for the soul of our country. If we would come at this hour
and block grant Head Start to States, it would appear that we have
blocked out of our heads the historical circumstances in our States in
terms of the way they treated the academic development of poor
children.
What State in our country will we put on the honor roll in terms of
providing an adequate educational opportunity for poor children, where
they insisted that these children get qualified teachers and decent
classrooms? In 45 of our 50 States there has been litigation by
thousands of our school districts about the inadequacy of the provision
of public education.
Why did the Federal Government get in the business of Head Start? Was
it
[[Page H7588]]
because States were rushing to help poor children get ready for school?
Why did we get involved in school lunch programs and summer job
programs, in title I? We have gotten involved because States have never
sought to provide for poor children what they need to prepare for their
future.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Sweeney). Without objection, the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) will control the balance of the time
of the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle).
There was no objection.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to
the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).
Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, let me thank the gentleman for yielding me
time and for his leadership and for making sure we have a way to make
sure that the world knows what we are trying to stop tonight.
Head Start has a proven record of preparing low-income children for
school and for life. It has been successful because Head Start
understands that education is not just about reading and writing; it
understands that all children need a sound body if they are to have a
sound mind. Just as much as they need education and learning, Head
Start understands that they need nutrition and health care.
Recent studies show the congressional districts represented by
Congressional Black Caucus Members have almost twice as many children
in Head Start as other congressional districts. That means if this bill
goes through, children in our districts will be disproportionately hit.
Mr. Chairman, block granting is a recipe for disaster. It guarantees
that thousands of Head Start students will start their life well
behind. It is the beginning of the end of Head Start. By supporting the
Miller substitute, however, we are recognizing that Head Start works.
Let us keep it working.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to
the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen).
Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair will ask the gentlewoman to
remove her badge.
When Members are being recognized, they are not to wear badges to
communicate a message.
Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Chairman, as a representative of another area
of this country which has successfully utilized Head Start to improve
the readiness of our children for school and help parents improve their
own lives and provide a more stable and nurturing family environment
for them, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2210 and for the Miller
substitute.
H.R. 2210 would begin the dismantling of a program that is of vital
importance to the welfare of our country. Head Start is not just an
early education program, but deals with the whole child and all that is
important to his or her optimal development.
One of those areas is health care. I have done health screenings at
Head Start, and I can tell you we find many potential disabilities,
hearing, sight, speech, lack of immunization and others, which can be
corrected if we find them early. We know poor parents often do not have
transportation costs to go where referred as H.R. 2210 wants them to
do.
This would hurt our children, weaken our families, undermine our
communities, and really weaken our Nation.
Mr. Chairman, let us not destroy this program and the hope that it
has provided for so many to build their families and lives upon. Oppose
H.R. 2210 and support the Miller substitute.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to
the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I will take off my badge that
said ``Head Start Works,'' but I do want to start, as the leader did,
by saying that Head Start does work, and I thank the distinguished
gentleman for his amendment to bring reality into this discussion.
Mr. Chairman, we are not talking about a frivolous issue tonight on
the floor. It is almost midnight here on the east coast. The parents of
Head Start children are beginning, probably some of them, to just be
able to lay their heads down. Many of them will rise in the early
morning. Many of them are on hourly jobs. Some of them are the parents
of children who are in fact impacted by migrant and seasonal work.
Sixty percent of the eligible children are served; 40 percent are not.
Nineteen percent of the migrant and seasonal worker children are
served; the rest are not served. Three percent of infant and preschool
children are served only; the rest are not served.
This is a bill that is a bad bill. This particular amendment puts
Head Start back where it needs to be, serving all of the children of
America, not just a few. This is a bad bill. Support the Miller
amendment.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne), a member of our committee.
Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman from
Ohio (Chairman Boehner) and the gentleman from Delaware (Chairman
Castle), and also the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) for
his thoughtful amendment. I think his amendment does represent some
improvement.
I would like to just briefly discuss eight State demonstration
programs. That seems to be the crux of the problem right now. I can
point out that no State has to join the demonstration program. This is
totally optional.
We may have all 50 States say, Let's keep the thing like it is. I do
not believe any State will join unless it feels it can actually better
serve children. So what is the fear? Why are we concerned about this?
Is it the argument of a camel's nose under the tent, maybe it will work
and then it might spread? I do not think this is a dangerous issue at
all.
So it only makes sense that two programs that are now existing side
by side, a State program and Head Start, can be better coordinated, can
serve more children, and can do a better job than what we are doing at
the present time.
So I recommend that we defeat the substitute and pass the Head Start
reauthorization.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to
the gentleman from California (Mr. Baca).
(Mr. BACA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BACA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Democratic
substitute to protect Head Start and oppose H.R. 2210.
Basically, one of the reasons why I am behind it is because we are
talking about monies going into block grants right now. We are talking
about monies that are going to be going there, because States are in a
deficit right now. It is a time we should pour monies into education,
invest more money into education; and Head Start should receive a lot
more money.
Let me tell you, a lot more kids are receiving help when they go into
Head Start. It builds their self-esteem, it gets them involved, it
builds their confidence, it allows them an opportunity to progress and
advance in education.
I can talk about my personal experience. I was put in a slow-
learners' class. I was not put in the regular classes during that
periods of time. Had there been a Head Start class, I would have been
able to build my self-esteem, my confidence and my ability to go on and
learn. It is important that we do.
The Republicans now are saying we want to reach out to the Hispanic
community. Well, you are not reaching out to the Hispanic community.
You say we want to include you; we want to leave no child behind.
You are going to leave more children behind, because what you are
doing right now is you are cutting off support for them, giving them
the ability to learn, giving them the ability to progress by putting it
into block grants, putting it into States that have deficits right now,
and making those decisions.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to
the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez).
(Ms. VELAZQUEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend
her remarks.)
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, the work we do here in Congress is all
about priorities, and the decisions we
[[Page H7589]]
make are a measure of what we value as a Nation.
What this bill shows us very clearly is that low-income children are
again not a priority for our President and the Republican leadership.
We have spent $350 billion in another tax cut for our wealthiest
families, yet we cannot afford to provide Head Start services to two
out of every five eligible preschool children.
Mr. Chairman, instead of expanding the libraries in Head Start
classrooms, this bill will take books out of the hands of our most at-
risk children. Rather than providing teachers additional resources, we
are jamming even more students into the crowded classrooms.
This legislation jeopardizes funding, slashes critical health
services, weakens educational standards, and repeals civil rights
protections.
I am outraged by the Republican bill, but I am not surprised. The
Republican leadership constantly extols family values, yet its
legislative agenda so clearly fails to value American families.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the
gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), the author of the bill, and the
chairman of the Subcommittee on Education Reform.
(Mr. CASTLE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Chairman, I listened to this argument all night, and there is
some great success stories in Head Start, and there are a lot of us
that are very devoted to what Head Start has done. But I hark back to
about 15 or 16 years ago when I was Governor of the small State of
Delaware, and we started welfare reform before anybody here in Congress
had talked about it. We started it by having classes, mandatory
classes. You had to go to classes, or you would not get your welfare.
I went to that first class after they had been there for about 2
months. I walked in there; I remember there were 19 people there, one
man and 18 women. I was stunned, because I thought they would want to
run me out of the place. Instead, they thanked me for giving them an
opportunity.
We have done what you had to do with welfare in Delaware, and now in
the United States. We have reduced welfare by 50 percent. The time has
come in the United States of America to do more with Head Start.
There are some wonderful success stories for Head Start, no question
about it. But there are also in-bred problems that we need to deal with
if we are going to make Head Start better, and some of those we need to
talk about right now.
First of all, I do appreciate the support for title I, because we did
make a lot of changes. That is everything but the State demonstration
and the faith-based business.
Secondly, we have increased spending. Since 1995, we have doubled
spending. But if you look at these results for just 1 year, and I
showed these charts before, ironically, that was about an hour and a
half ago, nobody has come forward to show me anything different, any
study, any chart, any test whatsoever, to show that Head Start results
are better than this.
This shows that the increases are rather marginal, in fact, in some
instances no increases at all as far as Head Start is concerned,
averaging in the low twenties. This means these are kids that are going
to have difficulty in school. Some are going to be higher and they are
going to do all right; but for the most part, they are going to have
difficulty in schools because we simply have not gotten them to where
they should be, which is as close to the median level, 50 percent, as
we can get them. We have to raise that.
What does the State demonstration make? The State demonstration that
people are so concerned about, what does it do with respect to this?
Well, it fences in all of the Federal money, all of local money, it
adds more local money to what we are doing here, and it makes sure that
the State merges it in with all of the other programs and projects
which they are trying to do to help children.
Some of the comments which I have spelled out before from people on
the outside, for example, the San Diego Union said: ``The strident
opposition to President Bush's modest pilot proposal to fine-tune Head
Start is nothing more than partisan sniping, pure and simple. Bush is
looking to close the achievement gap for poor youngsters. He would do
so by merging Head Start into often overlapping State programs and
opposing new academic standards on the combined program.''
That is positive. That will help educate young people.
Then the Des Moines Register said: ``The eight States selected for
the 5-year pilot project just might do better. The eight-State pilot
project is a chance to see what States can do on their own. Meanwhile,
Head Start is working to improve early literacy and math preparation.
When the 5-year experiment is over, Congress can decide whether a
state-by-state or national framework better serves the interests of
young children.''
{time} 2330
That is not taking apart Head Start, that is not block-granting
anything. That is affording opportunities to young people to be able to
be educated.
The Council of State School Officers has come forward and has
indicated that they believe in this proposal and we need to do
something about it. This is a council of State school officers which
has done that, people who believe in education. The Brookings
Institution, certainly a middle-of-the-road operation, has come forward
and said that we need to do something. It said, given the immensity of
the task and the modest success achieved thus far, new ideas are worth
trying.
This is a new idea. This is not dismembering anything. This is
affording opportunity. This is taking eight States and saying, we are
going to give you, the best States in the country, who are willing to
put in extra money and who are already running programs that are going
to help in early education with these young children, the opportunity
to do more to lift the standards of where we are going with Head Start.
Everything else will be done in Head Start.
And Lord only knows, it does some wonderful things, and we have heard
that said by a lot of people here tonight. But this is unacceptable; we
have to do better educationally. That is what this is all about.
Please support the underlying legislation and defeat the amendment.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to
the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, Head Start works. It has for 38 years.
Providing comprehensive child development, literacy, family services to
more than 18 million preschoolers. One million children and their
families are served every single year, unquestionably, the most
effective early childhood development program ever developed.
Why do we want to change it? What is the reason for it?
The bill that underlies this amendment tonight, it would shift the
responsibility of the program to the States. In essence, what we would
see, we are going to pave the way for what the founder of Head Start,
Dr. Edward Zigler, has called 50 Head Start programs run by 50
governors. It is going to these States untested and unproven. They lack
the high standards, the accountability that is already found in the
Head Start program. And the sole problem with this program is that only
three out of five eligible preschoolers and only 3 percent of eligible
infants and toddlers can participate in Head Start because of the
funding constraints.
Farming the program out to cash-strapped States will not improve
matters. Do not deny our children opportunity. Do not deny them
success. Support the Miller amendment and let us do something right for
the youngsters of this country.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such
time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, tonight we have a choice. We have a choice about
whether or not we can build upon the continued and improving success of
the Head Start program, and whether or not we can provide the kind of
quality assurance and performance standards that this generation of
children, of impoverished children, of many children who have not had
opportunity up until the
[[Page H7590]]
day they walked through the door of a Head Start center, whether we can
provide that kind of quality program and performance standards to
assure that they will, in fact, have the opportunity to exercise the
education that they will be given.
The gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) pointed out the chart that
showed these children were improving a few percentiles during their
time in Head Start; then he suggested in his earlier remarks, not in
these remarks but in the earlier remarks, that these children were
performing so poorly that for all intents and purposes, they are done
educationally. Well, that obviously does not jive with some of our
colleagues who talked about their own success as Head Start students
and our own experiences in our congressional districts; nor does it
jive with the rest of the study which the gentleman from Delaware (Mr.
Castle) cited, which is, by the end of kindergarten, these children are
performing at about average.
What does that suggest to us? It suggests to the researchers that
Head Start, in fact, did lay down the foundation, did lay down the
basis by which these children, compared to other children in
kindergarten, are able to achieve in that 1 year the average of those
children. That is against all children in that kindergarten.
How does Head Start work against their peers, other poor children who
do not have the opportunity? We see that these children have
substantial gains, IQ gains over the children who did not get to
participate in Head Start. Their reading, writing, and math skills are
superior to those children who did not get to participate; a much
higher level of high school graduation. They are not doomed because
they are not doing as well as we would like in Head Start; they are
doing better than their peers. Special education, many fewer held back
in school, and fewer put into special education and, of course, a lower
incidence of participation in crime.
So it is working against their peers, and it is providing them an
educational opportunity against the average children.
We have already agreed, and we have said on both sides of the aisle,
that there is much improvement in this legislation. But again we go
back to the fundamental principle that the improvements that we make in
title I, the improvements in the performance standards and in the law,
are then undermined by the block grant.
It is interesting that the gentleman from Delaware, and I can
understand his experience, because his State has basically adopted the
Head Start performance standards for State pre-K programs, as has Ohio,
the chairman; and I guess, apparently, of Oregon.
But in this block grant, the very things that strengthen and provide
for the success that the gentleman from Delaware talks about are not
included, because when you say it is extensive, you do not have to take
the body of regulations that have provided the quality and the
continuous improvement of this program over 35 years. The States do not
have to take that, and that is the big difference. And that is what we
see when we talk about the erosion that the block grant leads to.
We can take the block grant and we can reduce program hours. We can
exclude 3-year-olds. We can increase child-teacher ratios. We can
provide unproven curricula. We have spent a fortune trying to get Head
Start doing something with the massive amounts of research that we have
been involved in, and yet we can cast that aside and go out to some
vendor who promises us something for these children. We can run half-
year programs and we can serve more children by running the half-year
program.
These are the core elements that have separated Head Start from so
many other State-run programs where they do not have the quality and
they do not get the results. That is why there is such a strong
adherence by our communities to the Head Start program. That is why
there is such strong adherence by the Members of Congress to the Head
Start program, because we understand that they are being measured by
their compliance, by their compliance to those standards.
Yes, many of them are out of compliance in one fashion or another,
but we also know that many of those are just minuscule, tiny, tiny
factors that they are out of compliance with. Because in that same
study, again, 85 percent of them were high quality.
And then it comes to the question of the comprehensive services and
the direct access, and the body that we have built up, services that
are not provided in many of the State programs. That is why we ask our
colleagues to accept this bill and all of the hard work that has gone
into title I and to reject title II.
Finally, let me say that all of this improvement and all of these
children that are supposed to be served are all essentially going to be
served with less money in a few years because of the capped
authorization in this legislation. For the first time, this Congress
will reauthorize a bill that will not allow for the expansion over the
period of that reauthorization of this program. That is the first time
any Congress has done that, and that is the first time any
administration, Republican or Democrat, has suggested that that is the
right way to go.
We know it is not the right way to go. We are only serving 60 percent
of the children, and yet we are going to knock out in the next few
years some 5,000 to 10,000 of those children because the authorization
does not provide sufficient funding.
Mr. Chairman, I urge the adoption of this amendment, and rejection of
the block grant and the undermining of the Head Start program.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of our time.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the author of this bill, the gentleman
from Delaware (Mr. Castle), the subcommittee chairman, for the
brilliant job that he did with the subcommittee to bring this bill
together and to bring it to this point.
Also, I want to thank the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne) for
all of his efforts, and all of the members of our committee who have
worked hard and come together from the right wing to the more moderate
wing to help craft a bill that will help poor children get a better
start in life.
I also want to thank the staff of the gentleman from Delaware (Mr.
Castle), including Sara Rittling and Paul Leonard. I want to thank the
committee staff: Kate Houston, Amanda Farris, Melanie Looney, Julian
Baer, Parker Hamilton, Krisann Pearce, Dave Schnittger, Jo-Marie St.
Martin, and Sally Lovejoy and others who were so helpful in putting
this bill together.
Head Start has done a lot for a lot of children all across the
country. There is not one Member in this room, not one, who does not
believe that Head Start cannot be improved.
Now, the question is, how do we improve it? In title I of the bill,
there is basic agreement on the changes that will bring a more academic
component to Head Start.
The big issue was over title II, the eight-State pilot project. We
have heard it called a block grant, we have heard it described as the
dismantling of Head Start. Please. There are some States out there who
are doing magnificent things, and to give them the opportunity to
better coordinate Head Start with their own pre-kindergarten programs,
their own early childhood development programs, their own child care
programs, States can, in fact, provide a comprehensive package that we
believe could be of great help to poor children and their parents in
terms of helping improve this program.
And to just say ``no,'' we are not going to try it, we are never
going to go there, frankly, is not fair. It is not fair to the 3- and
4-year-olds in America who need our help.
So we have in this bill this eight-state demonstration project, but
only for those States who would hold themselves to high standards, only
those States who will make a big commitment to early childhood
development, and only States who really want to take this project on.
I believe that we have got a good bill before us. I want to ask my
colleagues to reject the Miller substitute and to vote ``yes'' on final
passage.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for introducing
this necessary substitute. This Head Start bill is an outrage!
H.R. 2210 it turns a program that is a proven success at improving
the lives and futures of low-income children into some kind of Federal
experiment. And, for the first time in this
[[Page H7591]]
Nation's history, it repeals a law which protects employees against
religious discrimination, and Mr. Miller's substitute fixes both of
these issues.
We know that children who complete Head Start are less likely to
become delinquents and are more likely to graduate from high school
than their peers from similar economic backgrounds. We know this and we
know that voting for these amendments will ensure that low-income
children can continue to get the Head Start they need to succeed in
school and in life.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Sweeney). The question is on the
amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the gentleman from
California (Mr. George Miller).
The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded
vote.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by
the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) will be postponed.
Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII,
proceedings will now resume on those amendments on which further
proceedings were postponed in the following order: amendment No. 1
offered by Ms. Woolsey of California; amendment No. 2 in the Nature of
a Substitute offered by Mr. Miller of California.
The first electronic vote will be conducted as a 15-minute vote. The
remaining electronic vote will be conducted as a 5-minute vote.
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Ms. Woolsey
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Woolsey) on which further proceedings were postponed
and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 199,
noes 231, not voting 5, as follows:
[Roll No. 441]
AYES--199
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Ballance
Becerra
Bell
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Case
Clay
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley (CA)
Doyle
Edwards
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Grijalva
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kelly
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Kleczka
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Lowey
Lynch
Majette
Maloney
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Sandlin
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Sherwood
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOES--231
Aderholt
Akin
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole
Collins
Cox
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Emerson
English
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Janklow
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
Marshall
McCotter
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Turner (OH)
Upton
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--5
Davis (TN)
Gephardt
Gutierrez
McCrery
Pastor
Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Sweeney) (during the vote). Members are
advised that there are 2 minutes remaining in this vote.
{time} 0004
Mr. TIAHRT and Mr. JANKLOW changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. TANNER changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Sweeney). Pursuant to clause 6 of rule
XVIII, the next vote will be a 5-minute vote.
Amendment No. 2 in the Nature of a Substitute Offered by Mr. George
Miller of California
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by
the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) on which further
proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice
vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
[[Page H7592]]
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 200,
noes 229, not voting 6, as follows:
[Roll No. 442]
AYES--200
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Ballance
Becerra
Bell
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Case
Clay
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley (CA)
Doyle
Edwards
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Kleczka
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lynch
Majette
Maloney
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Sandlin
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Shays
Sherman
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOES--229
Aderholt
Akin
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole
Collins
Cox
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Emerson
English
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Janklow
Jenkins
John
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
Marshall
McCotter
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Stenholm
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Turner (OH)
Upton
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--6
Buyer
Gephardt
McCrery
Oberstar
Pastor
Sullivan
Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised there
are 2 minutes remaining in this vote.
{time} 0012
So the amendment in the nature of a substitute was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. There being no other amendments, the
question is on the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
The amendment in the nature of a substitute was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Accordingly, under the rule, the Committee
rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Simpson) having assumed the chair, Mr. Sweeney, Chairman pro tempore of
the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported
that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R.
2210) to reauthorize the Head Start Act to improve the school readiness
of disadvantaged children, and for other purposes, pursuant to House
Resolution 336, he reported the bill back to the House with an
amendment adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
The question is on the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
The amendment in the nature of a substitute was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Grijalva
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. GRIJALVA. Yes, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Grijalva moves to recommit the bill H.R. 2210 to the
Committee on Education and the Workforce with instructions to
report the same back to the House forthwith with the
following amendments:
Page 2, line 23, strike ``$6,870,000,000'' and all that
follows down through line 26 and insert ``$7,000,000,000 for
the fiscal year 2004, $7,119,000,000 for the fiscal year
2005, $7,232,904,000 for the fiscal year 2006, $7,370,329,000
for the fiscal year 2007, and $7,554,587,000 for the fiscal
year 2008.''.
Page 4, strike lines 10 and 11 and insert the following:
(2)(A) By inserting, after ``13 percent of the amount
appropriated for each fiscal year'' in subsection (a)(2) the
following: ``or increase such reservation to 15 percent in
any year in which the amount appropriated hereinafter under
section 639(a) exceeds the amount appropriated under such
section for fiscal year 2003, increasing such reservation
only from such excess,''.
(B) By inserting ``, consistent with the last sentence of
this paragraph'' after ``except in subsection (a)(2)(A).''
(C) By striking ``1998'' in subsection (a)(2)(A) and
inserting ``2003''.
(D) By amending the last sentence of subsection (a)(2) to
read as follows: ``For any fiscal year in which the amount
appropriated hereinafter under section 639(a) exceeds the
amount appropriated under such section for fiscal year 2003,
the Secretary, from such excess amount, shall increase the
amount made available under subparagraph (A) for programs
described under such subparagraph to not less than 3 percent
for Indian Head Start programs and 5 percent for migrant and
seasonal Head Start programs.''.
Page 5, line 16, after ``the following'' insert ``before
the last sentence''.
Mr. GRIJALVA (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous
consent that the motion to recommit be considered as read and printed
in the Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Arizona?
There was no objection.
{time} 0015
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). Pursuant to the rule, the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr.
[[Page H7593]]
Grijalva) is recognized for 5 minutes in support of the motion.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa), who is also chair of the Education Task
Force for the Congressional Hispanic Conference.
(Mr. HINOJOSA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this
Grijalva motion to recommit. Migrant children whose parents do the most
backbreaking work in the Nation in order to put food on our tables
deserve better than crumbs when it comes to early childhood education.
I would especially like to recognize the leadership that my
colleague, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva), has shown on this
issue. Migrant children have no better friend than this gentleman from
Arizona.
We began the reauthorization process thinking we could come to a
bipartisan solution to the access gap in Head Start programs for the
children of migrant and seasonal farm workers. But the majority has
steadfastly refused to provide the financial resources needed to expand
the program. Their bill will only increase the migrant Head Start
children from 19 percent served to 20 percent.
When these families do not have access to the program, parents have
no alternative but to take their children to the fields, or perhaps
leave them unattended in the labor camp. We are fooling ourselves if we
think that we can provide Head Start services to the 80 percent of
children we have left behind. Vote ``yes'' on the motion to recommit.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments,
and I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms.
Solis), a great advocate for education and a former member of the
Committee on Education and the Workforce.
(Ms. SOLIS asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Speaker, I also would like to rise to support the
Grijalva motion to recommit. I want to also state to the Members here
tonight that I have heard a lot of discussion and debate about Head
Start. I want to point out the family here that I represent in my
district. They are actually recipients of the WIC program, the Women,
Infant and Children program.
These young children are not even eligible for Head Start yet, but
you are already determining their fate by cutting out program services
when you propose legislation that would block grant these services. I
am talking about real people, people who need help, who are not looking
for a handout but want to see educational improvements in their lives.
When we help to educate a mother, we help to educate her children and
her family. But when we deny her that ability to take her children
somewhere so that they can be taught appropriately to learn the
language, to become assimilated to this society, to be able to seek
assistance from this government, because they also pay taxes, this is
also a working family, and let us not lose sight of that. This is not
something about people who were looking for handouts.
Right now in the State of California there are over 103,000 children
who will not be eligible under the Republican proposal; 6,500 in the
32nd Congressional District that I am very proud to represent in East
Los Angeles and the San Gabriel Valley, where 60 percent of the
students enrolled in Head Start are Hispanic. They look like this
family. My colleagues are telling them that they are not going to have
a future. You are telling them and their mother that the mother will
not be able to participate in their education.
We need to help these families. We need to help provide support for
migrant education programs. These are families that are coming and
seeking a better tomorrow, the American Dream. They are immigrants
seeking a better tomorrow. I support the motion to recommit, and I
support full funding for the migrant seasonal education program as well
as the efforts of my colleague, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr.
Grijalva).
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to provide a ray of
hope to thousands upon thousands of the poorest of the poor, the
children of migrant and farm worker families.
The child in this picture is eligible for migrant and seasonal Head
Start services, yet he wanders in a field in North Carolina with his
parents while they work all day. He is exposed to pesticides, hazardous
equipment, extreme heat, and other health dangers. The sad part of this
situation is that he is not alone. Over 130,000 children are in the
exact same situation in the richest country in the world. These
children are neglected because Congress has chosen not to provide the
funds to give them services.
If you have not seen these children, you have seen their families'
hard work. Every day you see their hard work on your dinner table, in
your restaurants, and in your grocery stores. With just 19 percent of
migrant children being served, this program is so drastically
underfunded that providing new money is the only clear and real
solution.
Republicans are rearranging the money in Head Start, claiming that
they are providing relief to these children. This is simply untrue.
Strategies that steal from Peter to pay Paul are unfair. Only 2,200 of
the 130,000 neglected children will be served with this new funding
scheme, and it ignores the Native American children all together.
There are deadly weapons in this Nation: ignorance, intolerance,
injustice, neglect, and denial of opportunity. These children are the
victims. These are weapons we can find and we can destroy, and this is
your opportunity.
Let us extend to these children the American Dream. Let these
children who are the sons and daughters of farm workers feel that they
too have a stake in this country. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to
use their consciences and support the motion to recommit and vote
``no'' on final passage.
It is time we start speaking for children that have no voice in this
House. The children of farm workers deserve our support and our care.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would kindly ask all Members to
turn off electronic equipment.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to
recommit.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Ehlers), the gentleman who has led our efforts with Members on both
sides of the aisle to help seasonal migrant workers.
Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me this
time, and it is my pleasure to rise and defend this bill, and
particularly the provisions in it regarding seasonal and migrant
workers.
The migrant and seasonal children of this country have special needs
and should get special help, and I do not disagree with the minority on
that part. They need special help because they are often moved from
place to place, and they have special conditions that have to be dealt
with.
For example, in my community, they attend Head Start programs from
early summer to mid-fall. Obviously, this is not the standard school
year. But that is just one of the many ways in which they have to be
treated specially. And I am personally very familiar with their
problems because in my youth I lived in a small farming community in
the great State of Ohio. I worked on a produce farm. I worked side by
side with migrant workers, in the fields and in the packing sheds, and
even in transporting produce to markets.
It is very important for us to provide the services for these
children. When these children are not served properly, parents will
often bring them to the fields and sometimes even have the slightly
older ones working. They certainly can be exposed to harmful conditions
that way. Today, migrant and seasonal Head Start serves close to 35,000
children in 39 States in every region of this country. But in contrast
to the standard Head Start program, the part that serves the migrant
and seasonal serves only approximately 19 percent of the eligible
children. That is dramatically lower than the 60 percent of eligible
children served in other areas.
[[Page H7594]]
Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to be able in the committee to offer an
amendment that was approved by the committee that allows all migrant
and seasonal Head Start grantees to operate early Head Start programs.
Not every Head Start program is allowed to operate early Head Start,
but this amendment allows all migrant and seasonal Head Start grantees
to operate these.
Why is that important? Because frequently migrants have small
children and they need the early Head Start program, or they are going
to be taken to the fields. That is one great improvement.
Another is that my amendment will require the Secretary to ensure
that migrant and seasonal Head Start programs are included in the
planning and coordination of the State systems of training and
technical assistance. In addition, part of my amendment, in combination
with a change that has been made in the substitute, will provide at
least 25 percent of any remaining technical assistance funds which are
used in migrant and seasonal Head Start programs. And the bill
specifically makes 1 percent of the technical training assistance funds
available in this category. This means we will have an additional $17.4
million in fiscal year 2005 and an additional $1 million in 2008. This
will provide an additional 2,300 slots for children to receive services
and up to 2,500.
This is not just a magic authorization improvement. This is money
that will be there. These are slots that will be there. These are
children that will receive service. It is not simply increasing
authorization; it is producing additional spots for the kids to go in.
We have covered a good deal of this problem in this bill through this
amendment. Let us vote for this bill, let us reject the recommittal
motion, and let us go on and get this bill into effect and help all the
seasonal and migrant children of this Nation.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of our time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on
the question of passage, if ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 203,
noes 227, not voting 5, as follows:
[Roll No. 443]
AYES--203
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Ballance
Becerra
Bell
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Case
Clay
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley (CA)
Doyle
Edwards
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Kleczka
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lynch
Majette
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Sandlin
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOES--227
Aderholt
Akin
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole
Collins
Cox
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Emerson
English
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Harris
Hart
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Janklow
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
McCotter
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Nethercutt
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Turner (OH)
Upton
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--5
Gephardt
Myrick
Pastor
Petri
Sullivan
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson) (during the vote). Members are
advised that 2 minutes remain in this vote.
{time} 0043
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded
vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 217,
noes 216, not voting 2, as follows:
[Roll No. 444]
AYES--217
Aderholt
Akin
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
[[Page H7595]]
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole
Collins
Cox
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Dreier
Dunn
Ehlers
Emerson
English
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Harris
Hart
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Janklow
Jenkins
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Latham
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Manzullo
McCotter
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Turner (OH)
Upton
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--216
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Ballance
Becerra
Bell
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Case
Clay
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley (CA)
Doyle
Duncan
Edwards
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Kleczka
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Lynch
Majette
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Sandlin
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Shays
Sherman
Simmons
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walsh
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOT VOTING--2
Gephardt
Pastor
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson) (during the vote). Members are
advised there are 2 minutes remaining in this vote.
{time} 0057
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
{time} 0100
____________________