[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

                          ____________________