[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 112 (Friday, July 25, 2003)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1642]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      SCHOOL READINESS ACT OF 2003

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                          HON. JAMES A. LEACH

                                of iowa

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, July 24, 2003

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of 
     the Union had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2210) to 
     authorize the Head Start Act to improve the school readiness 
     of disadvantaged children, and for other purposes:

  Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, Head Start is one of the semiannual 
innovations in education in the history of America. The bill before us, 
the School Readiness Act of 2003, is not as catastrophic as its critics 
tonight are suggesting. No program, however successful, is immune to 
improvement. On the other hand, the kind of demonstration block grant 
approach included in this legislation could over time transform Head 
Start programming in such a way as to weaken the federal nexus and 
allow states discretionary authority that could, in the name of seeking 
higher standards, actually diminish those standards.
  Of particular concern to me is that the bill authorizes the removal 
of certain civil rights protections that have historically accompanied 
virtually all federal programs. I have voted in the past to allow 
religious organizations in their religious pursuits to be exempt from 
certain federal mandates, but organizations using federal funds for 
secular missions should not be allowed to operate outside the scope of 
the laws that apply to everyone else.
  The irony of removing civil rights standards from Head Start programs 
is that Head Start is an opportunity initiative disproportionately 
aimed at disadvantaged kids. The message of removal of civil rights 
protections from Head Start programs is that kids would be asked to 
work hard but not expect to work here.
  Under Title 1 of the School Readiness Act, there are certain quality 
improvements called for that were consensus in the committee and are 
acknowledged as steps forward by both sides in the debate this evening. 
The principal controversy relates to the block grant approach in Title 
2 and on this subject, I support the amendment of Representative George 
Miller of California which embraces the Title 1 provisions of the bill 
but remolds Title 2 to more closely parallel the way Head Start 
services are currently provided.
  My sense is that this evening's Floor debate has been rife with 
rhetorical excesses on both sides, but while I am convinced of the good 
will of the bill's architect, Mike Castle of Delaware, I share the 
reservations of experts in the field about the approach the majority 
proposes. While all federal programs deserve to be reviewed with an eye 
to improvement, the case for structural change of the kind envisioned 
in this legislation is uncompelling.
  Head Start is an American success story. It deserves the respect of 
this body.

                          ____________________