[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 67 (Thursday, May 19, 2005)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1021]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       HEAD START REAUTHORIZATION

                                 ______
                                 

                        HON. DENNIS J. KUCINICH

                                of ohio

                    in the house of representatives

                        Wednesday, May 18, 2005

  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, the goal of Head Start has always been to 
help young children in low-income families, specifically those below 
the poverty line, prepare for school. Head Start has focused its 
resources on the children most in need, and has been successful in 
narrowing the gap between disadvantaged children and their peers. 
Today, we can correct a problem in Head Start and ensure that it serves 
all the children it was intended to.
  The poverty thresholds were developed in the early 1960s and at that 
time statistics showed that families typically spent one-third of their 
income on food. The thresholds were designed to take the costs of the 
Department of Agriculture's economy food plan for families and multiply 
the costs by a factor of three. Currently, the calculations of the 
poverty line for Head Start are adjusted by the Consumer Price Index 
annually to account for the growth in prices. Unfortunately, the 
current calculation leaves important factors out of the calculation of 
the poverty line.
  Adjusting only for changes in price growth ignores the reality that 
times have changed. It is not 1965. Today, families are much more 
likely to spend significant portions of their income on housing. It is 
more likely that both parents will be working full time jobs. Both 
childcare costs and the likelihood that a family will need it have also 
increased.
  Additionally, the failure to adjust the poverty line as wages have 
grown now means that families in poverty today are worse off relative 
to the typical family than families in poverty were 40 years ago. For 
instance, the threshold for a family of four, when the poverty 
thresholds were first introduced--$18,810 in 2003 dollars--was 42 
percent of the median income of a family that size. By 2003, the value 
of the poverty threshold for a family of four had fallen to 35.7 
percent. Adjusting only for changes in price growth for the past 40 
years has slowly eroded the group of intended recipients. Now we are 
left with families in need of assistance whose children are not even 
eligible for Head Start.
  This amendment seeks to bridge the gap that has been created and 
ensure that it will not be created again in the future. Currently, the 
2005 poverty line for a family of 3 is $16,090. By tying the poverty 
line to wage growth, rather than price growth, the poverty line for a 
family of 3 would become $19,610. The increase in the poverty line 
produced by this change by no means raises eligibility to include every 
child who could benefit from Head Start. But this adjustment will 
significantly help the families who should have been eligible all 
along. It is a step in the right direction; the direction of ensuring 
that the working poor are given the help they need to survive.
  This committee is not only charged with ensuring that Head Start 
programs are performing well but with ensuring that they are serving 
all the children they were intended to. This amendment will help to 
ensure that children do not continue to be left behind. I urge my 
colleagues on the Committee on Education and Workforce to join me in 
supporting my amendment.

                          ____________________