Congressional Record, Volume 151 Issue 120 (Thursday, September 22, 2005)

[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 120 (Thursday, September 22, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H8264-H8311]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

SCHOOL READINESS ACT OF 2005

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Pursuant to House Resolution
455 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of
the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the
bill, H.R. 2123.

{time} 1202

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 consideration of the bill
(H.R. 2123) to reauthorize the Head Start Act to improve the school
readiness of disadvantaged children, and for other purposes, with Mr.
Latham in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having
been read the first time.
Under the rule, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) and the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner).
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of this bill to reform and
reauthorize the Head Start early childhood program.
I want to commend the chairman of the Subcommittee on Education
Reform, the author of this bill and my good friend, the gentleman from
Delaware (Mr. Castle). I also want to recognize the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Woolsey) and the gentleman from California (Mr. George
Miller) for their work to strengthen the Head Start program.
The School Readiness Act will introduce greater competition into the
Head Start program and use that competition to leverage reforms that
will result in a better program for the children Head Start was created
to serve.
This bill will strengthen school readiness and increase the role of
all 50 States and local communities in Head Start. It will protect
children and taxpayers against the abuse and mismanagement of Head
Start funds, and it will make Head Start more transparent and more
accountable to parents and taxpayers.
I am pleased at the approach that this bill takes to solve the school
readiness gap between Head Start children and their peers when they
reach kindergarten.
There is no question that most Head Start children are better off in
the program than they would have been without it. That is not in
dispute here. But there is evidence that some Head Start centers could
be doing an even better job of providing preschoolers with the academic
foundation they need in order to succeed in school.
This bill will strengthen Head Start's academic standards by
emphasizing cognitive development and the results of scientifically
based research and topics critical to children's school readiness. It
will also improve teacher quality by ensuring a greater number of Head
Start teachers have degrees and are adequately trained in early
childhood development, particularly in teaching the fundamentals.
I am particularly pleased about how the bill will improve
coordination between Head Start and State and local early childhood
education programs. We are going to improve program integration in all
50 States by encouraging cooperation and program coordination from the
ground up.
The bill also addresses weaknesses in the Head Start financial
oversight structure that have allowed the mismanagement and outright
abuse of Federal funds meant for disadvantaged children. Local media
outlets across the Nation have documented more than a dozen instances
of financial mismanagement involving millions of dollars and thousands
of children. This lack of program integrity and financial
accountability is unacceptable. The Federal Government is investing
nearly $7 billion per year in Head Start, and every dime should be
going to support disadvantaged children.
The GAO, the Government Accountability Office, in a report that we
requested, found that the financial management weaknesses in Head Start
are resulting in diminished services for children. Unfortunately, there
is currently no system in place to assure parents and taxpayers that
these types of abuses will be prevented. This is unfair to parents and
children. It is unfair to taxpayers. And it is unfair to the many high-
quality, hard-working, law abiding people who operate Head Start
centers across the country who should not be associated with the deeds
of these bad actors.
Head Start is an important program entrusted with a vitally important
mission. The vast majority of those in Head Start are honest
individuals dedicated to making sure the poorest of our Nation's
children have a chance to succeed.
The School Readiness Act takes critical steps to support quality Head
Start programs and the children they serve by encouraging quality
through competition, strengthening transparency and disclosure, and
improving the financial oversight structure to protect children and
taxpayers.
I would like to address one more issue that is the subject of great
debate today. In numerous Federal programs across the country, faith-
based institutions that want to lend a helping hand and providing
critical social services are allowed to do so without changing the
fundamental character of their organization. Former President Bill
Clinton, for example, signed four bills into law that explicitly
protected the hiring rights for faith-based organizations when
participating in Federal programs.
The Head Start program unfortunately provides no such protections to
these organizations. To the contrary, faith-based organizations are
forced to relinquish their protected right to hire individuals who
share their beliefs or they are not allowed to participate in the
program at all. For many faith-based organizations, it is their very
nature to offer help and support the neediest among us. Their efforts
in response to Hurricane Katrina serve as just one more example.
Their mission defined by their faith is to serve their community.
Yet, when they seek to participate in federally funded programs for
this purpose, they must forfeit the identity that drives them to serve.
Today I urge Members to support an amendment that I will be offering
on behalf of the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany) to restore the
hiring protections in the Head Start program so that faith-based
institutions can participate fully without giving up their mission and
character that make them such an effective partner for programs like
Head Start that serve those in need.
Once again, I would like to thank the author of the bill, the
gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), for his hard work on behalf of
the nearly one million children served each year by the Head Start
program. We have got a strong bill that will help give disadvantaged
children the head start they need

[[Page H8265]]

to succeed in school and in life. I urge my colleagues to support the
bill.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, this debate reminds me of the old saying, I have got
good news and I have got bad news.
The good news is that our committee worked in a bipartisan way to
report out a bill by a vote of 48 to zero. And I want to thank our
ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller); our
chairman, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner); and the subcommittee
chair, the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), for making that
possible, as well as all the members of the committee.
This bill is a great step forward from where we were last Congress.
First and foremost, the bill protects the high quality of Head Start
programs by protecting local control of those programs. In other words,
there is no State block granting. The bill also increases funding to
migrant and seasonal and Indian Head Start programs, strengthens
teacher qualification requirements, and limits uses of the
administration's ill-conceived national testing system.
But there is also bad news. First, even though fewer than half of
eligible children receive Head Start services, and even though the
number of children served has been going down under the Bush
administration, this bill does nothing to increase the number of
children who will receive these critical services.
Second, this bill does not increase resources to help Head Start
programs hire the better qualified teachers that the bill requires. It
is unusual for me to be the one explaining to my Republican colleagues
how market forces work, but in this case it is pretty clear they do not
get it. More highly qualified teachers will cost more money, and we are
demanding more qualified teachers without providing the necessary
financial support. That is the good news and the bad news.
Now, here is the worst news, which is actually a poison pill for this
bill. The majority has decided to choose religious discrimination over
what could have been a rare bipartisan achievement. That probably
sounds hard to believe, but it is true.
Under current law, religious organizations can and do receive Head
Start funding. They also can only hire members of their faith when they
use their own funds. So I ask you, what is the problem? Apparently, the
problem is that religious organizations want to discriminate in hiring
when they are using public funds, your tax dollars. Well, actually,
religious organizations have never asked any of us to waive their
discriminatory rights and privileges that they are asking for over on
the other side of the aisle.
Under the Boustany amendment, a prospective Head Start teacher could
face a religious test before being hired. This amendment is
unnecessary. It is wrong. I will not support a final bill that includes
it.
Head Start kids are enough at risk as it is, without their teachers
being chosen because of their religion, rather than because they are
actually the best qualified.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam) for purposes of a colloquy.
Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman for yielding me
time.
I thank the chairman for agreeing to this colloquy in order to shine
a light on an unfortunate recurring situation in some Head Start
agencies.
Stories of corrupt agencies have been surfacing recently all over the
Nation, complete with allegations of administrators' misconduct with
Federal funds and financial conflicts of interest between board members
and vendors.
Accountability is a critical component of this reauthorization, and I
thank the chairman for his commitment for addressing it.
On February 10 of this year, I introduced H.R. 778, the Head Start
Accountability Act of 2005, to address the misuse and abuse of Federal
funds occurring in an agency in my district as well as others. The Polk
County Opportunity Council has had a decade-long history in fundamental
flaws in both operations and management. PCOC has displayed an obvious
lack of internal controls and, worse, a blatant disregard for its
fiduciary responsibilities associated with proper stewardship of
Federal grant funds.
There is documented evidence that this organization has misused
Federal dollars and made several excessive and unnecessary
expenditures, including the approval of $150,000 for repairs to a
parking lot, repairs that had a quoted cost of just $20,000.

{time} 1215

They also obtained $90,000 in Federal funds to repair some Head Start
facilities reportedly damaged in last summer's hurricanes that tore
through Florida. However, their insurance inspection determined that
the facilities had no damage. I could go on and on listing examples of
financial mismanagement at this agency.
I introduced the Head Start Accountability Act to immediately address
the seemingly unending pattern that was developing in that agency and
similar organizations. H.R. 778's major provisions would address the
most glaring improprieties. Among the provisions in H.R. 778, the bill
calls for automatic recompetition of all Federal Head Start Federal
grants every 5 years, establishes new board requirements, adds tighter
fiscal control requirements at the local level.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for recognizing the importance of
these provisions and including the key principles in this
reauthorization. Under his leadership, we are finally moving toward
financial accountability. I look forward to working with my colleague
in the future toward further refinement of these accountability
measures.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PUTNAM. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Putnam), my friend and colleague, for his efforts. His
contributions and commitment to Head Start and the financial
accountability that needs to exist within the program are so important.
Many of the accountability principles that were outlined in the
gentleman's bill, H.R. 778, have been included in the School Readiness
Act, and these reforms I think are critical if we are going to ensure
grantees are effectively managing taxpayer dollars and also to ensure
that funding is targeted most effectively for purposes that support the
program's goal of preparing kids for school.
So, with that, I want to thank the gentleman for his contributions.
Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for his dedication to
improving the Head Start program.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Kildee), a member of the Committee on Education and the
Workforce.
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me
time.
I would also like to thank the committee leadership on both sides of
the aisle for ensuring that all interested parties had a seat at the
table during our second try at reauthorizing the Head Start program.
We also owe our thanks to the staff who have worked tirelessly to
help get us to where we are today.
I want to specifically thank Ruth Friedman for her years of work on
behalf of the Head Start children.
While this bill is not perfect, it is a remarkable improvement from
last Congress and is a good example for the progress that can be made
through bipartisan cooperation.
All of us know Head Start is a critically important program that
provides much-needed services to some of our most disadvantaged
children and their families.
I would like to thank the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva), the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers), and the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Hinojosa) for their advocacy for migrants and Native Americans.
Currently, Indian Head Start is funded at approximately 2.9 percent
of the Head Start budget. H.R. 2123 would establish a 3.5 set-aside for
Indian Head Start, allowing programs to benefit from approximately $45
million in additional resources, and I want to thank

[[Page H8266]]

particularly the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) for putting that in
his chairman's mark.
This bill is a significant departure from our efforts last Congress
to reauthorize Head Start. All committee members should be proud of the
bipartisan work on this legislation. I strongly support the bill as it
was passed out of the committee.
However, I would be remiss, Mr. Chairman, if I did not express my
concern over the amendment allowing religious discrimination that will
be considered today.
This bill represents a genuine bipartisan compromise. Again, I would
like to thank all parties that worked together in crafting this bill.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 6 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 chairman for yielding me time,
and I also thank him for his tremendous work in bringing this bill
together. It is not always that easy. He has done a superb job working
with the other side.
I do rise today to ask everybody here to support the legislation
which will reauthorize the Head Start program. I, like I think most of
us, if not all of us, believe very strongly in the Head Start program,
and I believe that this act emphasizes every child, regardless of his
or her economic status, should have the best chance possible to
succeed.
In 1965, Head Start was created to give economically disadvantaged
children access to the same educational, health, nutritional, social,
and other services that were enjoyed by their more affluent peers. The
goal of the program was, as it remains today, to provide children a
solid foundation that will prepare them for success in school and later
in life.
As the centerpiece of the Federal Government's efforts to support
quality early childhood education for our Nation's most disadvantaged
youth, Head Start has served nearly 20 million low-income children and
their families. Currently, Head Start serves over 900,000 children
every day and has nearly 1,600 grantees across the United States. In my
home State of Delaware, Head Start programs serve over 1,500 children,
with almost 500 additional 4-year-olds receiving assistance through
State government funding.
We all can agree on the need for Head Start and its successes. We
must also recognize Head Start can produce even greater results for
children. Children who attend Head Start programs start school more
prepared than those with similar backgrounds that do not attend Head
Start. However, Head Start students continue to enter kindergarten well
below national norms in school readiness. By moving to close the school
readiness gap, this bill will improve results for almost 1 million Head
Start students across the Nation.
Towards the goal of closing the readiness gap, the School Readiness
Act strengthens Head Start's academic focus while maintaining its
comprehensive nature that is imperative to its success. The bill
improves the academic focus of the program by establishing new quality
standards that ensure enrolled children develop and demonstrate
language skills; pre-reading knowledge; including an interest in and
appreciation of books; reading and writing; pre-math knowledge such as
recognition of numbers and counting; cognitive abilities related to
academic achievement; and social development important for environments
constructive for child development, early learning, and school success.
Research clearly and consistently demonstrates a link between the
learning potential of children and the level of education and training
of classroom teachers. For that reason, we improve the quality of
teachers in Head Start classrooms by requiring that, in time, 50
percent of all Head Start teachers nationwide must have a baccalaureate
degree.
I am sure some of my colleagues were pleased to learn that this bill
does not include a block grant or a State demonstration project. I
believe strongly, however, in the policy goals of coordination and
integration that were at the heart of the demonstration project
incorporated in the legislation I introduced last Congress. We continue
to believe it is essential to remove barriers and prevent collaboration
between Head Start and successful State and local early childhood
initiatives, and I believe the proposal we are offering will, in fact,
go further to foster integration among quality early childhood
programs.
About 40 States, including Delaware, have established some form of
early childhood education, because States recognize that these services
can make a real difference in preparing children for a successful
future. Various local initiatives have been launched, and today,
disadvantaged children and families have access to programs and
services from a wide range of sources. Some of these programs rival or
exceed the quality of Head Start, while others fall short. Head Start
is no longer the only option for early childhood education. We must
ensure that all children are receiving the same quality education. In
this new era, Head Start should be working towards integrating services
with other school readiness programs, not competing against them.
Where we previously would have allowed no more than eight States to
improve Head Start coordination with State and local efforts, this bill
will ensure programs in all 50 States are able to increase
collaboration. We are encouraging Head Start grantees to align their
academics with State-developed K-through-12 content standards, as well
as to have a more active partnership with local school districts that
serve the same communities. This will help to facilitate a smooth
transition to kindergarten for their students. Finally, we are asking
early childhood providers in a State, including Head Start, preschool
and child care, to come together to identify ways to integrate school
readiness initiatives across the State.
As I have said, I believe in the program, particularly because of how
the program helps children later in their academic lives. Despite these
stories, we have also heard many stories of programs in which funds
were being diverted away from this purpose. The GAO recently released a
report that warned the financial control system in the Federal Head
Start early childhood program is flawed and failing to prevent
multimillion-dollar financial abuses that cheat poor children,
taxpayers, and law-abiding Head Start operators.
The GAO made a couple of recommendations on how we can strengthen the
oversight structure to prevent abuses and protect good grantees. It
recommended that increased competition in the program could help weed
out poorly performing grantees and ensure high-quality services are
available to children and families. In response to the GAO's
recommendations, we are increasing the competitive nature of current
program. The competition requirements in the School Readiness Act will
help to alleviate these programs, but more importantly, will drive
program improvement across the board, program improvements that will
ultimately help thousands of children nationwide, which should always
be our goal.
This is an important and a very popular program. The importance of
early childhood education services cannot be overstated, and I believe
strongly in the reforms which are here.
I would say finally, although we may have some disagreement about
some of the amendments on this legislation, that ultimately getting all
these children up to the starting line equal in school, and
particularly those who are at 100 percent of poverty or less, is in the
best interests of all of us in Congress and all the kids out there in
the United States of America.
I hope we can go forward with good legislation to make a very good
program even better than it is.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney).
Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, years ago it was enough to have an
education from kindergarten through 12 years, and now it is not enough.
People know that you have to have a couple or 3 years before
kindergarten and 2 to 4 years afterwards. It is now essential. It is a
priority to have early childhood education. It is a difference between
a child's future development and learning advantages, especially for
those students that are disadvantaged like the ones that are served by
the Head Start program. It makes them prepared for school.

[[Page H8267]]

A national review of 36 studies on the long-term impact of early
childhood education programs found that low-income children who
participated in such programs were less likely to be held back, less
likely to be placed in special education classes, more likely to
succeed in school, more likely to graduate, and more likely to be rated
as behaving well in class and better adjusted in school.
Researchers have also concluded that there is a greater chance of
these positive outcomes when young children are taught by teachers with
bachelor's degrees in early childhood education. One of the largest
national studies in this early education field was conducted by the
National Institute for Child Health and Human Development. It showed
that caregiver education and training were among the strongest
predictors of quality in programs for preschoolers.
That is why it is a good thing that this bill has in it a provision
that half of the Head Start teachers have to hold bachelor's degrees
within a few years. That is an admirable goal.
We talked in committee about the fact that it is necessary for us to
try to help that population of teachers be able to afford that. In
Massachusetts, my State, they make less than half the salaries of
kindergarten teachers. The national average is almost as bad.
I congratulate the chairman for working with us on the Higher
Education Act to make sure there is a loan forgiveness program, $5,000
for 5 years commitment to teach early childhood education, that will
help with this particular issue.
Significant improvements have been made to this Head Start bill. That
is why it was unanimous approval essentially in committee. I am afraid
some of the recommendations that are being put forward in the
amendments here today are spectacular efforts to drive a wedge between
the parties on this, to make it a less-than-unanimous bill. It is
unnecessary, it is unfortunate, and I hope there is no discrimination
in hiring practices. We can do better than that and pass a bill that is
worthy of this Congress and helpful to the United States people.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
There has been a great deal of effort been put into this bill on a
bipartisan basis, and it has been pointed out it came out of committee
48-0.
One of the reasons that there is some concern is that Members on both
sides of a question over the role of faith-based organizations, there
are meaningful differences on both sides, but we have nothing to fear
in allowing the House to work its will.
I respect those views of others who do not believe that if a faith-
based organization takes a dollar of Federal money, they should give up
their rights protected by the 1964 Civil Rights Act, but there is no
reason to fear allowing the House to make that decision.
So, later today, we will have an amendment that I will offer on
behalf of the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany) to allow those
organizations to have their rights protected under the 1964 Civil
Rights Act and still provide these necessary services.
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).
Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me the
time.
I rise in strong support of H.R. 2123, the School Readiness Act of
2005.
As a former Head Start volunteer, I know firsthand the tremendous
benefits this program has delivered for children, but never did I think
that summer, the first year of Head Start's existence, that I would one
day be a part of the Congress in reauthorizing Head Start.
During the full committee markup for this legislation, I was pleased
to join with my colleagues, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Platts) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen), in offering
an amendment that will provide some commonsense flexibility for Head
Start centers to use the open slots for the early Head Start program.

{time} 1230

Mr. Chairman, the Committee on Education and the Workforce learned
that more Head Start-eligible children ages 3 to 5 are participating in
State prekindergarten programs because there are more of them, leaving
some of the Head Start programs with unused slots. But because of the
high need for infant child care, Early Head Start programs, the early
ones, serving children from birth through age 3, maintain long waiting
lists. This amendment will allow those Head Start centers that have
vacant slots to use the funding to serve eligible infants and toddlers
through the Early Head Start programs.
As a mother and grandmother, I can tell you firsthand that the first
years of a child's life are crucial to his or her development. Research
has shown time and time again that infants who receive the high-quality
child care and early education programs do better in school, have more
developed social skills, and display fewer behavior problems. The
amendment allows a commonsense way to expand these services to those
who certainly can benefit from them.
I would like to thank the chairman of the committee, the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Boehner); the chairman of the subcommittee, the
gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle); and the members of the committee
for supporting this amendment in the full committee markup. I am
pleased it was incorporated into the bill we are considering today, and
I urge my colleagues to support the Head Start bill.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume
to respond to the chairman of the committee.
The rights for faith-based organizations are already protected when
they use their own funds. We are talking about using Federal funds,
taxpayers' dollars, or they are talking about it, in order to enhance
religious discrimination. That is what we oppose.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Menendez), the Chair of the Democratic Caucus.
(Mr. MENENDEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentlewoman yielding me
this time.
At a time when our country is grasping with how to deal with ongoing
gaps in wealth, poverty, and education, we must recognize that Head
Start is a critical component to helping those children at a
disadvantage get on a more equal ground. As we know all too well, the
achievement gap that continues to plague our country has early roots,
and the sooner we can help young people gain valuable skills, get good
nutrition, and provide them with a comprehensive early education, the
better chance we have of improving their future.
While this bill does strengthen the program for the over-900 children
served, there are still far too many children starting kindergarten at
great disadvantage. In my State alone, nearly 20,000 students benefit
from Head Start; but we know that over half a million children in New
Jersey are eligible and never get a chance to get on that equal
footing. It is those children we must think of as we seek to improve
this bill.
I am relieved we are debating a bill that does not produce
devastating effects on this program, but instead keeps it intact and
provides a number of improvements. But I hope the end product will
reflect those efforts and will not end up poisoning the bill by
repealing civil rights and discrimination protections. If for over 30
years religious institutions have not had a problem providing Head
Start services, why would the Congress of the United States now
sanction and permit discrimination and violate civil liberties? It is
simply not in the national interest, and it is the wrong action and the
wrong lesson to teach our children.
In this bill we are asking more from our early childhood educators,
yet we are not providing them with more. We must be realistic about the
challenges this creates. The estimated cost for half of all Head Start
teachers to earn a bachelor's degree by 2008, as the bill calls for, is
an estimated $2 billion over 5 years. We need to work to attract
talented individuals to continue to enter the field, not make it harder
for them to stay in it.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price).
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding
me

[[Page H8268]]

this time and allowing me to participate in this discussion.
We know that children who begin kindergarten and first grade prepared
both socially and mentally to learn have a much greater opportunity of
success, not just in school but in life. Improving the quality of Head
Start should be a priority for all of us.
One of the greatest challenges of any Federal program is to ensure
that hard-earned taxpayer money is used only for the purpose intended,
and the current Head Start program does not live up to that principle.
The need for safeguards and accountability are needed now more than
ever.
The School Readiness Act addresses financial management weaknesses
found in the current Head Start system and publicly documented in
various news accounts. There is disturbing evidence that a sizable
share of Head Start funding never reaches its target: disadvantaged
children. Instead, the money is being lost to waste, financial abuse,
and mismanagement; and there are collective media accounts that suggest
that the problem is not isolated.
The director of a Head Start program in Gardenville, Maryland, was
indicted on charges that she stole more than $350,000 from the
organization over a 4-year period. Imagine if this money were spent on
students rather than stolen from Head Start.
A former director of a Head Start program in Charleston, West
Virginia, was sentenced up to 5 months in Federal prison after
admitting he used an agency credit card for a personal trip to the
Kentucky Derby and preparing a false invoice for computer repairs.
Rather than investing money in student nutrition, this director took
this money from school cafeterias and went to the horse races.
The executive director of the Kansas City, Missouri, Head Start
operation earned a salary in excess of $300,000 annually and drove a
luxury SUV, leased in part with Federal Head Start funds. The gentleman
has since resigned. Head Start was never intended to provide for six-
figure salaries and luxury cars.
The Department of Justice gained a guilty plea from an executive
director of a Lubbock, Texas, Head Start program after he embezzled
more than $800,000 over 2 years and diverted part of the money to a
local restaurant.
Mr. Chairman, it is a priority of this Republican Congress to ensure
that the necessary financial controls are in place to safeguard against
these abuses and to protect the public's confidence in this important
school readiness program. Safeguards against financial abuse in this
bill include an independent financial audit annually, an annual report
detailing how their money is spent and the sources of their funding,
oversight by a local governance board, and a requirement that
administrative costs may not exceed more than 15 percent of the total
program cost.
Congress must not ignore the evidence that much money invested in the
Head Start program currently never reaches the disadvantaged children
it is intended to serve. I commend the chairman for his leadership and
the leadership of the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from
Delaware (Mr. Castle), for this bill; and I urge all Members of the
House to support H.R. 2123.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Kind), a member of our subcommittee.
Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, the evidence of financial mismanagement is
real, and I believe the committee has taken steps in this bill to try
to address that, and this authorization bill goes a long way to do
that. But as a member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce,
I have had the chance to visit all of my Head Start centers in western
Wisconsin. You cannot help but walk away from that with an overwhelming
feeling of pride and sense of security that those kids are receiving
very professional, caring treatment in those Head Start centers.
Head Start has been one of the most successful anti-poverty programs
ever created. It is also the most poked, prodded, picked, analyzed, and
surveyed program in the Federal Government; and for the last 40 years
it has withstood the test of time. It consistently ranks at the top of
participant satisfaction surveys compared to any other Federal program.
I commend the leadership of the committee, the chairman, the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner); and the subcommittee chairman, the
gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle); and the ranking members, the
gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) and the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Woolsey), for putting together a good bipartisan bill
that we were able to report out 48 to zero in committee, because there
is a right and a wrong way to reauthorize this important program.
The right way is to enhance integrated services, increase
accountability, tighten up the financial oversight, and require highly
qualified teachers. A wrong way is to continue to leave behind over
400,000 students who currently qualify, but cannot go to Head Start
because of inadequate resources. A wrong way is to allow the legal
discrimination against an individual based on religion.
Later this afternoon, I will be offering my own amendment that would
allow the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences
to establish proper standards and assessments so we can properly
measure the progress of these kids. The current national reporting
system is not working well, and we need to make sure that we get the
measurements and the testing of these children done correctly at this
very early age so we do not do any harm. I will ask my colleagues to
support my amendment when it comes up later.
Mr. Chairman, I join educators, parents, and Head Start staff from
Wisconsin as well as many of my colleagues here today in support. of
reauthorizing Head Start. This program has helped millions of high-risk
children from impoverished families achieve academic success.
Since the creation of Head Start 40 years ago, there has always been
bipartisan consensus to continue this program that serves more than
13,000 children in Wisconsin and 2,000 in the Third Congressional
District. As a member of the House Education and Workforce Committee, I
am pleased to have had the opportunity to work with my colleagues on
both sides of the aisle to produce the best possible bill. I would like
to thank Chairman Boehner, Representative Castle, Ranking Member
Miller, and Representative Woolsey for their leadership and commitment
to our children in crafting this legislation.
I also would like to thank those people in western Wisconsin who have
advised me throughout reauthorization. They include: Lori Dilley,
director of Southwest Wisconsin Head Start; Dan Stickler, director of
Western Dairyland, Paula Wainscott, director of Head Start in Eau
Claire Area School District; Tim Hathaway, director of Renewal Unlited,
Sue Schultz, and Barbara Wehman at CESA 11; and James Vermeul, director
of Child & Family Development Centers.
Since the reauthorization process began in the spring of 2003, we
have made tremendous progress to reach consensus on the bill before us.
However, I remain concerned with the implementation of the National
Reporting System for Head Start children. The NRS is an assessment
instrument developed under HHS's guidance in 2003 and used to test half
a million children in Head Start twice yearly.
Unfortunately, HHS implemented NRS--at the cost of $25 million so
far--despite protests by early child education experts who question the
validity, reliability, and appropriateness of the assessment. While we
support ongoing assessments of Head Start children to help ensure their
school readiness, these specific tests were developed behind closed
doors and with very little input from child development experts,
Congress, or Head Start centers.
The GAG validates many of these concerns. In May, they released a
report stating: ``If the test is to be used as a measure of program
performance or to assess changes in child outcomes, it is important to
ensure that it is sensitive to the range of development typically
demonstrated in Head Start. Based on our analysis and that of the
Technical Working Group and independent experts, we continue to believe
that further study is necessary to ensure that the NRS results are
reliable and valid and the results are appropriate for the intended
purposes.''
I authored language in H.R. 2123 to commission a study by the
National Academy of Sciences to report on appropriate standards and
benchmarks for school readiness and valid measures of assessment.
Today, I will offer an amendment to suspend the National Reporting
System until the National Academy of Sciences completes its review, and
I urge all my colleagues to support my amendment.
Reauthorization provides Congress with an opportunity to evaluate
appropriate standards and benchmarks for school readiness, as well

[[Page H8269]]

as valid measures of assessments for Head Start students. Until child
development and early education experts can agree about the
appropriateness of the NRS, we should not be spending millions of
dollars on its implementation and subjecting 500,000 children to it
every year.
In addition to promoting development of the mind, I also believe that
we must promote good physical development for all children. I am
pleased that an amendment I offered in committee to promote physical
development, including outdoor activity to support children's motor
development and overall health and nutrition, was accepted.
The requirement for physical activity and nutrition for pre-schoolers
is increasingly important as childhood obesity rates have doubled for
young children in the past 20 years. Studies show that healthy eating
habits help to prevent childhood obesity and other nutrition-related
diseases. Given the epidemic rate of child obesity, dramatic changes
need to take place in school nutrition environment.
The Society for Nutrition Education, SNE, reports that child
nutrition programs present opportunities for positive role modeling of
healthy and nutritious meals, from the formative years of early
childhood through the teen years. Additionally, implementation of
educational programs that guide and motivate parents and children to
improve the nutritional quality of their dietary choices and to
increase their physical activity levels is extremely important.
Physical activity, particularly for youth, help to improve school
performance, establish positive health habits, and possibly prevent the
onset of adult diseases.
Mr. Chairman, again, I am pleased to have worked on this bipartisan
bill to reauthorize the Head Start Act. The consensus we have reached
on H.R. 2123 reflects positively on how well Head Start is working.
Numerous studies indicate that every dollar spent on Head Start saves
taxpayers $4 to $7 in the future due to savings in education and
welfare expenses. Therefore, it is my belief that the bill before us
today will continue to provide the best Head Start program for all of
our children.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Platts).
Mr. PLATTS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the School
Readiness Act of 2005. I would like to pay particular attention and
highlight a provision of the bill granting greater flexibility to Head
Start programs wanting to provide Early Head Start to children ages
birth to 3.
A priority goal of the Head Start program is to reach out and assist
as many of our Nation's at-risk children as possible in the most
effective and responsible manner possible. In continuing with this
tradition, I was proud to join with my distinguished colleagues, the
gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert) and the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen), in offering a bipartisan amendment during
committee consideration of this measure meant to reach out and serve
at-risk children at an age when brain development is occurring rapidly
and is perhaps in its most critical phase.
The Biggert-Van Hollen-Platts amendment, which was adopted
unanimously in committee, gives grantees providing services under Head
Start ages 3 to 5, and Early Head Start, birth to age 3, the
flexibility to use existing unfilled Head Start slots for infants and
toddlers who are eligible for Early Head Start.
In the earliest years, infants and toddlers are developing a
foundation not only with respect to language and cognition, but also
with respect to emotion, mental health, and social behavior upon which
all subsequent learning is built. As many as 75 percent of children
enter the Head Start program with vocabulary skills below the average
range, and 82 percent of these children start out with early writing
skills below the average range.
These numbers tell us that we need to start reaching out to at-risk
children at an even younger age, before they have already fallen behind
their peers. Yet early Head Start currently serves less than 5 percent
of eligible infants and toddlers.
A major study of the Early Head Start program by Mathematica Policy
Research and Columbia University found that 3-year-old Head Start
children performed significantly better on a range of measures of
cognitive, language, and social and emotional development than a
control group. In addition, the parents of these children scored
significantly higher than control group parents on many aspects of
parenting and the home environment.
Early education programs are clearly important to the future of our
Nation and our Nation's children. They have the ability to influence
the course of young children's lives in a positive way. I hope my
colleagues in this Chamber will join me in supporting final passage of
H.R. 2123.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Kucinich), a member of the Subcommittee on Education Reform.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, injecting religious discrimination into
Head Start is a nonstarter. It is a rollback of established civil
rights laws. It is wrong. And I believe it sets the stage for
unconstitutional activity. I ask my colleagues to withdraw that
amendment and let this bill, which we do agree on, to go forward to
serve the children of our Nation who are waiting for opportunities to
ensure that no child in America is trapped within poverty's grasp, to
enable every child in America to live up to his or her highest
potential.
Faith-based organizations, as we all know, are free to use their own
money to make employment decisions using religious criteria for
programs. There is no discrimination against faith-based organizations
that run federally funded social services. If they want to hire people
of only a certain faith, they can do that with their own money. But
when it comes to the use of taxpayers' dollars, no citizen in this
country with the protection of the first amendment should have to pass
a religious test to qualify.
Our Founders understood the importance of separation of church and
State. I also believe they did not intend to have America exclude the
celebration of spiritual values. It is important that we remember the
Founders' directives to bring spiritual values of truth, honesty, love
of country, but to never break down that wall which separates church
and State. Preserve our Constitution.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, when our forefathers in the 1960s wrote the 1964 Civil
Rights Act landmark legislation, they provided a specific exemption in
hiring for religious organizations, understanding that religious
organizations would probably want to hire someone of their own faith.
Now, if you disagree with that, go to the Committee on the Judiciary
and rewrite the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
Nowhere in this exemption does it say that, well, you have the
exemption if you use your own money, but if you participate in Federal
programs, you lose the exemption. It does not say that anywhere in the
1964 Civil Rights Act.

{time} 1245

The fact is, that I understand there are deeply held beliefs here,
but I do not think a religious organization should have to give up
their rights under the 1964 Civil Rights Act just to participate in
providing services to poor children who desperately need them.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, in response to the chairman, we are
talking about taxpayers' money to support religious discrimination.
That is what we cannot forget.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr.
Van Hollen), a member of the committee.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I strongly supported this bill as it
came out of the committee. I was proud of the product the committee
passed out. I was pleased to join with many of my colleagues on the
other side in offering amendments that were supported on a bipartisan
basis that I think strengthen the Head Start program.
I am very sorry that that bipartisan consensus may be shattered, and
it will be shattered if we later adopt the Boustany amendment because,
make no mistake about it, the Boustany amendment is, in fact, an attack
on religious liberty in this country. It takes us down a very dangerous
road of taxpayer-financed religious bigotry.
It is important to understand what the Boustany amendment does and
does not do. This is not a debate about whether or not faith-based
institutions play a valuable role. Of course they do. We have seen it
in response to Hurricane Katrina. We have seen it elsewhere. Nor is it
about whether faith-based Head Start programs should receive Federal
funds. They are receiving those today.

[[Page H8270]]

The issue is very simple. The question is whether we should eliminate
the protections in current law against discrimination based upon
religion or whether we should preserve those protections. The Boustany
amendment would give a green light to religious discrimination.
Just imagine if you are a highly qualified early education teacher,
who is applying for a Head Start program that is expanding to take care
of children who are victims of Hurricane Katrina. You go down and they
say, I am sorry, you are the wrong religion. Only Catholics need apply,
only Jews need apply, only Baptists need apply. That is a terrible
message to be sending to our children. And does it not violate
someone's religious liberty to take someone's tax dollars, give them to
an organization and then say to that person, you cannot have a job with
this organization?
In all of the hearings that we have held in our committee on this
issue, no faith-based organization has ever come up and said, gee, we
could do a better job of teaching children if only we were allowed to
discriminate in hiring teachers.
I must say, one of the puzzling things, they concede that you cannot
proselytize, yet they say you can discriminate.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
If what is being proposed under the Boustany amendment is so awful,
why would President Bill Clinton, during his 8 years in office, have
signed the following bills into law: the 1996 welfare reform law; the
1998 Community Services Block Grant reauthorization, the 2000 Community
Renewal Tax Relief Act; the 2000 Substance Abuse and Mental Health
Services Administration Act.
Why would President Bill Clinton have signed all of these bills into
law if, in fact, this was such a bad idea? Because all of these acts,
signed into law by President Clinton, have the same identical language
that is going to be offered later today.
The second point I would make is that what do we have to fear from
allowing the House to work its will and letting the majority rule? Let
us have the debate. Let us have the vote. Unfortunately, my colleagues
know that we are likely to win, because we have won on this case time
and time again as this debate has occurred in this House.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez).
Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in
support of the Head Start program and the great opportunities that it
provides to children, parents, and families in America.
I am a Head Start kid. I experienced firsthand the valuable and
comprehensive education program that Head Start provides for low-income
families. Head Start opened up a new world, not only for me, but also
for the rest of my family.
As I received an education and health services, my mother learned
valuable lessons on how to become a more active and involved parent in
America's public school system. I am glad to see that H.R. 2123
preserves the valuable Federal-to-local design that gives parents and
local communities the right and the responsibility to be active in
their Head Start program. For this is really the key to the Head Start
program, the fact that parents and families are also involved with
their children.
To maintain the integrity of Head Start, I would urge my colleagues
to pay special attention to two key votes. My colleague from Indiana
(Mr. Souder) will be offering an amendment to restore the joint
governance structure of Head Start and to allow policy councils made up
of parents and community members to approve or disapprove program plans
and operation activities, along with the board of directors. I urge my
colleagues to support that important amendment.
On the other hand, I urge the House to oppose the amendment that
would allow faith-based Head Start programs to use Federal tax dollars
to discriminate against teachers and employees solely on the basis of
their religion. We need to keep Head Start strong and to open it up for
everyone so that it can remain the great program that it was for me and
so that it can continue to be so for so many Americans.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Cuellar).
Mr. CUELLAR. Mr. Chairman, I want to focus on the extra provisions
dealing with the Migrant and Seasonal Head Start programs. These
programs are among the most essential, providing comprehensive
education, health care, child care services to the families who often
have literally nowhere else to go. I am familiar with this, working
with the Texas Migrant Council in my district, Laredo, Texas.
This year we are breaking new ground by mandating at least 5 percent
of the Head Start budget to go to migrant and seasonal programs. I want
to thank the chairman and the members of the committee for this. This
increase even by 1 percent means a lot, going from 4 to 5 percent. It
would permit Migrant and Seasonal Head Start to serve as many as 10,000
additional children. This is a case where a small increase in funding
can make a big difference to a lot of children, changing the path they
are on.
I want to emphasize that this program is extremely important. I know
that for the migrant farm worker population facing a unique set of
challenges, working on a seasonal basis, migrant families often have to
move from State to State during the year, making it extremely difficult
for the children to get in and remain in high-quality educational
programs. When they are in the fields, parents often work 12 hours a
day or more, making it very difficult for child care. This is why this
provision is extremely important.
This program is important, and I know because I am also the son of
migrant workers. I want to thank the chairman and the ranking member
(Ms. Woolsey) for the work, and the committee members for this new
additional funding for the seasonal migrant workers.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Waters).
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, today I am a Member of Congress. Prior to
ever being elected to office and serving in the State legislature or
Congress, I worked 6 years for Head Start. I started as assistant
teacher, and I went on to be the supervisor of Parent Involvement and
Volunteer Services. I love Head Start, and I have a great appreciation
for what my government has done in creating this program to give poor
kids and the kids of working families an opportunity to get a head
start, to get prepared for kindergarten and to get prepared for
success. That is what Head Start has been doing.
Not only does Head Start build self-esteem, it prepares children to
read and get ready for the educational experience. It teaches parents
to appreciate their children's work. It teaches parents that they can
have involvement in their children's educational destiny. This is a
wonderful program.
I think the committee did a good job in working through some of the
problems. I do not agree with everything, but I would support this
bill.
But I am absolutely shocked and surprised that my colleague that I
came into this Congress with would lead an effort to kill Head Start.
The gentleman knows he is killing Head Start by putting this amendment
on the floor to put religious involvement in the program. A faith-based
initiative has no place in Head Start. Head Start teaches children to
respect each other, to enjoy each other, to respect all cultures.
On Sunday morning in America, religion is the most segregated sector
of our society. Whites go to white churches, blacks go to black
churches, Greeks go to Greek churches, Muslims are in their mosque,
Jews are in their synagogue; and that is all right. We have religious
freedom. People go to whatever church they want. But do not bring that
to Head Start. Allow Head Start to be what it should be for all
Americans. Do not say to people because you are a different faith, you
cannot work in this Head Start program.
We do not want to give that kind of example to our children. Do not
start

[[Page H8271]]

the resegregation of America, it is wrong. And do not do this to Head
Start.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Nebraska (Mr. Terry).
Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bill.
What we have to remember is this is about the children, children
whose families are trapped in poverty trying to get a head start on
education, which is the surest way out of poverty. It is disappointing
to me there are some in here, because we provide some level of
flexibility, and perhaps in some community it is a faith-based
operation that can deliver the services best to a poor child in need of
these services, that there are some willing to kill Head Start because
of that level of flexibility.
In my hometown, thankfully, it is the public school systems that have
taken over the Head Start program because we suffered through the
difficulties of financial problems. The previous Head Start
organization managed the program so poorly that they could not pay the
teachers and continue Head Start. It had to be taken over by the
Federal Government through an entity. Fortunately, Omaha Public Schools
have taken over Head Start in Omaha, Nebraska, providing over a
thousand children an opportunity to have a coordinated Head Start
educational program, a better education program, with assurances to the
parents that it is going to be there next year. In fact, they have even
got a very progressive system for Head Start children based on EduCare,
an outstanding private preschool program that involves a holistic
approach of the entire family.
I want to end by thanking the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner)
because he also recognizes there was a glitch, a glitch that eliminated
some of the lower-level rank-and-file service men and women from having
their children in Head Start programs because of privatization of
military housing. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) recognized that
problem, corrected that problem, and I want to thank him for standing
up for our service men and women with children that would be eligible
for Head Start.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, kill Head Start? Supporting religious discrimination
which was added by the majority to this otherwise very good bill is
exactly what would kill Head Start. Shame on the gentleman for thinking
that it is any other way.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Holt), a member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, today on the floor we have what is
increasingly rare these days, a bipartisan bill, a bill that would help
thousands of Head Start children and their families. Head Start has
worked well for 40 years. It has changed lives for the better. It is
one of the great successes of our government. That is documented.

{time} 1300

Now, this bill is not perfect, but it makes some positive changes. I
am pleased that the bill avoids the proposed use of State block grants.
It improves the academic content and requirements. It requires
coordination between Head Start and State-run kindergarten programs. It
improves the prospect for children of migrant and seasonal workers, of
service men and women, of Native Americans. The legislation strengthens
accountability.
We still have a long way to go to give all eligible children the
benefits of Head Start, but basically this is a good bill. It is a good
bipartisan bill that is about to be destroyed by an insidious
amendment. It is an amendment that would allow American tax dollars,
tax dollars of ordinary Americans, all Americans, to be used for
religious discrimination. We cannot allow that. The nondiscrimination
provision of Head Start has been reauthorized in 1984, 1986, 1990,
1994, and 1998. No changes were proposed or made in the civil rights
provision during those reauthorizations, but now the nondiscrimination
provision would be thrown out.
Let us remember why we have this nondiscrimination provision. It is
to protect freedom of religion, of religious belief and practice. It is
to protect religious belief and practice. That is why it is so
important not to mix that up in here.
It is a good bill. We would like to keep this as a bipartisan bill.
We do not want to go back to the days where one would say Catholics
need not apply, Jews need not apply. If Members do not want to go back
to those days, vote ``no'' on the amendment.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Cunningham).
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I did not run a program in Head Start
like the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), but I visited one,
and then I visited another one because when I first came to Congress,
and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) was here, I did not support
Head Start or WIC. I thought they were a waste of time.
But I will tell the Members that Head Start and WIC and school lunch
and those programs are only as good as the local district will let them
be and work. They can make a difference. If a program that is working,
if Members go down to those districts and see those children, they will
tell them, Help us to help other kids that do not have a chance.
Support this bill.
I would say that a friend of mine said that when we are talking about
the religious aspect of this, he said, When you come to Congress and
somebody will say, You wear the Lord on your shoulder, he said, You
tell them that is wrong; you wear them on your whole body.
I have never seen anybody turned away any religion, whether in an
emergency or health or WIC. So vote for Head Start.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the minority whip.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this
time.
I am pleased that we have a bipartisan bill here. I want to
congratulate the chairman, congratulate the ranking member, and
congratulate the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) for coming
out with a bipartisan bill.
Unlike the bill considered by the House in 2003, this legislation
does not attempt to block grant Head Start programs, which was
controversial. I think that is good for the passage of this bill.
Furthermore, it strengthens academic content, improves teacher quality,
promotes better coordination between Head Start and other early
childhood programs, and it strengthens accountability.
My wife supervised Head Start in our jurisdiction for many years.
There are 24 Judy Centers around the State of Maryland right now, many
of which include Head Start.
This bill was reported out of committee almost unanimously, if not
unanimously. Unanimously. While the underlying bill contains long-
standing nondiscriminatory provisions, and I congratulate the committee
for that, there is an amendment lurking that will undermine that
bipartisanship and, not only that, undermine an extraordinarily
fundamental principle in our country: we do not discriminate. We do not
countenance discrimination.
The previous gentleman indicated he does not know of any instance
where there has been discrimination. I agree with that. I have never
had anybody contact me ever, and this is my 37th year in public office.
Never, from 1967 to today, have I had somebody come to me and say this
is a problem. The committee has seen fit to report out a bill which
does not allow discrimination. Why? Because there is no problem here.
Frankly, the gentleman from Louisiana is trying to create a problem
where there is none. We ought to reject that amendment.
If we do not reject that amendment, the overwhelming majority of us
on this side of the aisle are going to vote against this bill. That is
unfortunate because we are all for Head Start. It is a program that
works. It is a program that is important. It is a program that we ought
to reauthorize. And I urge us to support this bill, but reject a
crippling amendment to be offered by the gentleman from Louisiana.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Souder).
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me this
time.

[[Page H8272]]

I have an amendment, the second amendment, coming up that I believe
is very critical. It goes to the heart and soul of the Head Start
program, and that is whether parents have voting rights or whether they
are just going to get a pat on the head and told we like their
opinions. I believe it is critical to Head Start that we put this back
in.
But two points: first off, I thank the chairman and the Committee on
Rules for allowing an amendment in order that they do not support, and
I appreciate that and I want to thank them for that.
Secondly, I gave my word and I believe it is important that we move
this Head Start bill whether my amendment is agreed to or not. I
believe the Senate will never allow an amendment that strips parents,
and I believe the administration will not sign a bill that strips
parents, and I believe it is important that we have that debate, but it
is also important we move ahead.
A number of Members have told me that if the amendment is not agreed
to, they would vote against the bill. I urge them to move the bill
forward regardless of what happens to the parents amendment. We need to
address it in conference if we do not today, but it is the number one
empowerment program in America. We do not need to go backwards and give
more power to the government and boards that are not responsible to
parents. We need to keep it at the parents level.
But I want to, again, thank the chairman for his leadership in trying
to clean up the financial problems. It was not the parents. This bill
does that, and I support this bill.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Mrs. Davis), who is a member of the Education Reform
Subcommittee.
Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from
Delaware (Chairman Castle), who worked so diligently with the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), ranking member, and the
subcommittee members to create a bipartisan bill. This is the spirit in
which I believe Congress ought to work and find compromises and avoid
extremes.
But, regrettably, I am going to have to oppose the Boustany amendment
to strike the language which prohibits religious discrimination in
hiring. This issue was vigorously debated in our subcommittee and
committee and was not included in the bill.
When our taxes are used to hire people, should the decision be based
on whether that person is a Baptist, a Roman Catholic, a Mormon, a
Muslim, a Hindu, or a Jew? Supreme Court decisions have clearly stated
that religious institutions have a legitimate interest in choosing
employees by their religion. But these cases are about jobs that are
privately funded.
Head Start, as we know, is publicly funded. Employers in government-
funded programs should not be able to do what government employers may
not do. Religious education programs run by a mosque, a church, or
synagogue are pervasively religious, and discrimination in hiring is
appropriate to carry out the religious content.
But a program in the same building which is a contract for a Head
Start program is not about religion, and discrimination in hiring for
jobs paid with Federal tax dollars is wrong.
One of the strengths of Head Start has been encouraging parents to
volunteer; and tens of thousands of parents, as we know, have gone on
to develop skills to become a paid aide or teacher.
One of my colleagues mentioned that he is very supportive of the
bill, which helps and supports military families, and I fully agree
with that. But then imagine that a child whose parent is fired from
working at her school because their religion is different from the
contractor's, perhaps a military family is fired because they are Roman
Catholic, not Baptist, Muslim, or a Methodist. What would that teach
these children about our country's commitment to freedom, the very
freedom that their parents fight for? That religious discrimination is
okay. That I cannot support, Mr. Chairman, and I hope Members will
oppose that kind of discrimination.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Scott), a member of the subcommittee.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to remind the
House that faith-based organizations can and do sponsor federally
funded Head Start programs. Any sponsor who will agree not to
discriminate in employment, if they can sponsor a program with the
discrimination amendment, they can sponsor the program without that
amendment if they would agree not to discriminate.
What we are talking about is discrimination. Some people want to
discriminate against Catholics, Jews, Muslims, African Americans. We
had this discussion in the 1960s, and the consensus back then was that
discrimination in employment was so offensive that we made it illegal.
The victim needs to be protected and the weight of the Federal
Government will fall down on the side of the victim.
The vote was not unanimous. Some people did not like it then; they do
not like it now. And we are discussing where should the weight of the
government be, with the victim or with somebody trying to discriminate.
This is Head Start. We should not give students of Head Start the idea
that their parents were denied a federally funded job solely because of
their religion.
We have heard of the Supreme Court. All of the Supreme Court
decisions have said it is okay for a church to discriminate in
employment with church money. None have supported discrimination with
direct Federal funding. We have heard of our forefathers in 1964. We
know that since 1965 it has been illegal, at least until this
administration, to discriminate with Federal money. Head Start has been
reauthorized for over 40 years with the civil rights protections.
President Clinton's name has been invoked. What is left out is his
signing statement where he said that his analysis was that they could
not discriminate with the Federal money under his analysis. This
administration has changed that analysis, but we need to make sure that
President Clinton's whole signing statement is included.
Mr. Chairman, I submit for printing in the Record letters from
numerous organizations including the National Head Start Association
which oppose the discrimination amendment and ask us to vote ``no'' on
the underlying bill if they sabotage civil rights protections.
September 22, 2005.
Dear Member of Congress: I have become aware that an
amendment has been offered by Rep. Boustany (R-LA) to the
Head Start bill on the House floor today that would give
faith-based organizations providing Head Start services the
right to discriminate with federal funds against employees
who are of different faiths. As the State President of the
Louisiana Head Start Association, I strongly oppose such an
amendment.
It is a sad day when Members of Congress try to manipulate
compassion evoked by the national tragedy in my state of
Louisiana caused by Katrina to pass a civil rights repeal in
Head Start or jeopardize the passage of this law so important
to the children of my state and our nation.
I know, firsthand, that Head Start is a model for
demonstrating that a strong prohibition on religious
employment discrimination with federal funds is fully
compatible with federal assistance to faith-based charities.
Faith-based organizations, like the ones I oversee, can and
do fully participate in federally funded programs without
discriminating in hiring with those same federal funds. I see
no reason to change the law to allow them to use federal
funds to discriminate against our employees. My state's
religiously affiliated providers are more than capable and
willing to honor the civil rights requirements of the Head
Start program.
I am greatly concerned that the provision to remove civil
rights protections for employees could have a negative impact
on the children and families who participate in these
programs. Tens of thousands of at-risk 3- and 4-year-old
children currently in Head Start could lose their teachers--
who often are the most important adults to whom they have
bonded, other than their parents--not because those teachers
are doing a bad job, but because they are the ``wrong''
religion.
As the State President of the Louisiana Head Start
Association, I urge you to reject the Boustany amendment to
allow discrimination in Head Start. Such a provision is
incompatible with the mission of this program.
Sincerely,
Barbara Pickney,
St. Landry Parish Head Start Program, State President of
the Louisiana Head Start Association.

[[Page H8273]]

____
National Head Start Association,

Alexandria, VA, September 19, 2005.
Hon. John A. Boehner,
Chairman, Committee on Education and the Workforce,
Washington, DC.
Hon. George Miller,
Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Education and the
Workforce, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Boehner and Ranking Member Miller: On behalf
of the more than 2.5 million children and families, program
staff and volunteers that comprise the Head Start and Early
Head Start community, we are writing to you today to address
certain issues regarding the reauthorization of the Head
Start Act.
We appreciate the bi-partisan spirit that has occurred
throughout this crafting of the reauthorization bill. H.R.
2123 does not contain the controversial block grant proposal
of the 108th Congress and maintains the crucial comprehensive
services of the Head Start program performance standards. We
applaud a number of measures and improvements incorporated
into this bill, such as enhanced homeless outreach; greater
set asides for migrant and seasonal workers and Native
Americans, as well as Early Head Start programs; and the
addition of a ``seamless service'' provision that allows
programs to convert Head Start slots to Early Head Start
slots under certain circumstances.
While the recompetition provision is not perfect, we
appreciate that its intent is not to recompete all programs,
but to recompete only failing programs. We also acknowledge
that the teacher requirements are based on national goals and
that training and technical assistance is funded at two
percent, with 50 percent of that amount going directly to
programs.
While we generally are pleased with the overall intent and
direction of H.R. 2123, we do have continuing concerns about
certain specific provisions that we hope that can be resolved
before the bill is enacted into law. These concerns are
discussed in greater detail below.

Requirements for Recompetition

Recompetition procedures, which are laid out in detail in
Section 641 (c)(1)-(19) include several areas that are
problematic. While we strongly agree that programs that are
not providing high quality services should have to recompete
for Head Start funds, we are concerned that the language in
this section may force more programs--regardless of quality--
to undergo recompetition. We believe that there should be a
strong message that all programs must be high performing.
Yet, we also believe that programs that are providing high
quality services should not be put in the position of
recompeting every five years, as this instability makes it
difficult for them to recruit and retain the best teachers,
to invest in facilities, and to create lasting partnerships
with other community agencies.
While we appreciate the efforts to make the recompetition
process fair, there remains a very long list of tests that
must be met to determine the priority status of programs. We
continue to have concerns that some of these tests could be
evaluated in an arbitrary manner, throwing programs into a
recompete status, regardless of their performance.
The Head Start community does not want to see failing
programs continue, but we would like reassurances that the
recompetition process will be unbiased and consistent in its
application by the Bureau. To achieve this, we would prefer
that there be more limited parameters to determine the need
to recompete a grantee, such as programs that have unresolved
areas of noncompliance.

Teacher Credentials

The entire Head Start community is committed to raising the
bar when it comes to improving quality and enhancing teacher
and staff credentials.
Additionally, educational levels among Head Start teachers
have increased appreciably since the 1998 Congressional
mandate to increase the proportion of Head Start teachers
with an A.A. degree. Fifty-seven percent of Head Start
teachers had at least an A.A. degree in 2003, exceeding a
Congressional mandate that 50 percent of Head Start teachers
in center-based classrooms attain an A.A. degree or higher by
September 2003.
Most Head Start teachers without degrees were working
toward them. Fifty-eight percent of Head Start teachers
without a degree or credential were enrolled in an early
childhood education or related degree program, and 18 percent
were in Child Development Associate (CDA) or equivalent
training.
A key to Head Start's success in meeting the 1998 mandate
was that Congress also increased funding, which provided
scholarships, release time and qualified substitutes, teacher
salary increases, and other quality enhancement supports. The
1998 law required that, when funding for the program
increased, a certain percentage of new dollars would be
dedicated to quality. In the following years, funding for the
Head Start program grew and, as a result, funds available for
quality activities increased. However, Head Start funding has
not kept pace with inflation in recent years, so programs no
longer have a growing source of funds to help teachers attain
degrees. Additional funding will be needed to meet a mandate
to move from two- to four-year degrees, because costs of
attending a four-year public college or university are on
average more than twice the cost of a two-year program,
and because there are significant additional salary costs
in order to retain teachers with four-year degrees.
Programs must have the resources to help teachers gain
their credentials and to pay salaries at a high enough level
to recruit and retain teachers with the required degree.
Without new money for teacher salaries, increased
credentialing for teachers should not be mandatory.

Head Start Parent Policy Councils

While we appreciate the modifications made in Committee
markup to the provisions regarding the Head Start Parent
Policy Councils, we strongly believe in the integral and
shared responsibilities of board members and parents in Head
Start governing bodies. The high degree of parental
involvement in the Head Start program has provided a role
model for early childhood education for 40 years.
The Head Start community is fully committed to restoration
of the current level of authority to Parent Policy Councils.

National Reporting System

The NRS, a pre- and post-test for Head Start children, is
not a valid measurement of program impact and should not be
used in this manner. Because Head Start serves children with
very high level needs, using this kind of measure to evaluate
programs may well penalize those programs serving the
children with the greatest needs. Further, as pointed out in
a May 2005 General Accountability Office report, the NRS was
found to be invalid and unreliable. The GAO also confirmed
that the NRS is not an appropriate evaluation vehicle for
children who are English Language Learners, especially those
who speak neither English nor Spanish.
Additionally, we know that the Head Start Bureau is
spending more than $21 million annually on the NRS, an
expenditure that does not even begin to take into
consideration the costs of preparing for and administering
the test at the program level.
We ask the House of Representatives to suspend further use
of and expenditures for the NRS until the National Academy of
Sciences can make the test scientifically valid.

Unscheduled Site Visits

H.R. 2123 contains a provision that the Head Start
community believes is punitive and unreasonable to all Head
Start programs. The process and planning that is required of
program administrators for a full PRISM review cannot be
performed overnight. The Head Start community has no
objection to unannounced site visits when they concern health
and safety issues or are following up on prior compliance
matters.
NHSA believes that a minimum of 30 days notice should be
required of the Head Start Bureau before full PRISM reviews.

training exceptions

High quality training is critically important to improving
and sustaining Head Start quality and childhood outcomes.
H.R. 2123 limits the ability of parents and staff to travel
in order to receive specialized training and career
development at national conferences.
This is an unnecessary provision that will cause confusion
for program administrators since the existing grant
application process requires justification of all training.

collaboration with the states

While the Head Start community strives for sound
collaboration with their respective state officials, it is
critically important that state officials reciprocate in
these collaborative efforts. H.R. 2123 does not require input
as it should, and as is now required, from state Head Start
officials in the process of selecting staff who will have
coordination responsibilities.
The Head Start community believes that state Head Start
Associations should have sign-off on candidates for state
collaboration officers, as well as continuing involvement in
the planning and implementation of state plans. Furthermore,
there should be clarification regarding states that have
existing state advisory councils, namely that they are
permitted to modify them to meet the requirements in the
bill.

charitable choice amendment

The Head Start community, including a number of programs
administered by religious organizations, strongly opposes any
effort by this Administration to encourage religious
discrimination in hiring practices for Head Start or any
federally-funded program. Freedom of Religion, a cornerstone
of this great nation, should be sacrosanct to all of us. It
is incomprehensible that the U.S. Congress would tamper with
the ability of its citizens to practice their faith by using
the threat of employment discrimination.
In spite of its positive provisions, if H.R. 2123 contains
a religious discrimination amendment, we must reluctantly
oppose the bill.
In closing, we commend the Education and Workforce
Committee for their bi-partisan efforts in this Head Start
reauthorization bill and we hope that modifications will be
made that will result in improvements to the program.
Sincerely,
Sarah M. Greene.
____

African American

Ministers in Action,

Washington, DC, September 16, 2005.
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Member of Congress: As pastors and leaders of
predominately African American congregations across the
country, we urge you to stand up for the civil rights and
religious freedom of all Americans, and to maintain the
bipartisan direction of the School

[[Page H8274]]

Readiness Act (H.R. 2123) by opposing any attempt to repeal
longstanding critical civil rights protections on the House
floor. This bill maintains provisions designed to protect
over 198,000 Head Start teachers and staff and over 1,450,000
parent volunteers from employment discrimination based on
religion in federally-funded Head Start programs. We have
continually supported these provisions because this is
consistent with our commitment to protecting the religious
freedom of all citizens. Further, because we are acutely
aware that religious discrimination is often a proxy for
racial discrimination, among others, we cannot support the
allowance of such an unprincipled initiative by any Member on
either side of the aisle.
As religious figures we provide leadership grounded by
theological interpretations of scripture, and focus on issues
of concern to our parishioners and our community. We agree
that religious organizations participating in the Head Start
program make an invaluable contribution to the education of
thousands of students in minority communities in particular,
but do not agree that discriminating against persons based
upon their religion is necessary or desirable in order to
provide these much needed services.
We are optimistic that this bill can gain broad support
among religious, civil rights, labor, education, health, and
advocacy organizations, but this broad support will end if
there is any threat to remove the longstanding critical civil
rights protections in Head Start. In particular, we are
seriously concerned about a statement released by the
Committee on Education and the Workforce on May 5, 2005, in
which Chairman Boehner stated that he foresees an amendment
on the House floor to rollback longstanding critical civil
rights protections. In light of this statement, we are asking
Members to oppose this amendment and not support the Head
Start bill if the anti-discrimination provisions are removed.
As leaders of our respective congregations we are committed
to providing much needed services in our communities and have
done so by respecting the rights of all individuals.
Therefore, we find it particularly insulting to suggest that
it is necessary to remove civil rights protections from Head
Start programs in order for this outreach to continue.
Furthermore, we can not compromise our principles by
supporting a program that allows organizations, including
religiously-affiliated organizations, to discriminate with
federal taxpayers' dollars.
We urge you to maintain the bipartisan direction of the
School Readiness Act (H.R. 2123) and to not support any
agreement that allows for an assault on civil rights
protections in federally-funded programs, especially a
program as critical as Head Start. This could destroy the
mutually supported nature of the Head Start program in which
the education of young children--especially minority
children--is so dependent upon parental participation and on
ongoing, close relationships with Head Start teachers.
Uplifting our surrounding community does not require the
concurrent advancement of government funded discrimination.
Sincerely,
Reverend Timothy McDonald,
Chair, African American Ministers In Action.
____

Anti-Defamation League,

New York, NY, September 16, 2005.
Dear Representative: On behalf of the Anti-Defamation
League, we write to urge you to maintain the civil rights
protections currently included in the House Education and the
Workforce-approved version of the School Readiness Act (H.R.
2123)--and to oppose any efforts to repeal these important
provisions. Allowing religious-based employment
discrimination in federally-funded programs is wrong--and to
do it on the historic Head Start anti-poverty education
program is deeply offensive.
Since 1972, agencies that receive government funding for
Head Start--including religious organizations and houses of
worship that host Head Start programs--have been prohibited
from discriminating on the basis of religion when hiring or
firing staff within the federally-funded program. These
existing non-discrimination requirements have a history of
bipartisan support, and were originally signed into law by
President Richard Nixon. The current anti-discrimination
language was included in the 1981 Head Start reauthorization
bill, signed into law by President Ronald Reagan, and has
been included in every Head Start reauthorization since
then--in 1984, 1986, 1990, 1994, and 1998. For 33 years,
these fundamental non-discrimination protections have worked
well, allowing thousands of Head Start programs in
communities throughout the country to flourish while
maintaining constitutional and civil rights safeguards
against religious tests for employment in federally-funded
programs.
We have great appreciation for the vital role religious
institutions have historically played in addressing many of
our nation's most pressing social needs, as a critical
complement to government-funded programs. For decades,
government-funded partnerships with religiously-affiliated
organizations--such as Catholic Charities, Jewish Community
Federations, and Lutheran Social Services--have helped to
combat poverty and provided housing, education, and health
care services for those in need. These successful
partnerships have provided excellent service to communities,
largely unburdened by concerns over bureaucratic
entanglements between government and religion. Indeed, at the
same time that safeguards have protected beneficiaries from
unwanted and unconstitutional proselytizing during the
receipt of government-funded services, they have also
protected the integrity and sanctity of America's religious
institutions--whose traditional independence from government
has contributed to the flourishing of religion in our
country.
The House has never voted to repeal existing civil rights
protections in a floor amendment. To do so on Head Start, an
historic anti-poverty program universally acclaimed and
present in so many communities across the country, is odious.
We urge you to oppose any attempt to remove civil rights
protections from Head Start.
Sincerely,
Michael Lieberman,
Washington Counsel.
Jess N. Hordes,
Washington Director.
____

American Federation of State, County and Municipal
Employees, AFL-CIO,
Washington, DC, September 20, 2005.
Dear Representative: On behalf of the 1.4 million members
of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal
Employees (AFSCME), I am writing with respect to certain
provisions of H.R. 2123 which would reauthorize the Head
Start program. We want to express our sincere appreciation
for the bi-partisan and inclusive process that resulted in
unanimous approval of the legislation at the committee level.
Significantly, H.R. 2123 does not include the controversial
block grant proposal that derailed efforts to reauthorize
Head Start in the last Congress. Rather, H.R. 2123 respects
and maintains the crucial comprehensive services of the
program performance standards that long have marked Head
Start as a program of distinction. We believe that H.R. 2123,
with some changes, has the very real potential to build upon
the success of Head Start for future generations.
However, we are concerned that this bill does not address
the low pay offered to Head Start teachers and staff and the
lack of financial assistance in meeting new and more rigorous
educational requirements. We support H.R. 2123's focus on
raising standards for Head Start teachers, including the
provision calling for 50 percent of all current Head Start
teachers to have a bachelor's degree within five years and
all new Head Start teachers to have an associate's degree.
However, the estimated cost of the additional education for
half of all Head Start teachers to earn bachelor's degrees by
2008 is approximately $2 billion over five years. If we want
quality education for Head Start children, we must be willing
to help teachers achieve this important goal.
AFSCME members have worked in Head Start programs for
decades. We know that the qualifications of early childhood
educators matter because high quality early education
improves outcomes for children and delivers benefits to the
community that far outweigh the costs.
We are also deeply concerned that Chairman Boehner intends
to offer a controversial amendment on the floor to repeal
longstanding civil rights protections from the Head Start
program. Allowing federally-funded discrimination in any
program is immoral. But it is especially egregious given that
the civil rights protections in Head Start are an integral
part of its mission to provide families a ladder out of
poverty by encouraging parents to become volunteers and then
teachers. Denying a parent economic opportunity because of
the religion he/she practices violates the principles upon
which our country was founded. We strongly urge you to oppose
the amendment. If the amendment is adopted, AFSCME urges you
to oppose the bill on final passage.
Sincerely,
Charles M. Loveless,
Director of Legislation.
____

Leadership Conference

on Civil Rights,

Washington, DC, September 16, 2005.
Dear Representative: On behalf of the Leadership Conference
on Civil Rights (LCCR), the nation's oldest, largest, and
most diverse civil and human rights coalition, with more than
190 member organizations, we urge you to oppose the Boehner
amendment or any amendment to the School Readiness Act (H.R.
2123) that would repeal longstanding civil rights protections
in the Head Start Program that have been in place since
President Nixon signed the law in 1972. We strongly oppose
any language that would allow federally-funded employment
discrimination. If language repealing civil rights
protections is added to the bill during consideration on the
House floor, we urge you to oppose final passage of H.R.
2123.
LCCR opposes allowing government-funded employment
discrimination. Religious organizations have always served as
key partners in providing government services through the
Head Start program and current law has not been a hindrance
to their vigorous participation. There also is no controversy
over the exemption under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964 that allows religious organizations to have a preference
of hiring co-religionists when they are using private funds,
but federal funds may not be used to discriminate. Such a
drastic change to the current Head Start program would be
inconsistent with the long held notion that federal dollars
must not be used to discriminate.
The Boehner amendment would allow government-funded
employment discrimination,

[[Page H8275]]

Although the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the Title VII
exemption for privately-funded religious employers, it did
not authorize federally-funded employment discrimination. See
Corporation of Presiding Bishop of Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter Day Saints v. Amos, 483 U.S. 327 (1987). We believe,
based on analysis of Amos, that if federal funds are used by
religious organizations to hire only persons of their own
faith, then the federal government is affirmatively acting to
advance employment discrimination.
In the 60 years since Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the
first executive order prohibiting discrimination in federally
funded activity, our nation has made significant progress in
the struggle to end employment discrimination and advance
equality. Any attempt to allow organizations to discriminate
on the basis of religion with federal funds would drastically
impede that progress and erode a longstanding principle of
our nation's civil rights policy: that federal civil rights
obligations follow federal dollars, regardless of who
receives them.
The courts have affirmed the principle that federal funds
cannot be used to discriminate. The leading case on the
question of government-aided discrimination is Norwood v.
Harrison, 413 U.S. 455 (1973). In a unanimous decision, the
U.S. Supreme Court held that ``the Constitution does not
permit the state to aid discrimination.'' Id. 465-66. The
principles set out in Norwood were affirmed in Justice
O'Connor's opinion in City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co. 488
U.S. 469, 492 (1989), which stated, ``It is beyond dispute
that any public entity, state or federal, has a compelling
interest in assuring that public dollars, drawn from the tax
contributions of all citizens, do not serve to finance the
evil of private prejudice.'' Her opinion quoted Norwood with
approval for the proposition that ``[i]t is ... axiomatic
that a state may not induce, encourage or promote private
persons to accomplish what it is constitutionally forbidden
to accomplish.'' Id. at 492-93 (quoting Norwood, 413 U.S. at
465).
LCCR urges you to oppose Rep. Boehner's amendment because
current law must not be changed to allow recipients of Head
Start funds to have an explicit statutory right to engage in
employment discrimination. If this amendment passes, or other
language is added during floor consideration that repeals
current law, LCCR urges you to oppose final passage of H.R.
2123. If you have any questions, please contact Nancy Zirkin,
LCCR deputy director, or Andrea Martin, senior counsel and
policy analyst regarding this or any issue important to LCCR.
Sincerely,
Wade Henderson,
Executive Director.
Nancy Zirkin,
Deputy Director.
____

Washington Bureau, National Association for the
Advancement of Colored People,
Washington, DC, September 19, 2005.
Re fundamental civil rights protections in H.R. 2123, the
school readiness act must be preserved

Members,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Member: On behalf of the National Association for the
Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), our nation's oldest,
largest and most widely recognized grassroots civil rights
organization, I am writing today to urge you to do all you
can to ensure that the longstanding, critical civil rights
protections that are contained in the current version of H.R.
2123, the School Readiness Act, are retained during
consideration by the full House of Representatives.
Specifically, I urge you to reject and work against the
anticipated Boehner Amendment, which will repeal existing,
long-standing Head Start provisions that prohibit religious
organizations and churches from discriminating on the basis
of religion when hiring or firing staff from positions within
this federally-funded program.
H.R. 2132, as approved by the Committee on Education and
Labor, maintains provisions designed to protect the more than
198,000 Head Start teachers, staff and over 1,450,000 parent
volunteers from employment discrimination based on religion
in federally-funded Head Start programs. The NAACP again
urges you to do all you can to maintain these vital
protections throughout the legislative process, and that you
do not support this legislation if, at any point they are
stripped.
The critical longstanding nondiscrimination provisions have
been included in Head Start legislation since 1981. This is a
fundamental civil rights protection against employment
discrimination for Head Start teachers and volunteers. The
legislation has always received strong bipartisan support
from both the House and Senate since its enactment in the
97th Congress when President Ronald Reagan signed the
legislation into law. The twenty-four year old civil rights
provision has worked well since the inception of this
program, allowing religious organizations to participate in
programs while maintaining Constitutional and civil rights
standards.
The NAACP both recognizes and celebrates that religious
organizations participating in the Head Start program have
made and continue to make an invaluable contribution to the
education of thousands of students. These religious
organizations have complied with Head Start's existing civil
rights requirements. However, if the repeal of the existing
civil rights protections were to become law, teachers or
parent volunteers working in any Head Start program run by a
religious organization could immediately lose their jobs
because of their religion. Students participating in Head
Start therefore could lose not only their teachers, but also
the close programmatic connection with their own parents
volunteering in the program. The NAACP strongly believes that
allowing discrimination based on religion would significantly
impede the important goals of Head Start, harm the Head Start
students' education by separating them from their own
teachers and parent volunteers, and send a damaging message
to the students, their parents, guardians and loved ones, as
well as people throughout our nation.
Thus, I urge you again, in the strongest terms possible, to
support the continued inclusion of these longstanding and
critical civil rights protections. The Head Start program is
too critical to our children and our nation's future to allow
support for it to be divided by this issue. Should you have
any questions about the NAACP position or if there is any way
in which I can be of help to you as you move this
reauthorization through the legislative process, I hope that
you will feel free to contact me. Thank you very much for you
attention to the views of the NAACP.
Sincerely,
Hilary O. Shelton,
Director.
____

The American Jewish Committee,

Washington, DC, September 19, 2005.
Dear Representative: On behalf of the American Jewish
Committee, the Nation's oldest human relations organization,
with 33 chapters nationwide representing over 150,000 members
and supporters, I urge you to oppose any amendments to the
School Readiness Act, H.R. 2123, that roll back crucial civil
rights safeguards. Further, if such an amendment is adopted,
I urge you to oppose passage of H.R. 2123; repealing this
longstanding essential element of Head Start could subject
teachers in these federally-funded programs to religious
discrimination.
As passed out of the House Education and the Workforce
Committee, the bill maintains three-decade-old provisions
that prohibit various forms of employment discrimination in
Head Start. Both religious and secular organizations have
operated effectively under this system since it passed as
part of bipartisan legislation passed during the 9th
Congress. Ever since President Richard Nixon signed the
legislation into law in 1972, religion-based and other forms
of discrimination are prohibited in Head Start programs,
thereby ensuring that taxpayer dollars do not underwrite
positions for which religion is a factor in hiring decisions.
At the same time, the existing provisions do not intrude on
the autonomy of religious organizations with respect to
hiring decisions made in purely private programs.
The efforts of the House Education and the Workforce
Committee to produce a bipartisan package are to be
commended. The bill that reaches the House floor has the
potential to receive broad support among religious, civil
rights, labor, education, and health organizations. However,
the bill risks losing critical segments of this support if,
at any point, this initiative is amended to roll back Head
Start's longstanding civil rights protections by exempting
religious organizations from the prohibition on religious
discrimination in employment decisions.
If so amended, H.R. 2123 would compromise an extremely
successful program that provides essential services to nearly
one million at-risk children nationwide. While many of the
religious organizations that deliver the program would, no
doubt, continue to hire employees for Head Start programs
without regard to religion, H.R. 2123 could jeopardize the
jobs of many thousands of current and potential teachers,
staff, and parent volunteers for belonging to the ``wrong''
religion, as well as jeopardize children for whom a stable
and trusting relationship between teacher and child is so
important.
For these reasons, we strongly urge you to oppose any
attempts to roll back the vital civil rights protections of
H.R. 2123, the School Readiness Act. Thank you for
considering our views on this important matter.
Respectfully,
Richard T. Foltin,
Legislative Director and Counsel.
____

Americans United for Separation

of Church and State,

Washington, DC, September 19, 2005.
Dear Representative: Americans United for Separation of
Church and State urges you to oppose any amendment to repeal
longstanding, critical civil rights protections contained in
the School Readiness Act (H.R. 2123) and to vote ``no'' on
final passage of the bill if such an amendment is adopted.
Americans United represents more than 75,000 individual
members throughout the fifty States, 9500 clergy nationwide,
as well as cooperating houses of worship and other religious
bodies committed to the preservation of religious liberty.
H.R. 2123 unanimously passed out of the Committee on
Education and the Workforce on May 18, 2005, maintaining a
longstanding civil rights provision designed to protect over
198,000 Head Start teachers and staff and over 1,450,000
parent volunteers from employment discrimination based on
religion in federally-funded Head Start programs. We

[[Page H8276]]

are pleased with this bipartisan legislation thus far, but
are deeply concerned about stated threats to repeal
longstanding civil rights protections against religious
discrimination in our Nation's Head Start programs on the
House floor. Specifically, Chairman Boehner, after
championing the Committee-passed bill, stated that an
amendment may be offered on the House floor that would repeal
these protections. We urge you to reject attempts to sabotage
a bipartisan effort to reauthorize the America's Head Start
programs with such a divisive anti-civil rights amendment.
We recognize that religious organizations participating in
the Head Start program make an invaluable contribution to the
education of thousands of children. These organizations have
complied with Head Start's existing civil rights requirements
without controversy. However, if the repeal of the existing
civil rights protection were to become law, teachers or
parent volunteers working in any Head Start program run by a
religious organization could immediately lose their jobs
simply because of their religion or religious beliefs. This
would directly work against the stated goals of Head Start
and could change the fundamental character of this
tremendously successful program.
According to the latest study from the National Head Start
Association, the program currently enjoys a soaring 96
percent parental satisfaction rate. The Administration for
Children & Family (``ACF'') has repeatedly noted that
respect and sensitivity to cultural diversity are
paramount to Head Start's success. The ACF and the
National Head Start Association both agree that in order
to best serve the needs of Head Start children, it is
crucial that a Head Start center's staff be comprised of
individuals from diverse backgrounds who reflect the
diversity of the community it serves. Without the existing
religious nondiscrimination provisions, children
participating in Head Start could lose their teachers as
well as vital interactions with their own parents who, in
the past, have been strongly encouraged to volunteer for
Head Start. Further, allowing discrimination based on
religion would send a damaging message to Head Start
children whose families do not subscribe to a particular
religious organization's beliefs. It also would harm
community members who rely on Head Start for jobs and
deprive poor families and underprivileged children of the
civil rights protections applicable to public schools.
Parents and communities that rely on Head Start programs
should not have to choose between the renewal of the Head
Start program and longstanding civil rights protections that
are a cornerstone of this invaluable program. We hope that
the House will continue the bipartisan goal of reauthorizing
our Nation's Head Start programs and reject any attempts to
roll back the civil rights protections long afforded to Head
Start teachers and staff.
If you have any questions about H.R. 2123 or would like
further information on any other issue of importance to
Americans United, please contact Aaron D. Schuham,
Legislative Director.
Sincerely,
Rev. Barry W. Lynn,
Executive Director.
____

Baptist Joint Committee

for Religious Liberty,

Washington, DC, September 16, 2005.
Dear Representative, The School Readiness Act of 2005 (H.R.
2123) will soon be considered in the House. We write to urge
you to oppose any effort to amend this bipartisan bill in a
manner that would repeal current protections against
religious discrimination. The current bill, passed out of
committee with unanimous approval, maintains these important
protections. Unfortunately, repeated public statements have
assured plans for a floor amendment that would allow
religious discrimination in federally funded positions. We
ask you to oppose any such amendment and to oppose final
passage of the bill if the amendment were to pass.
A recent hearing in the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice,
Drug Policy and Human Resources examining the faith-based
initiative demonstrated once again that employment
discrimination with Federal dollars is one of the
initiative's most controversial and divisive elements.
Testimony indicated that the continued pursuit of such a rule
change is often more about politics than good policy. Head
Start should not be hijacked to promote such an unnecessary
and unwise policy.
Religious organizations and the government have long worked
in partnership to perform important social services. Such
partnerships are common for Head Start programs. We support
these efforts and recognize the importance of government and
religious cooperation generally. Such cooperation has
occurred for many years without the danger of government
sponsored religious discrimination that is present in the
proposed amendment.
It would be extremely unwise to allow such a dramatic
change in policy to threaten the reauthorization of Head
Start.
We appreciate your attention to this issue and urge you to
oppose any proposal that would allow religious employment
discrimination in government funded programs.
Sincerely,
K. Hollyn Hollman,
General Counsel.
____

American Civil Liberties Union,

Washington, DC, September 19, 2005.
Re Proposed Amendment to Head Start Reauthorization (``School
Readiness Act''--H.R. 2123) Would Create an
Unconstitutional Loophole Allowing Federally-Funded
Religious Discrimination in Head Start Classrooms

Dear Representative: The American Civil Liberties Union
strongly urges you to oppose any amendment to repeal
longstanding critical civil rights protections contained in
the School Readiness Act (H.R. 2123) and vote ``NO'' on final
passage if such an amendment is adopted when the bill comes
to the floor later this week. As unanimously passed out of
the Committee on Education and the Workforce, H.R. 2123
maintains longstanding provisions designed to protect over
198,000 Head Start teachers and staff and over 1,450,000
parent volunteers from employment discrimination based on
religion in federally-funded positions in Head Start
programs. The civil rights protections afforded to Head Start
teachers and staff are essential and should not be repealed.

Proposed Amendment to H.R. 2123 Would Repeal Longstanding Civil Rights
Law That Was Never Controversial

We are pleased that the Committee-passed Head Start
legislation maintains longstanding critical civil rights
protections. However, we are troubled by the threat of
repealing these protections on the House floor. In a
statement released by the Committee on Education and the
Workforce on May 5, 2005, the day H.R. 2123 was introduced,
Chairman Boehner stated that he foresaw an amendment on the
House floor to roll back longstanding critical civil rights
protections. Current law prohibits participants in Head Start
programs from discriminating based on race, creed [religion],
color, national origin, sex, political affiliation or
beliefs, or disability. 42 U.S.C. 9849. If amended, H.R. 2123
would allow taxpayer dollars to fund religious organizations
that discriminate against Head Start teachers and parent
volunteers in federally-funded Head Start classrooms.
The civil rights provision barring federally-funded
religious discrimination has never been controversial. In
fact, the provision was first included in Head Start
legislation that was signed by President Richard Nixon and
subsequently by President Ronald Reagan. Throughout its 33-
year history, the civil rights provision has not been an
obstacle to the participation of religiously-affiliated
organizations in Head Start programs. In fact, many
religiously-affiliated organizations participate in Head
Start and comply with the same civil rights provision that
applies to everyone else.

the proposed amendment to h.r. 2123 would reverse the government's long
fight against federally-funded discrimination

Repealing critical civil rights protections in Head Start
attacks the very core of civil rights protections
historically supported by the federal government. More than
60 years ago, the first success of the modern civil rights
movement was a decision by President Franklin Roosevelt to
bar federal contractors from discriminating based on race,
religion, or national origin. From that first presidential
decision through the Supreme Court's decision allowing the
federal government to deny special tax advantages to Bob
Jones University, which claimed a religious right to retain
the tax benefits while pursuing racist practices, the federal
government has made the eradication of federally-funded
discrimination among its highest priorities.
If amended, H.R. 2123 would allow a religious organization,
such as Bob Jones University, that discriminates based on
religion, to participate in Federal Head Start. In a
disturbing result, Bob Jones University could be denied tax
benefits because of its racist policies toward its students,
but could receive Federal Head Start money under H.R. 2123 to
discriminate against teachers and parent volunteers working
in Head Start classrooms--simply because the employees do not
meet Bob Jones University's religious tests. Moreover, in the
many religious organizations in which the adherents are all
of a single race, the result of federally-funded religious
discrimination will effectively be Federal funds going to the
employment of persons of a single race.
The Federal Government clearly has a compelling interest in
applying the Head Start Act's civil rights provision to
everyone receiving Federal funds--including religious
organizations seeking to discriminate on the basis of
religion in hiring persons to work in Head Start. Repealing
critical civil rights protections prohibiting discrimination
in employment would be inconsistent with the leading Supreme
Court case on the use of Federal funds by religious
organizations that discriminate.
In Bob Jones Univ. v. United States, 461 U.S. 574 (1983),
the Supreme Court held that Federal Government could deny a
religiously-run university tax benefits because the
university imposed a racially discriminatory
antimiscegenation policy. Id. at 605. The Court decided that
the Federal Government's compelling interest in eradicating
racial discrimination in education superceded any burden on
the university's religious exercise of enforcing a
religiously-motivated ban on students interracial dating.
Id. at 604.
There is no meaningful difference between the government
prohibiting tax benefits to organizations that discriminate
based on race and the Head Start Act's statutory prohibition
on discrimination based on religion

[[Page H8277]]

in Head Start classrooms. In fact, the United States itself--
during the current Administration--squarely rejected the
proposition that intentional religious discrimination gets
less protection under the Equal Protection Clause than race.
In its October 26, 2001 brief defending the religion prong of
Title VII from an Eleventh Amendment attack, the United
States stated that ``[c]ontrary to Defendant's contention
that the Supreme Court has `distinguished claims involving
differential treatment on the basis of race and speech from
those involving religion,' there can be no doubt that the
Equal Protection Clause subjects State governments engaging
in intentional discrimination on the basis of religion to
strict scrutiny.'' Brief of Intervenor United States in
Endres v. Indiana State Police (N.D. Ind. Oct. 26, 2001)
(brief is available on www.usdoj.gov). Congress should not
now take the position that it cannot or will not enforce a
civil rights ban on Federal funds going to an organization
claiming a right to discriminate based on religion when the
Supreme Court specifically authorized the United States to
enforce a civil rights ban on Federal tax benefits going to
an organization making a directly analogous religious
exercise claim to discriminate based on race. Thus, the
sponsors' statement that the Congress has no duty to fully
enforce the nondiscrimination statute is contrary to law--and
abandons one of the seminal decisions in civil rights, namely
Bob Jones Univ.

if critical civil rights protections are repealed, h.r. 2123 would be
unconstitutional

H.R. 2123, if amended, would abet unconstitutional
employment discrimination based on religion. The proposed
amendment's exemption of religious organizations from the
prohibition on religious discrimination in the program is
contrary to constitutional law, and will open the door to
government-funded discrimination.
Proponents of allowing religious organizations to use
Federal funds to discriminate against their employees argue
that their position is consistent with a provision in Title
VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that generally permits
religious organizations to prefer members of their own
religion when making employment decisions. However, that
provision does not consider whether federally-funded
religious groups can discriminate with Federal taxpayer
dollars. Moreover, although the Supreme Court upheld the
constitutionality of the religious organization exemption in
Title VII, Corporation of Presiding Bishop v. Amos, 483 U.S.
327, 336-39 (1987), the Court has never considered whether it
is unconstitutional for a religious organization to
discriminate based on religion when making
employment decisions in programs that the government
finances to provide governmental services.
Several courts have considered whether a religious
organization can retain its Title VII exemption after receipt
of indirect Federal funds, e.g., Siegel v. Truett-McConnell
College, Inc., 13 F. Supp.2d 1335, 1344 (N.D. Ga. 1994)
(clarifying that its decision permitting a religious
university to invoke the Title VII exemption is because the
government aid is directed to the students rather than the
employer), but only one Federal court has decided the
constitutionality of retaining the Title VII exemption after
receipt of direct Federal funds, Dodge v. Salvation Army,
1989 WL 53857 (S.D. Miss. 1989). In that decision, the court
held that the religious employer's claim of its Title VII
exemption for a position ``substantially, if not
exclusively'' funded with government money was
unconstitutional because it had ``a primary effect of
advancing religion and creating excessive government
entanglement.'' Id. The analysis applied by the court in
Dodge should apply with equal force to the Head Start Act
programs that would provide direct Federal funds to religious
organizations.
In addition to causing the Establishment Clause violation
cited by the court in Dodge, H.R. 2210 would also subject the
government and any religious employer invoking the right to
discriminate with Federal dollars to liability for violation
of constitutional rights under the Free Exercise Clause and
the Equal Protection Clause. Although mere receipt of
government funds is insufficient to trigger constitutional
obligations on private persons, a close nexus between the
government and the private person's activity can result in
the courts treating the private person as a state actor.
Rendell-Baker v. Kohn, 457 U.S. 830 (1982).
It is beyond question that the government itself cannot
prefer members of a particular religion to work in a
federally-funded program. The Equal Protection Clause
subjects governments engaging in intentional discrimination
on the basis of religion to strict scrutiny. E.g., United
States v. Batchelder, 442 U.S. 114, 125 n.9 (1979); City of
New Orleans v. Dukes, 427 U.S. 297, 303 (1976). No government
could itself engage in the religious discrimination in
employment accommodated and encouraged by the proposed rule's
employment provision. Thus, the government would be in
violation of the Free Exercise Clause and the Equal
Protection Clause for knowingly funding religious
discrimination.
Of course, a private organization is not subject to the
requirements of the Free Exercise Clause and the Equal
Protection Clause unless the organization is considered a
state actor for a specific purpose. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S.
42, 52 (1988). The Supreme Court recently explained when
there is a sufficient nexus between the government and the
private person to find that the private person is a state
actor for purposes of compliance with constitutional
requirements on certain decisions made by participants in the
government program:
[S]tate action may be found if, though only if, there is
such a `close nexus between the State and the challenged
action' that seemingly private behavior `may be fairly
treated as that of the State itself.' . . . We have, for
example, held that a challenged activity may be state action
when it results from the State's exercise of `coercive
power,' when the state provides `significant encouragement,
either overt or covert,' or when a private actor operates as
a `willful participant in joint activity with the State or
its agents'. . . .

Brentwood Academy v. Tennessee Secondary School Athletic
Association, 121 S. Ct. 924, (2001) (citations omitted).
The extraordinary role that the current Administration--and
the amendment sponsors--have taken in accommodating,
fostering, and encouraging religious organizations to
discriminate based on religion when hiring for federally-
funded programs creates the nexus for constitutional duties
to be imposed on the provider, in addition to the
requirements already placed on government itself. The clear
intent of this amendment to repeal the civil rights provision
in the Head Start Act is to encourage certain providers
receiving Federal funds to discriminate based on religion.
The proposed amendment to H.R. 2123 provision allowing
federally-funded religious discrimination is part of a
growing pattern of congressional, presidential, and
regulatory actions taken specifically for the purpose of
accommodating, fostering, and encouraging federally-funded
private organizations to discriminate in ways that would
unquestionably be unconstitutional if engaged in by the
Federal Government itself. For example, in December of 2002,
President Bush signed Executive Order 13279, which amended an
earlier executive order, which had provided more than 60
years of protection against discrimination based on religion
by Federal contractors. The Bush order provides an exemption
for religious organizations contracting with the government
to discriminate in employment based on religion. In addition,
the Federal Government is simultaneously proposing
regulations to allow religious organizations to discriminate
based on religion in employment for Federal programs
involving substance abuse counseling, welfare reform,
housing, and veterans benefits.
Although religious employers have the right under Title VII
to apply religious tests to employees, the Constitution
requires that direct receipt and administration of Federal
funds removes that exemption. In addition, the Federal
Government itself has constitutional obligations to refrain
from religious discrimination or from establishing a
religion. H.R. 2123, if amended, would fail to meet any of
those constitutional mandates.
For these reasons, the ACLU strongly urges you to vote
``NO'' on any proposed amendment to the Head Start
Reauthorization (``School Readiness Act''--H.R. 2123) that
would create an unconstitutional loophole allowing federally-
funded religious discrimination and to vote ``NO'' on final
passage if an amendment is adopted. Thank you for your
attention to this matter, and please do not hesitate to call
Terri Schroeder at 202-675-2324 if you have any questions
regarding this issue.
Very truly yours,
Caroline Fredrickson,
Director.
Terri Schroeder,
Senior Lobbyist.
____

National League of Cities,

Washington, DC, September 21, 2005.
Education and Workforce Committee,
Rayburn House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Committee Member: On behalf of the 18,000 cities
represented by the National League of Cities (NLC), I want to
commend Members of the Education and Workforce Committee on
the passage of bipartisan Head Start legislation, H.R. 2123,
the ``School Readiness Act of 2005.'' Head Start is critical
to helping to alleviate the plight of children of the working
poor. In particular, NLC strongly endorses the Committee's
commitment not to include language that would preempt state
and local employment laws thereby permitting discrimination
in employment by government-funded faith-based social service
providers.
As you know, local governments have a long and rich history
of working with faith-based organizations that predates the
enactment of the charitable choice provision contained in the
Welfare-To-Work Act of 1996. NLC is especially proud of the
fact that cities across the nation have carefully helped
faith-based groups deliver services to our constituents while
respecting the boundaries of our Constitution. Permitting
government-funded employment discrimination is the wrong way
to encourage faith-based institutions that deliver social
services to apply for public funding. Simply put, any
language that preempts local governments from protecting its
residents from employment discrimination undermines the
spirit and letter of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and
unnecessarily encourages litigation against municipalities.
NLC asks Members of the House of Representatives to
maintain the Committee's bipartisan direction and oppose any
attempts

[[Page H8278]]

to repeal longstanding anti-discrimination protections during
deliberation on the House floor. Thank you.
Very truly yours,
Donald J. Borut,
Executive Director.
____

National Education Association,

Washington, DC. September 21, 2005.
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative: On behalf of the National Education
Association's (NEA) 2.7 million members, we would like to
offer our views on the School Readiness Act of 2005 (H.R.
2123), scheduled for floor debate this week. Overall, we
believe the bill contains a number of positive provisions.
However, we do have some concerns as outlined below. In
particular, we strongly oppose any amendment to repeal civil
rights protections for Head Start teachers, staff, and
volunteers and will oppose the final bill if it does not
contain these protections. Votes associated with these issues
may be included in the NEA Legislative Report Card for the
109th Congress.
NEA believes that children's learning begins well before
they enter school, and that the transition to school must be
founded on strong school readiness. Head Start has a long
history of success in this arena, having provided high-
quality early childhood education, health, social services,
and parental involvement programs to more than 18.5 million
low-income children between the ages of 3 and 5 since its
creation in 1964.
Given the critical importance of Head Start, we are
particularly pleased that H.R. 2123 does not allow for block
granting of Head Start funds to states. We are also pleased
that the bill would align Head Start curricula with K-12
education while preserving the comprehensive nature of the
Head Start program. We believe these provisions will support
effective transitions for children's learning and development
and ensure that children will enter school ready to learn. At
the same time, the proposal will provide continuity for
children by retaining the essential parental involvement,
nutrition, and other nonacademic features of Head Start.
We do have some concerns with portions of H.R. 2123 as
drafted as well as proposed amendments:
Civil rights protections. We are very pleased that H.R.
2123 maintains provisions designed to protect over 198,000
Head Start teachers and staff and over 1,450,000 parent
volunteers from employment discrimination based on religion
in federally-funded Head Start programs. We recognize the
invaluable contributions of religious organizations
participating in Head Start. However, we are deeply concerned
that a repeal of civil rights protections could allow
religious organizations participating in Head Start to fire
teachers or parent volunteers based on their religion. We
strongly believe that allowing discrimination based on
religion would significantly impede the important goals of
Head Start as well as send a damaging message to students. We
urge your opposition to any amendment, including one expected
to be offered by Representative Boustany, that would repeal
civil rights protections for Head Start employees.
Professional development. We are very pleased that H.R.
2123 has a strong focus on early childhood educator
professional development. We are concerned, however, that the
bill would require teachers to have higher academic degrees,
without providing for a substantial increase in funding
either for professional development or compensation. We
recommend addressing this concern, including by providing
grants to help teachers meet the costs of earning their
Bachelor's and Associates degrees and/or increasing the
salaries of those teachers who earn degrees in early
childhood education.
Assessments. H.R. 2123 allows a study of, and
recommendations on, appropriate assessments for young
children. We would recommend that the National Academy of
Sciences conduct a review of the National Reporting System to
ensure that the assessments are comprehensive, reliable, and
that the results are used to improve student achievement.
We also hope to work with you toward increasing funding
authorization levels to ensure that Head Start can fully
serve all eligible low-income children and their families.
We thank you for your consideration of our views on these
important issues.
Diane Shust,
Director of Government Relations.
Randall Moody,
Manager of Federal Policy and Politics.
____

American Humanist Association,

Washington, DC, September 16, 2005.
Dear Representative: The American Humanist Association
(AHA) stands in opposition to any retrenchment of existing
civil rights protections, and therefore opposes any specific
attempt to reverse the nondiscrimination provisions currently
in effect in the Head Start program. Congressman John Boehner
(OH) has indicated his intent to roll back vital civil rights
protections by introducing, on the House floor, an amendment
to H.R. 2123, the School Readiness Act.
On behalf of the oldest and largest Humanist organization
in the Nation, I ask you to oppose any such attempt to
legalize discrimination with Federal funds as you vote on the
bipartisan Head Start reauthorization bill.
There is no compelling reason to undo the civil rights
protections in the Head Start program that President Nixon
signed into law in 1972. If this 33 year old
nondiscrimination policy were discarded, the Head Start
reauthorization would permit religious organizations to use
Federal funds to discriminate on the basis of religion, even
when engaging in purely secular early childhood education
activities. Not only would such a removal of employment
discrimination safeguards hold significant potential harm for
Humanists, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, and others who hold
minority lifestances, it would not address an existing
problem. Faith-based organizations have been partnering with
the government to provide social services for many years
without the need to bypass civil rights laws.
Humanists are particularly concerned about this potential
amendment because many dedicated teachers and volunteers in
the Head Start program would find themselves disenfranchised
just because they do not happen to believe as others do. As a
result, this bill will likely lose the existing support of
many religious, civil rights, education, health, and advocacy
organizations if Congressman Boehner's amendment is adopted.
As Humanists we persistently oppose Federal funding for
discrimination, especially discrimination done on the basis
of religion or lack thereof. If religious or secular
organizations wish to utilize taxpayer dollars to operate on
our government's behalf, they must also abide by the
standards set for public service. This is why I write to ask
you to oppose any amendment to the legislation that would
roll back these critical civil rights protections. If such an
amendment is added to the bill, we strongly urge you to
oppose final passage of the bill.
Should you have any questions about our position, please do
not hesitate to contact Roy Speckhardt on our staff.
Sincerely,
Mel Lipman,
AHA President.
____

The Coalition Against

Religious Discrimination,

September 19, 2005.
Dear Representative: We, the undersigned religious, civil
rights, labor, education, health, and advocacy organizations
are writing to urge you to oppose any amendment to repeal
longstanding critical civil rights protections contained in
the School Readiness Act (H.R. 2123) and vote ``no'' on final
passage if such an amendment is adopted. As unanimously
passed out of the Committee on Education and the Workforce,
H.R. 2123 maintains longstanding provisions designed to
protect over 198,000 Head Start teachers and staff and over
1,450,000 parent volunteers from employment discrimination
based on religion in federally-funded positions in Head Start
programs.
The critical longstanding nondiscrimination provisions have
been included in Head Start legislation since 1972. This is a
fundamental civil rights protection against employment
discrimination for Head Start teachers and volunteers. The
legislation always has received strong bipartisan support
from both the House and Senate since its enactment in the
92nd Congress when President Nixon signed the legislation
into law. The 33 year old civil rights provision has worked
effectively since the inception of this program, allowing
religious organizations to participate in programs while
maintaining constitutional and civil rights standards.
We are pleased that the Committee-passed Head Start
legislation maintains longstanding critical civil rights
protections. However, we are troubled by the threat of
repealing these protections on the House floor. In a
statement released by the Committee on Education and the
Workforce on May 5, 2005, the day H.R. 2123 was introduced,
Chairman Boehner stated that he foresaw an amendment on the
House floor to roll back longstanding critical civil rights
protections. The civil rights protections afforded to Head
Start teachers and staff are vital and should not be
dislodged.
We recognize that religious organizations participating in
the Head Start program make an invaluable contribution to the
education of thousands of students. These religious
organizations have complied with Head Start's existing civil
rights requirements. However, if the repeal of the existing
civil rights protections becomes law, teachers or parent
volunteers working in any Head Start program run by a
religious organization could potentially lose their jobs
based only on their religion. Students participating in
Head Start therefore could lose not only their teachers,
but also the close programmatic connection with their own
parents volunteering in the program. We strongly believe
that allowing discrimination based on religion would
significantly impede the important goals of Head Start,
send a damaging message to Head Start students, and harm
their education by separating students from their own
teachers and parent volunteers.
We urge you to maintain current law and reject any assault
on civil rights protections in federally-funded programs,
especially a program as critical as Head Start. If these
longstanding critical civil rights protections are repealed
we urge you to vote ``no'' on final passage of H.R. 2123. The
dismantling of civil rights will destroy the nature of a
program in which the education of young children is so
dependent on parent participation

[[Page H8279]]

and on ongoing, close relationships with Head Start teachers.
Sincerely,
AFL-CIO.
African American Ministers in Action.
American Association of University Women.
American Civil Liberties Union.
American Federation of State, County and Municipal
Employees.
American Federation of Teachers.
American Humanist Association.
American Jewish Committee.
American Jewish Congress.
American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC).
Americans for Democratic Action.
Americans for Religious Liberty.
Americans United for Separation of Church and State.
Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty.
Central Conference of American Rabbis.
Children's Defense Fund.
Church Women United.
Communications Workers of America.
Disciples Justice Action Network (Disciples of Christ).
Equal Partners in Faith.
Faith Action Network of People For the American Way.
Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network.
General Board of Church and Society of The United Methodist
Church.
Human Rights Campaign.
International Union, UAW.
Legal Momentum (formerly NOW Legal Defense).
Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund
(MALDEF).
NA'AMAT USA.
National Association of Social Workers.
National Center on Domestic and Sexual Violence.
National Council of Jewish Women.
National Council of Women's Organizations.
National Education Association.
National Head Start Association.
National Mental Health Association.
National Organization of Women.
National PTA.
National Women's Law Center.
OMB Watch.
People For the American Way.
Secular Coalition for America.
Service Employees International Union.
Stop Family Violence.
Texas Faith Network.
Texas Freedom Network.
The Interfaith Alliance/Foundation.
The Secular Coalition for America.
Union for Reform Judaism.
Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations.
United Church of Christ Justice & Witness Ministries.
Women of Reform Judaism.
YWCA USA.
____

The Interfaith Alliance,

Washington, DC, September 16, 2005.
Dear Representative: I write to you today as the president
of The Interfaith Alliance, a nonpartisan, national
grassroots organization dedicated to promoting the positive
and healing role of religion in public life to oppose any
amendment to repeal longstanding critical civil rights
protections contained in the School Readiness Act (H.R. 2123)
and vote ``no'' on final passage if such an amendment is
adopted. As unanimously passed out of the Committee on
Education and the Workforce, H.R. 2123 maintains longstanding
provisions designed to protect over 198,000 Head Start
teachers and staff and over 1,450,000 parent volunteers from
employment discrimination based on religion in federally
funded Head Start programs,
As an organization whose membership is comprised of 150,000
people of faith and good will spanning 75 faith traditions, I
can think of no reason to justify an attempt to roll back
these longstanding civil rights and religious liberty
protections. Indeed, in a nation as intentionally and
increasingly pluralistic as ours, built-in protections
prohibiting religious discrimination in federally-funded
programs represent a fundamental commitment towards a society
that values the contributions and abilities of people of all
faith traditions equally.
Religious organizations have had a long and proud history
in their active participation in Head Start programs. For
years, congregations have made substantial contributions to
their communities with the existing workplace protections in
place. If those in Congress who seek to repeal these
employment safeguards are successful, thousands of teachers
and parent volunteers who have dedicated themselves to this
program could find themselves no longer welcome at
religiously-affiliated Head Start programs because they are
of a different faith than the sponsoring organization.
While The Interfaith Alliance is supportive of the right of
sectarian organizations to hire based on religious preference
for purposes of furthering their institutional ministry, we
believe that houses of worship forfeit that right once they
accept federal taxpayer dollars to implement social service
programs that are intended to serve all.
Further, any attempt to politicize the Head Start program--
a federally sponsored preschool program conceived to meet the
needs of disadvantaged children since 1965--through a floor
amendment to add the highly controversial religious exemption
language, is not only unnecessary, but a sad commentary on
the state of those political leaders who seek to attach
religious exemption language to every social service program
that comes before the Congress.
The Interfaith Alliance is pleased with the bipartisan
direction of the Head Start legislation however; this bill
will no longer be bipartisan if there is any attempt to roll
back longstanding critical civil rights protections. The
civil rights protections afforded to Head Start teachers and
staff are vital and should not be dislodged. This bill has
gained broad support among religious, civil rights, labor,
education, health, and advocacy organizations, but that broad
support will end if there is any threat to remove the
longstanding critical civil rights protections in Head Start.
If you need further information on our position on this
matter, please do not hesitate to contact Kim Baldwin,
Director of Public Policy and Voter Education or Preetmohan
Singh, Senior Policy Analyst, at 202-639-6370.
Sincerely,
Rev. Dr. C. Welton Gaddy,
President, The Interfaith Alliance, Pastor of Preaching and
Worship, North Minster Baptist Church (Monroe, LA).
____

Unitarian Universalist

Association of Congregations,

Washington, DC, June 1, 2005.
Dear Member of Congress: I am writing on behalf of the over
1,050 congregations that make up the Unitarian Universalist
Association in regard to H.R. 2123, the School Readiness Act
of 2005, the legislation to reauthorize the Head Start
program. The Unitarian Universalist Association would like to
express our continued support of this program, as we believe
that Head Start is a successful and necessary program that
helps prepare nearly 20 million low-income children for
success in kindergarten and later life.
We remain pleased with the general direction of the House
bill as it comes out of the Committee on Education and the
Workforce. We are, however, concerned over proposals by
committee leadership to offer a floor amendment to repeal
civil rights protections in hiring in Head Start programs.
The UUA encourages you to pass a reauthorization bill that is
truly bi-partisan in recognizing the successes of the Head
Start program and maintaining the high quality of
comprehensive services it provides without repeal of long-
standing civil rights protections. We ask that you vote
against any amendment on the floor that would repeal civil
rights protections. If such an amendment is included in the
final bill, we ask that you vote NO on final passage of H.R.
2123.
We urge you to oppose the repeal of longstanding civil
rights protections designed to protect Head Start teachers,
staff, and parent volunteers from employment discrimination
based on religion in federally funded Head Start programs.
This provision has worked for 24 years, encouraging religious
organizations to participate in Head Start and make
invaluable contributions to children's education and well-
being, while maintaining Constitutional and civil rights
standards. Allowing discrimination based on religion would
significantly impede the important goals of Head Start, send
a damaging message to Head Start students, and harm their
education by separating students from their own teachers and
parent volunteers.
On behalf of the Unitarian Universalist Association of
Congregations, I thank you for your consideration of our
views on Head Start reauthorization. Head Start is an
exemplary program that has a well-deserved reputation for
delivering quality services to millions of our country's
children. This program is an excellent example of how
religious organizations such as houses of worship work in
partnership with the government without compromising either
protections for religious minorities or the integrity of
religious organizations. We urge the House to pass a
bipartisan bill that will continue the success of Head Start
without eliminating important civil rights provisions by
voting NO on any proposed amendment eliminating such
provisions and voting NO on final passage of a bill including
such provisions.
In Faith,
Robert C. Keithan,
Director.
____

Service Employees

International Union, CLC,

Washington, DC, September 20, 2005.
Dear Representative: On behalf of 1.8 million members of
the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), working in
health care, building services, and federal, state, and local
governments, including more than 220,000 early education
workers throughout the United States, I write to encourage
you to take a closer look at several key provisions in the
Head Start Reauthorization bill that could impact the quality
of Head Start for children. As the School Readiness Act of
2005 (H.R. 2123) moves to the House floor for a vote this
week, we hope that you will use this time as an opportunity
to improve the quality of Head Start programs that serve low-
income children nationwide.
Since its inception in 1965, the Head Start program has
enrolled more than 22 million children. Head Start provides
an array of comprehensive services to low-income parents and
children that they may not otherwise have access to on their
own. Head Start

[[Page H8280]]

not only prepares children for school by providing a solid
foundation in cognitive learning and socialization skills,
but also helps make children ``ready to learn'' by providing
comprehensive health, dental, and nutritional services
critically needed by our at-risk children. SEIU is committed
to ensuring that children who participate in Head Start
acquire the skills that prepare them for healthy, successful
lives. This goal will not be realized unless certain steps
are taken to improve the Head Start program.
The Head Start bill passed by the House Education and
Workforce Committee contains several provisions that we
support including greater set asides for migrant and seasonal
workers and Native Americans, as well as Early Head Start
programs. However, SEIU remains concerned about a number of
provisions that may erode the quality of Head Start programs
if not modified. We have outlined those concerns below.
SEIU supports continuing education for Head Start staff;
however, the bill's requirement for additional training and
education for Head Start staff may not become reality without
the quality improvement funding to make the plan attainable.
While SEIU supports additional training and education for
staff, we believe more funds also need to be provided for
that training and education. Head Start teachers on average
make $23,564 annually. Further, there are no current
incentives to retain highly qualified staff in Head Start
programs after attaining degrees.
Additionally, Head Start needs sufficient resources to
ensure every eligible child can participate and to increase
the quality of programs. Two out of five preschool children
(about 800,000) and 97 percent of infants and toddlers who
qualify for Early Head Start cannot participate in the
program simply because there are not enough resources
invested in the program. We support full funding for Head
Start so all eligible children have access to the Head Start
program.
Also, the bill's re-competition provisions need
improvement. SEIU is encouraged that the House bill does not
require automatic re-competition for every grantee after the
end of their grant period. However, the bill does require re-
competition for grantees that have a ``deficiency'' during
their grant period--regardless of whether the deficiency has
been resolved or not. In addition, the Secretary has broad
authority in identifying what a ``deficiency'' is, the
finding of which would require programs to re-compete their
grants. Such uncertainty for all programs--even those with
stellar records of performance--is counterproductive and
would end programs' ability to do any long-range planning. In
the event a grantee is unsuccessful in a re-competition, SEIU
continues to have concerns for existing Head Start workers
who may be displaced by re-competition. Services and care-
giving relationships for children should not be disrupted.
Moreover, SEIU supports parental involvement in Head Start
programs and encourages Members of Congress to re-think its
plan to diminish the role of policy councils. Policy councils
offer real parental involvement regarding personnel and
budgets. Despite the advantages of parental involvement, the
House bill changes governance responsibility to the Board of
Directors, with Policy Councils playing only an advisory or
consulting role. Instead, Congress should recognize that
parents provide valuable insight into Head Start programs and
can provide the necessary oversight of Head Start programs
when armed with the proper training. SEIU supports parental
involvement through policy councils.
Finally, SEIU vigorously opposes attempts to include
language that would repeal longstanding civil rights
protections that prohibit religious-based employment
discrimination by Head Start agencies. The House bill
currently maintains a provision designed to protect over
198,000 Head Start teachers and staff and over 1,450,000
parent volunteers from employment discrimination. This
decades old civil rights provision has worked effectively
since the inception of this program, allowing religious
organizations to participate while maintaining constitutional
civil and employment protections. The bill has gained broad
support among diverse advocacy organizations, but that
support will end if there is a successful effort to remove
those protections in Head Start when the bill goes to the
floor. SEIU asks that you vote against any amendment offered
that would roll back critical civil rights protections. If
such an amendment is included in the final bill, we urge you
vote NO on final passage of H.R. 2123.
SEIU remains troubled by the bill as it is currently
constructed as outlined in the letter and we will endeavor to
improve the legislation when the Senate takes up
reauthorization. Again, should an amendment be offered that
allows faith-based organizations to use religious
discrimination against teachers, staff and parent volunteers
working at Head Start programs, we urge you to vote NO upon
final passage of the bill.
Sincerely,
Anna Burger,
International Secretary-Treasurer.
____

CDF Action Council,

September 20, 2005.
Dear Representative: As H.R. 2123, the School Readiness Act
of 2005, moves towards a full vote in the House of
Representatives on Thursday, September 22, the Children's
Defense Fund is pleased to support many of the provisions on
which the Education and Workforce Committee has worked so
thoughtfully and diligently. We are especially pleased that
the Committee's bipartisan bill maintains the integrity of
the Head Start program and the quality performance standards
that have helped Head Start successfully serve over 22
million children since the program began.
We are extremely concerned, however, about a religious
discrimination amendment that will be offered when the bill
comes to the House floor. This unwarranted amendment would
repeal the important civil rights protections that currently
exist in Head Start that protect teachers and volunteers
working in any Head Start program run by a religious
organization. Such an amendment would significantly hinder
the goals of the Head Start program and the quality of care
children receive.
CDF acknowledges the continuing contribution of faith-based
individuals and organizations, which have been the backbone
of Head Start since its inception and have historically
embraced serving our most vulnerable children when few others
would even consider it. The religious discrimination
provision, however, strikes at the very core of civil rights
issues that so many of these individuals fought to secure. It
is imperative that faith-based organizations be subject to
the same civil rights laws that ALL programs who receive
federal funding must abide by. The following are concerns
raised by the amendment:
Teachers and staff could be hired based on their religion
rather than their qualifications.
Tens of thousands of already at-risk 3- and 4-year-old
children could lose their Head Start teachers, who often are
the most important adults, other than their parents, with
whom they have established meaningful relationships.
Head Start has been an important source of employment for
countless parents, but this provision could result in
numerous parents losing their jobs, preventing families of
Head Start children from climbing the ladder out of poverty.
Many Head Start volunteers are also parents. Parent
involvement has played a critical role in the success of Head
Start. These volunteers could be let go as well if the
provision passes.
Head Start is a critical program for our country's most
vulnerable young children, providing them with valuable tools
for future success in life. We are greatly concerned that
removing civil rights protections for employees and
volunteers would be detrimental to the children and families
who benefit from this program. What message does this send to
the Head Start children when their teachers, staff, and
parents are denied opportunities in Head Start, simply
because they do not share the federally-funded employers'
religious beliefs?
While substantial progress has been made creating a
bipartisan bill with many positive provisions, the addition
of a religious discrimination amendment would require CDF to
oppose H.R. 2123.
Thank you for your continuing commitment to improving Head
Start and helping it reach more of the vulnerable children
and families who benefit from its essential services. Please
oppose the religious discrimination amendment.
Sincerely Yours,
Marian Wright Edelman.
____

Human Rights Campaign,

Washington, DC, September 19, 2005.
Dear Representative: On behalf of the more than 600,000
members of the Human Rights Campaign, we write to express our
grave concerns with certain provisions of the School
Readiness Act (H.R. 2123) that we understand may be added as
the legislation moves to the floor for a vote. We are
particularly concerned with statements made by Chairman John
Boehner (R-OH) which indicate that his clear intention is to
offer an amendment on the floor adding language to reverse
the non-discrimination provisions currently in effect in the
Head Start program. We do not believe it should be legal to
discriminate with federal funds.
We ask you to oppose any attempt to rollback these civil
rights protections, which would undermine the current
bipartisan nature of the bill. If an amendment is added on
the floor which would roll back these civil rights
protections, we urge you to oppose final passage of the
School Readiness Act (H.R. 2123).
As the nation's largest gay, lesbian, bisexual and
transgender civil rights organization, we oppose using
federal funds to discriminate on any basis, including
religion, which unfortunately has been used as a proxy for
discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender
identity. Two prominent cases illustrate this problem:
Bellmore v. United Methodist Children's Home and Department
of Human Resources of Georgia and Pedreira v. Kentucky
Baptist Homes for Children. Further, we are particularly
concerned that any provisions that allow federally funded
religious discrimination will pre-empt local and state non-
discrimination laws that include sexual orientation and
gender identity.
While we do not hold a position on the overall legislation,
we have serious concerns with a provision that we understand
will be offered on the floor that would roll back civil
rights protections that have been in place and working
effectively since 1972. By abandoning these non-
discrimination protections, Head Start providers would be
able to discriminate on the basis of religion in federally
funded positions, even when engaging in

[[Page H8281]]

purely secular early childhood education activities. Faith-
based organizations have been partnering successfully with
the government for a number of years without the need to
bypass civil rights laws in their efforts to provide social
services.
We do not object to faith-based organizations providing
education-related services or other social services. Indeed,
we deeply respect the faith community's vital contribution to
care for the most vulnerable among us. Just as it is
important these vital programs continue to provide services,
it also remains important that federal funds are not used to
discriminate on the basis of religion or sexual orientation
or gender identity.
For these reasons, we urge you to oppose any amendment to
the legislation which would rollback these critical civil
rights protections and work to produce a bipartisan bill to
reauthorize the Head Start program. A vote on an amendment
permitting federally funded discrimination will be considered
a key vote for the Human Rights Campaign.
Should you have any questions please do not hesitate to
contact Angela Clements on our staff at (202) 216-1520.
Sincerely,
David M. Smith,
Vice President for Policy and Strategy,
Christopher Labonte,
Legislative Director.
____

National Council of Jewish Women,

September 19, 2005.
Dear Representative: On behalf of the 90,000 members and
supporters of the National Council of Jewish Women (NCJW), I
am writing to ask you to oppose the Boehner amendment to H.R.
2123, the School Readiness Act of 2005, and to oppose final
passage of the bill if this amendment is adopted. NCJW has
been involved with Head Start since its inception, and we
strongly support the program and H.R. 2123 as passed
unanimously by the Education and the Workforce Committee.
Efforts to amend the bill to open the door to religious
discrimination would compromise the success of this program.
NCJW believes that taxpayer funds should never be used to
subsidize discrimination on any basis.
Since President Nixon signed the Head Start program into
law four decades ago, this acclaimed early childhood
education program has included civil rights language
protecting Head Start teachers from employment
discrimination. This provision works well, allowing religious
organizations to participate in Head Start while maintaining
constitutional and civil rights standards.
NCJW strongly supports the bipartisan effort to reauthorize
Head Start. But the Boehner amendment looms as a ``poison
pill'' undermining this bipartisanship. House consideration
of H.R. 2123 should focus on meeting the needs of
disadvantaged children--improving policy and providing
sufficient funds to extend Head Start to all eligible
children. The Boehner amendment is totally unnecessary and
interjects a controversial, political issue which has the
potential to threaten the bill's progress. The House of
Representatives must not roll back critical civil rights
protections.
For over a century, NCJW has been at the forefront of
social change, raising its voice on important issues of
public policy. Inspired by our Jewish values, NCJW has been,
and continues to be, an advocate for the needs of women,
children, and families and a strong supporter of equal rights
and protections for everyone.
I urge you to oppose any amendment allowing employment
discrimination and to oppose the underlying bill if such an
amendment is included.
Sincerely,
Phyllis Snyder,
NCJW President.
____

National Council of La Raza,

Washington, DC, September 19, 2005.
Dear Member of Congress: On behalf of the National Council
of La Raza (NCLR), the largest national Latino civil rights
and advocacy organization in the U.S., I write on an issue of
great importance to the Hispanic community. On Thursday, the
House of Representatives is scheduled to vote on legislation
to reauthorize the Head Start program, the ``School Readiness
Act of 2005'' (H.R. 2123). This legislation is the result of
bipartisan work of the Committee on Education and the
Workforce to address much-needed improvements to the program
for Latino children. However, NCLR is concerned that this
bipartisan work will be jeopardized by an amendment that
would allow for employment discrimination based on religion
in the program.
NCLR has long recognized that Head Start is a critically
important program for ensuring that Latino children begin
their school careers ready to learn. For these reasons, NCLR
has pursued a reauthorization agenda focused on ensuring that
Head Start continues to show progress in its effort to
eliminate disparities in access and enhance the quality of
services for Latino and limited-English-proficient (LEP)
children and their families. We are pleased that Members from
both sides of the aisle supported this agenda and worked to
include provisions in H.R. 2123 that significantly improve
the program for Latinos. These provisions include, but are
not limited to, the following:
Additional resources for Migrant and Seasonal Head Start
(MSHS) program expansion, which will allow for thousands of
farmworker children to exit the fields and enter the
classroom.
An accountability provision which ensures that Head Start
providers serve new populations in their local communities
through enhanced monitoring and evaluations of annual
community assessments.
A new requirement that the Secretary conduct a study on the
status of LEP children and their families in Head Start and
Early Head Start programs.
A new requirement that the Secretary utilize training and
technical assistance funds for activities aimed at assisting
Head Start providers to conduct outreach and improve the
quality of services to LEP populations, particularly in
states with new and rapidly growing LEP populations.
A new requirement that all Head Start parents receive
information and services in their home language, when
possible.
A new requirement that, in addition to making progress
toward acquisition of the English language, LEPs show
progress toward the school readiness indicators outlined in
the Head Start education performance standards.
In addition, while NCLR is pleased with the aforementioned
provisions in H.R 2123, we stand in solidarity with the
broader civil rights community in our strong opposition to
any amendment that could open the door to employment
discrimination based on religion in the Head Start program.
Foremost, such an amendment is unnecessary for ensuring
greater participation from the faith-based sector in the
program; faith-based providers have served as an important
partner in Head Start since the program's inception.
Moreover, such an amendment will only serve to deter critical
attention and debate away from provisions in the legislation
that have garnered strong bipartisan support, such as
improvements to the program for Latino children. We urge
Members of Congress to vote NO on any amendment seeking to
allow recipients of Head Start funds to discriminate based on
religion. NCLR may recommend that any vote related to such an
amendment be included in the National Hispanic Leadership
Agenda Legislative Scorecard.
In closing, NCLR affirms its strong support of provisions
included in H.R. 2123 which increase access to and improve
the quality of Head Start for Latino children. We are certain
that these policy changes will go a long way toward ensuring
that Latino children fully benefit from the program and that
Head Start remains a model for early education into the
future.
Sincerely,
Janet Murguia,
NCLR President and CEO.
____

People for the American Way,

Washington, DC, September 16, 2005.
Dear Representative: On behalf of the more than 750,000
members and supporters of People For the American Way, we
urge you to maintain the bipartisan direction of H.R. 2123,
the ``School Readiness Act of 2003,'' and oppose any attempt
to repeal longstanding anti-discrimination protections. We
commend you on your bipartisan efforts on Head Start
reauthorization legislation. Head Start programs not only
offer opportunities to thousands of low-income children, they
also enrich their communities by providing job opportunities
to over a third of the parents whose children have
participated in the program. As it stands, this bill
currently upholds key anti-discrimination provisions that
have been part of Head Start since its inception.
However, in a statement released by the Committee on
Education and the Workforce on May 5, 2005, Chairman Boehner
stated that he anticipates and supports an amendment on the
House floor to rollback longstanding critical civil rights
protections. This type of amendment would be a direct attack
on bipartisan, anti-discrimination provisions that have been
part of Head Start since its creation in 1981 and cannot be
tolerated. People For the American Way cannot support a
compromise that does not ensure that the existing civil
rights protections in H.R. 2123 are not summarily removed on
the House floor.
Proponents of anti-civil rights provisions claim there is a
need to exempt religious organizations from anti-
discrimination laws in order to protect the religious
identity of that organization. This is simply not true. For
decades, religious organizations have partnered with the
government to provide social services. They have done so by
separating their worship and related activities from
government-funded social services, and, where necessary,
creating a separate non-sectarian 501(c)(3) organization to
provide the services. Under this model, religious
organizations have provided an invaluable contribution to the
education of thousands of Head Start students and to the
communities in which they live. Congress should not adopt
changes that would alter this beneficial relationship,
particularly when there is no evidence that religious
organizations are actively seeking the religious exemption in
question.
Again, we are pleased with the bipartisan direction of Head
Start reauthorization legislation. However, we are concerned
with any amendments which would rollback longstanding
critical civil rights protections and thereby detrimentally
affect Head Start teachers, students and their parents. The
current, delicate balance encouraging the participation of
religious organizations and

[[Page H8282]]

compliance with our Constitution should not be disrupted. For
these reasons, we urge you to continue efforts to ensure that
this legislation remains bipartisan, as well as oppose any
attempts to repeal longstanding anti-discrimination
provisions in H.R. 2123.
Sincerely,
Ralph G. Neas,
President.
Tanya M. Clay,
Deputy Director of Public Policy.
____

Union for Reform Judaism,

September 19, 2005.
Dear Representatives: On behalf of the Union for Reform
Judaism, whose 900 congregations across North America
encompass 1.5 million Reform Jews, and the Central Conference
of American Rabbis (CCAR), whose membership includes over
1800 Reform rabbis, I strongly urge you to maintain the
bipartisan character of the School Readiness Act of 2005
(H.R. 2123) by opposing any attempt to repeal longstanding
civil rights protections that prohibit faith-based Head Start
centers from discriminating in whom they hire on the basis of
religion. Should such language be added to the bill, I urge
you to vote against final passage.
We expect government-funded programs to hire the people who
are most qualified, not those whose religious beliefs best
match those of an employer. This is especially problematic in
relation to Head Start. One's faith does not determine how
one reads a book to preschoolers or sings the ``alphabet
song.'' To deny children living in poverty the most qualified
teacher is nothing short of an attack on Head Start's core
mission--preparing children to succeed in school.
Since its founding, Head Start has prided itself on the
strength of its family involvement component. Head Start has
successfully trained many of its low-income parents to work
at Head Start centers, helping parents rise out of poverty.
In fact, the Family and Child Experiences Survey, prepared in
January 2002 for the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, found that over 40 percent of Head Start staff
members had children in their households who were current or
former Head Start participants. On the day this bill becomes
law, faith-based Head Start programs could fire such staff
members because of their religious beliefs. A Head Start
center could refuse to consider a qualified parent for a job
because of the way the parent chooses to worship. Experience
teaches us that a broad exemption for religious organizations
would permit religious groups to use government money to
discriminate based on race, sexual orientation, and marital
status.
We are pleased with the bi-partisan efforts to improve upon
previous Head Start reauthorization attempts. However, on the
day that H.R. 2123 was introduced, Representative John
Boehner (R-OH) stated his intention to offer an amendment to
roll-back the current civil rights protections within the
Head Start program when the bill is considered by the full
House. To plainly state such intentions diminishes the much-
heralded bipartisan spirit of the bill and undermines the
gains made thus far in the mark-up process.
Our tradition includes a story of a teacher whose prayer
for rain was answered promptly. Asked to tell of his special
merit, he replied: ``I teach children of the poor as well as
of the rich; I accept no fee from any who cannot afford it;
and I have a fishpond to delight the children and to
encourage them to do their lessons.'' Since 1965, through its
comprehensive services and high quality standards, Head Start
has striven to give millions of children an equal opportunity
to succeed in school, nurturing their love of learning and
delight in life. I urge you to protect such opportunity for
our nation's teachers, parents, and children by opposing any
attempt to repeal the civil rights protections in H.R. 2123.
Respectfully,
Rabbi David Saperstein.
____

Dear Representative: we, the undersigned religious and
religiously affiliated organizations, write to urge you to
oppose the planned Boehner religious discrimination amendment
to the School Readiness Act (H.R. 2123), the bill
reauthorizing the Head Start program. The bill approved 48-0
by the House Committee on Education and the Workforce that
reaches the House floor is the product of many months of hard
work resulting in a strong bipartisan agreement. It maintains
critical civil rights protections in Head Start, preventing
religious discrimination in federally funded Head Start
positions. Any attempts to amend the bill and repeal these
protections threaten not only the bipartisan spirit of the
bill, but the integrity of the Head Start program itself. If
the promised Boehner amendment passes, we urge you to vote
``no'' to H.R. 2123. We are disappointed that an otherwise
acceptable bill could be jeopardized with such an unwise
amendment.
We represent a diverse array of religions, covering the
political and ideological spectrum. We stand united to oppose
this unwarranted attack on a vital civil rights provision
that protects over 1.6 million teachers and parent volunteers
from having to choose between their religion and their
participation in the local Head Start program.
The bipartisan bill that passed unanimously out of the
Committee on Education and the Workforce has the potential to
garner support from a broad range of groups, including all of
the religious groups on this letter, but not if the proposed
language is included. As religious institutions, we support
preserving the autonomy of religious organizations with
respect to hiring decisions made in privately funded
programs. However, we also recognize the importance of
ensuring that taxpayer dollars do not fund positions
connected with the operation of the program itself where
candidates may be disqualified because of the religion they
practice. The longstanding nondiscrimination provision
included in Head Start legislation since 1972 strikes the
appropriate balance between religious autonomy and
nondiscrimination. For over three decades, religious
organizations have enthusiastically and effectively
participated in the program while upholding constitutional
and civil rights standards. We are not aware of any call by
these religious based Head Start programs for congressional
authority to begin to discriminate on the basis of religion
in this government-funded program.
As religious and religiously affiliated organizations, we
strive to make the world a better place for the next
generation and generations to follow. The Head Start program
is an extremely successful government funded means of
achieving this goal, providing opportunities for nearly one
million at-risk children each year. We urge you to oppose any
effort, such as Rep. Boehner's planned floor amendment, to
change this crucial program by stripping its civil rights
protections and allowing providers to discriminate on
religious grounds.
Thank you for your consideration of this important matter.
Respectfully,
African American Ministers in Action, American Baptist
Churches, USA, American Jewish Committee, American
Jewish Congress, Baptist Joint Committee for Religious
Liberty, Central Conference of American Rabbis,
Christian Justice Action, United Church of Christ,
Disciples of Justice Action Network (Disciples of
Christ), Equal Partners in Faith, Faith Action Network
of People For the American Way.
Na'Amat USA, National Council of Jewish Women, The
General Board of Church and Society of The United
Methodist Church, The Interfaith Alliance, Texas Faith
Network, Sikh American Legal Defense and Education Fund
(SALDEF), Union for Reform Judaism, Unitarian
Universalist Association of Congregations, Women of
Reform Judaism.
____

OMB Watch,

Washington, DC, September 16, 2005.
Dear Representative: OMB Watch strongly urges you to oppose
the any attempt to include ``charitable choice'' provisions
in the Head Start program, which would allow religious
organizations to discriminate on the basis of the religion
when hiring for federally funded programs.
Religious organizations play a meaningful role in the
delivery of social service programs. We do not question the
right of religious organizations to participate in federal
programs, nor their ability to avail themselves of an
exemption under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
that allows religious organizations to hire co-religionists
with their own money.
However, we do question whether federal dollars should fund
discrimination by the very few religious organizations that
refuse to follow the same rules that all other organizations
participating in federal programs follow. Although religious
employers have the right under Title VII to apply religious
tests to employees, the Constitution requires that the direct
receipt and administration of federal funds remove that
exemption.
In addition, the federal government has constitutional
obligations reinforced by Chief Justice Rehnquist's majority
opinion in Bowen v. Kendrick, 487 U.S. 589 (1988). The Court
stated that although the Constitution does not bar religious
organizations from participating in federal programs, it
requires (1) that no one participating in a federal program
can ``discriminate on the basis of religion'' and (2) that
all federal programs must be carried out in a ``lawful,
secular manner.'' Id. at 609, 612.
Faith-based and secular grantees face high standards and
must be treated equally. The acceptance of federal funds--
taxpayer money--should require all recipients to practice
non-discrimination in hiring as it relates to those funds.
I urge you to maintain the integrity of religious grantees
and prevent government-funded religious discrimination by
opposing any attempt to include ``charitable choice''
provisions into the Head Start program.
If you have any questions, please contact Jennifer Lowe at
202-234-8494. Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Gary Bass,
Executive Director.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
The underlying reauthorization bill here is a good one, to help Head
Start children to get the head start they need if they are going to
have a chance to succeed in school. And we know from all of the studies
for low-income children to have a chance in school, going through an
early childhood development program like Head Start is

[[Page H8283]]

absolutely essential and that those children that are involved in Head
Start and other like programs have a much better opportunity and a much
better chance to succeed while they are in school.
We are about to get into the amendment process where we will consider
a number of amendments to perfect this bill, and I would ask my
colleagues to pay attention to these amendments. I think for most of
them there is quite a bit of agreement. But, clearly, the one amendment
dealing with the rights of faith-based organizations will draw an awful
lot of attention.
But I would ask my colleagues, why should we not let the House work
its will? If Members agree or disagree, we ought to have that right and
we ought to respect the outcome of that vote.
Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly rise in
opposition to the passage of the H.R. 2123, the School Readiness Act, a
bill that reauthorizes the Head Start program through fiscal year 2011.
Although the underlying bill enjoys wide, bipartisan support, the
adoption of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr.
Boustany) has the effect of being a poison pill and makes the bill
unpalatable.
The Boustany Amendment permits faith-based organizations providing
Head Start service to hire and fire on the basis of religious
affiliation. The adoption of this amendment allows faith-based
organizations to discriminate in hiring. This practice will work
against a key object for which Head Start was designed to address:
moving children and families out of poverty.
The Boustany Amendment also drives a wedge within the faith-based
community. The Head Start program was first established 1964 through
the cooperation of African-American churches throughout the segregated
South. From its birth, Head Start and the religious community have
developed a strong partnership in the delivery of critical education
and social services that have been the building blocks to escaping
poverty. This relationship has worked well for generations and now it
will be jeopardized if this provision is allowed to remain in the bill.
Many faith-based organizations who sponsor Head Start programs have
experienced no problems in fulfilling their spiritual mission and
honoring the non-discrimination in hiring requirements under the Civil
Rights Act. Permitting faith-based organizations to use federal dollars
to discriminate in hiring is a step backwards in the continuing
struggle for civil rights, a step I am not willing to support.
To remove the civil rights protections guaranteed under this program
compromises the very purpose of this program. For this reason, I cast
my vote in opposition to H.R. 2123.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, Head Start is a program with many
success stories, providing more than 900,000 low-income children with
comprehensive educational, medical, dental, and nutritional services.
It is an investment in our future. I am happy to see some improvement
offered in the School Readiness Act of 2005, such as abandoning block-
granting, increasing accountability on academic performance and
content, and teacher quality. Unfortunately, this bill falls short of
the expectations set by my local community and I cannot support it.
It does not go far enough in providing additional funding for
teachers so they may acquire bachelor's degrees by 2011. In Oregon,
only 58 percent of the eligible children are being served. Instead of
focusing on getting more eligible children into the program, the
Republican Leadership is once again attempting to repeal civil rights
protections by introducing an amendment permitting religious
organizations to use federal funds to discriminate in hiring and firing
decisions. Faith-based organizations have long participated in the Head
Start program and have successfully received federal funding without
discriminating.
Head Start is a bright light for families and children who need an
extra boost into the future. It is a program that demonstrates that we
care about all families within our communities. I cannot support a bill
that discriminates and ignores equality protections.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the School
Readiness Act which will reauthorize the Head Start program, but this
measure will not get my vote if the amendment allowing for religious
discrimination is adopted by this House.
I think that we can all agree that this is not a perfect bill, though
it is certainly an improvement over the Headstart reauthorization bill
that the 108th Congress considered.
As a former mayor of the city of Alexandria, Virginia, I know just
how important Head Start programs are to communities because they help
to provide our low-income preschool-aged children much needed services
such as child development, educational, health, nutritional activities
which help them receive greater advantages in life. More importantly,
these programs help to level the playing field for disadvantaged
children and prepare them for school.
In addition to the educational services that are provided by Head
Start programs, some of the other services include health screenings,
such as dental and eye care. Statistics have shown that children who
receive these crucial services, along with a hot breakfast every
morning, have increased their readiness for school.
In my congressional district, one of the most successful Head Start
programs is the Alexandria Head Start. This is a collaboration that the
Campaign Center, the city of Alexandria and the Alexandria City Public
Schools system formed about 37 years ago.
AHS serves over 250 Head Start children and because of a wonderful
group of dedicated educators and involved parents, these children are
truly getting a ``head start.''
I am pleased that many of my low-income constituents are served by
Head Start programs. I am concerned, however, that the School Readiness
Act's authorized funding levels, with limitations, will allow less than
one-half of the eligible preschoolers, to participate in Head Start.
Unfortunately the cost of the Iraq war and massive tax cuts have
produced a fiscal crisis which now translates into the under-funding of
critical programs like Head Start and others focused on our low-income
citizens.
I am saddened that so many children, who truly would benefit from
participation in a Head Start program, will not be given a chance of
doing so, and as a result, will be far less likely to reach their true
potential.
Another area of concern in this bill relates to teacher quality.
The School Readiness Act will require that half of the Head Start
teachers nationwide have at least a B.A. in child development or a
related field by 2011, and that all new teachers, beginning three years
after the enactment of the bill have at least an associate's degree or
be enrolled in a program to achieve an associate's degree.
While I certainly agree that our Head Start teachers should be highly
educated, however, unless additional funding is provided for increased
salaries, it will be extremely difficult for Head Start programs to
attract and more importantly, retain the highly educated teachers the
bill requires.
Why would someone who is interested in being a teacher and possesses
the education and background the bill requires, choose to make $25,000
a year as a Head Start teacher instead of $41,000 as a kindergarten
teacher for a school system that provides its teaches with cost-of-
living adjustments?
The non-profit Trust for Early Education said it best in a recent
report, ``If we do not provide appropriate compensation for our pre-
kindergarten teachers, they will leave the pre-kindergarten
classroom.''
The School Readiness Act needs to provide Head Start programs with
the financial ability to recruit and retain our Nation's brightest
teachers to educate our Nation's most disadvantaged.
I am also adamantly opposed to the Boustany amendment.
If a Head Start program is being administered by a faith-based
institution and it is receiving federal funding for the program, it
must not be permitted to discriminate on religious grounds when making
employment decisions.
It is as simple as that.
Head Start teachers and workers not only provide cognitive
development services to children; they help in the development of
children's character.
Most preschoolers have a strong sense of right from wrong. This will
be setting a confusing example if we authorize discrimination of any
kind. This amendment is opposed by every credible anti-discrimination
an civil rights protection organization, and I ask my colleagues to
oppose it.
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.''
While I recognize the shortcomings of the School Readiness Act, it is
a worthwhile effort that will help our low-income children by working
to level a very un-level playing field, so they will be prepared and
successful in school.
Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to address the House
about H.R. 2123, the Head Start School Readiness Act of 2005. Once
again, we gather here to address the needs of the Nation's youth and
debate how we will meet those needs.
For the past 30 years, Head Start has set the foundation for the
educational achievement of most young children in this country and has
many of today's successful young adults as its proof of effectiveness.
Many years ago, we did the necessary research and identified the
conditions under which young children are more receptive to learning.
We realized that it would take special effort and targeted resources to
prepare children for the rigors of the academic day.

[[Page H8284]]

From the beginning until today, we have implemented changes to
reflect technological advances, changing demographics, professional
advancements, etc. We, as a Nation, have risen to the call of our
children and provided a caring, nurturing responsive environment for
them. We spend millions of dollars every year training teachers to
carry out the Head Start function.
Mr. Chairman, we also lose those well-trained individuals one after
the other because we professionally abandon them after we have spent
hard earned dollars training them. Along with my colleague from
Illinois, I sought to provide the authorization for Head Start to
implement salary and work incentives to retain trained teachers in the
Head Start program. The amendment was not ruled in order and we have
not had the opportunity to even have a discussion about the amendment.
We proposed up to $300 million to aid the many Head Start programs
nationwide.
Mr. Chairman, rejecting my amendment I believe deprived the American
people of an opportunity to hear how their elected representatives
viewed something as critical as Head Start. It would have given the
voting public an opportunity to compare how we prioritize items. They
would have heard us debate how to spend our scarce dollars. They would
have had a reference point and a window seat to observe how we
determined what is important and measure that with what they think is
important. To some the comparison may have been Head Start versus Iraq;
for some it may have even been Head Start versus health care; for
others it may have been Head Start versus affordable housing.
As one who has fought tirelessly for the victims of natural and
manmade disasters, I have supported every effort to rebuild New York
after 9/11; I have supported every dime of supplemental funds for the
victims of Hurricane Katrina; I have supported appropriations bills for
every conceivable assistance package this country has had to provide. I
now stand in support of retaining qualified certified and government-
trained teachers in a Head Start program free from discrimination,
prejudice and intolerance. I submit to you, Mr. Chairman, it is not too
much to spend and it is right on time.
In any case, the people will not get that chance. They will never
know if we may have carefully studied this issue and decide teacher
retention was a worthy, valuable and cost effective expense.
What they will hear is a debate on an amendment designed to re-
introduce discrimination and disadvantage to a program created to
overcome the vestiges of poverty, racism, and academic neglect. This
House will debate an amendment today to permit faith-based recipients
of Federal Head Start dollars to discriminate against individual based
on their individual, guaranteed right of free religious affiliation. As
a former judge and prosecutor and an American--I am offended and
insulted.

We as a body cannot effect a simple reauthorization because each time
we get to a bi-partisan agreement to move Head Start in to the 21st
century--this poison pill provision rears its ugly head. Not to mention
separation of Church and State.
Mr. Chairman, this is a sad and unfortunate event in the history of
this august body: That after over 200 years as a sovereign country--
with a checkered past, at best, on discrimination, we now debate
discrimination by statute in the case of our young and budding leaders
of tomorrow. I rise in objection to this amendment to permit
discrimination based on religious affiliation in the Head Start
program.
I raise the highest objection that I can to rolling back over 200
years of progress on justice, harmony and tolerance. I rise in
objection to holding the future of Head Start hostage to this
provision.
Equally important, I rise to object to the proverbial slap in the
face this amendment visits upon true and significant bipartisanship. I
commend the chairman and the ranking minority on the Education and
Workforce Committee for their commitment to the children of this Nation
by presenting a bill free of polarizing provisions. Unlike so many
contentious issues brought before the House, bipartisanship was not
D.O.A.--``Dead on Arrival.'' Instead, a bipartisan, thought provoking
legislative initiative was D.U.A.--``Dead Under Attack.''
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment and let
Head Start get on with the business of preparing America's youth for
tomorrow.
Ms. BORDALLO. Mr. Chairman, today, in honor of the reauthorization of
the Head Start Program, I would like to recognize the contributions of
Head Start to the education of children in Guam and throughout our
Nation. Head Start programs across the United States have been an
essential part of the academic, physical, emotional, behavioral and
cognitive development of 3 and 4 year olds.
Early childhood education for pre-schoolers is extremely important as
an essential element of child development. Guam's Head Start programs
have educated thousands of children over the past 30 years to become
good upstanding citizens. The program not only caters to the children,
but integrates the involvement of parents to nurture an ongoing
education in the homes.
I commend all the hard working teachers who have enthusiastically and
effectively worked to positively influence the lives of at-risk
children and their families. I support Head Start and H.R. 2123, which
is critical to provide adequate funding for this wonderful program.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bill,
though I have concerns about one specific provision that would go too
far to allow discrimination.
The basic tenet of Head Start is as true today as it was a generation
ago--quality early education programs can be instrumental in helping
children overcome barriers to learning. This program not only plays an
important role in providing opportunities for the next generation but
also has an important impact on our economy. For every dollar spent on
Head Start, we receive seven dollars back. There are few federal
programs that can boost that kind of success.
As a nation we must ensure that our children are prepared,
academically, emotionally and nutritionally to enter school. Removing
the outside forces that result in under-prepared students opens up
children's minds to learn and gain an education. Head Start is one of
the most important programs in our government and I am pleased to see
this bill come to the floor with bipartisan support.
Unfortunately, I have concerns about an amendment passed by this body
that allows faith-based Head Start grantees to discriminate in hiring
based on religion. Federally supported programs should never support
discrimination in its programs on any level. Since Head Starts
inception in 1972 it has never discriminated in hiring for faith based
and other organizations. There is no need to start now.
I was pleased the House did not adopt an amendment offered by Ms.
Musgrave that would allow for-profit Head Start providers to collect
federal funds as profit. While for-profit Head Start grantees play an
important role in school readiness, I do not support allowing them to
collect a profit from federal grants provided to serve low-income
students. Any savings from funds designated for administrative costs
should go towards serving the needs of these low-income students. This
amendment provides the wrong type of incentive for Head Start grantees.
While this bill is not perfect, there are many provisions that will
provide needed and worthwhile reforms to Head Start. Head Start has
proven to be a successful program and this bill will largely make it
even more successful and efficient. So Mr. Chairman, I am voting in
favor of this bill.
Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Mr. Chairman, for almost 40 years, Head Start has
assisted low-income preschool children and their families. It has been
an invaluable resource to many children and families across our
country.
I am pleased to rise to join with my colleagues about the future of
Head Start. As Congressman and a former County Executive, education is
one of my top priorities. In particular, Head Start programs are
essential to so many children's futures, for research shows that early
learning is a fundamental piece of a child's education.
I have long held a firm belief in the importance of education and
have often spoke of our nation's need to ensure that, even at the
earliest stages our children have access to programs and services that
will enrich their education and lives.
Last year, Head Start helped 912,000 three, four, and five year olds
build a solid foundation so they are ready to tackle reading and math
in kindergarten. Head Start allows children to be ready to succeed in
school and in life. Giving them that extra boost that they need will
allow them to be productive citizens.
Head Start also provides the youngsters and their families with a
comprehensive list of support services--from health screenings to
nutritional advice to parent counseling.
I stand behind this program because I have seen first hand how Head
Start helps the entire family grow and succeed together.
Head Start is a good start for America's future.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition of H.R. 2123, the
School Readiness Act of 2005.
Disappointingly, I would have voted for this legislation to
reauthorize the Head Start program if it were the same bill that the
Education and Workforce Committee passed unanimously with bipartisan
support. That bill's new teacher qualifications and increased
accountability would have greatly improved the educational outcomes for
children in the Head Start program. I would have preferred that bill
provide more funding to ensure all eligible children can receive Head
Start services, but on balance, the bipartisan bill was worth voting
for.
Instead, the Republican Majority has added an amendment which would,
for the first time

[[Page H8285]]

in Head Start's 30-year history, allow a faith-based sponsored Head
Start Program to use Federal taxpayer dollars to discriminate against
highly qualified teachers and other employees solely because of their
religious views. Ironically, even the faith-based community Republicans
spend so much time pandering to is opposed to this discriminatory
amendment. Groups including the Baptist Joint Committee, American
Jewish Congress and African American Ministers in Action oppose the
notion that Head Start should allow religious discrimination.
This Head Start bill, however, is only the latest example of such
prejudice; President Bush and his Congressional Republican counterparts
have steadily pushed an agenda latent with religious discrimination.
Most recently, the Majority has sought to impart their religious views
on historically secular programs such as the Workforce Investment Act
and the Community Services Block Grant.
Perhaps what is most abhorrent is that the Republican Party wants to
institutionalize discrimination in a program that provides early
childhood development and educational services that are intended to
prepare low-income children to enter kindergarten and improve their
success later in life. These are not the ``family values'' we should
teach our children, whether it's paid for with tax-payer funds or not.
I urge my colleagues to vote against this legislation. It is time to
show the American people that this Congress supports tolerance over
discrimination. It is time we had a Head Start Reauthorization bill
that focuses on improving the educational development of our children,
and is not being used as a vehicle to teach our children one of the
world's ugliest lessons: discrimination.
Mr. BACA. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 2123, the
School Readiness Act of 2005.
The goal of the Head Start program is to give at-risk children all
across our Nation a fair chance at succeeding in the educational
system.
Head Start is especially important to Latino children. Latino
children make up more than one-third, 34 percent, of all those eligible
for the program. In my home State of California, 65.8 percent, which is
almost two-thirds, of those enrolled in the Head Start program are
Latino. As the Hispanic population experiences rapid growth, Head Start
services must be strengthened to reflect the unique needs of Latino
families. Head Start's ability to improve the educational skills and
opportunities of Latino children will be an important component of
America's future success.
Head Start has long lasting effects on those most in need. Head Start
graduates are more likely to graduate from high school and less likely
to need special education, repeat a grade, or commit crimes in
adolescence.
This bill improves the program in several key ways: It increases
funding for underserved children: for the children of migrant and
seasonal workers, it will allow approximately 10,000 more children to
leave the agricultural fields and enter the classroom; it expands the
Native America Head Start programs; and it also works towards ensuring
that parents can get information in their native language, when
possible.
This bill was passed unanimously out of the Committee on Education
and the Workforce in May. It is important that we pass this legislation
as a bipartisan effort to help American youth. Unfortunately, the
Boustany amendment would jeopardize this important bill by allowing for
employment discrimination based on religion. That kind of partisan
politics has no place in a bill that is about increasing educational
opportunities for our children.
Many of our Latino parents and children already face a number of
barriers in accessing the Head Start program. We must not add
additional barriers or sacrifice their futures.
It would place tens of thousands of already at-risk children in
danger of losing their Head Start teachers. And in doing so, it would
block countless low-income and minority parents from climbing the
ladder out of poverty.
We should not make it more difficult to participate in a program that
enables thousands of parents to make the life-changing transition from
being a parent volunteer to being a trained and paid Head Start
teacher. This amendment is inconsistent with American values of
tolerance and respect for all religions. Instead of trying to tack on a
partisan amendment, we should pass a bill that maintains Head Start's
high standards and allows Head Start centers to hire the most qualified
teachers. That is what's best for our children and for our country.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Boustany amendment.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, in solidarity with the National Head
Start Association, the Children's Defense Fund and countless other
lifelong advocates of the Head Start program, it is with a heavy heart
that I must oppose this final, amended version of the Head Start
reauthorization on the floor today.
It did not have to be this way.
I sit on the Education and Workforce Committee, which reported a
genuinely bipartisan Head Start bill to this House. It wasn't perfect,
and it did not reflect in every respect the Head Start reauthorization
I would have written. For example, an amendment I offered to fully fund
the program so that every eligible child could reap its benefits was
defeated on a party line vote. Moreover, a second amendment I proposed
to offset the significant costs faced by Head Start grantees working to
comply with the Department of Health and Human Services' transportation
safety requirements so that program dollars weren't diverted from
serving kids was similarly not included.
But, unlike failed initiatives in the recent past, the committee
reported bill did not walk down the misguided path of block granting
the Head Start program. Additionally, it took very positive steps
towards establishing high standards for teacher quality and
strengthening accountability for underperforming programs. It even
included an amendment I offered on a bipartisan basis with
Representatives Platts and Biggert to provide grantees new flexibility
to serve additional needy children when program slots became available.
That is why I am so disappointed to vote against this bill today.
With the inclusion of the Boustany amendment, this bill for the first
time seeks to legitimize publicly funded religious discrimination in
the Head Start program. It takes money from taxpayers and then turns
around and tells those same taxpayers they can be excluded from
federally funded jobs in a Head Start center solely on the basis of
their religious beliefs. In effect, it is a green light for religious
bigotry.
It has no place in the Head Start program, and it is precisely the
wrong message to be sending to our nation's children. I will continue
to support Head Start. But I must forcefully oppose this legislation.
Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, after years of hard work on both
sides of the aisle to create a Head Start reauthorization bill that
treats our Nation's neediest children fairly, it is with a heavy heart
that I must oppose the final passage of H.R. 2123.
Head Start is designed to ensure that all children--regardless of
their family's income, race, or ethnic background--are able to enter
kindergarten ready to learn. The Boustany amendment, which promotes
discrimination on the basis of religion for faith-based organizations,
destroys the principle of fairness that I believe is central and
crucial to the success of Head Start. It is for this reason that I
cannot support final passage of the bill.
I have long been a supporter of the Head Start program because each
and every year I witness the dramatic positive impact that early
intervention services have on children's lives in my congressional
district. My district includes many children who are in desperate need
of Head Start services, especially those Hispanic children who depend
on Head Start services to learn critical early literacy skills. These
skills are doubly important now to meet the rigorous requirements of
the No Child Left Behind Act. Latino children currently make up more
than one-third of all eligible Head Start children, and the Los Angeles
County Office of Education is home to the largest Head Start program in
the Nation, serving more than 24,000 children. As a member of the
Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and
Education, I have continuously supported strong and sustained funding
for the Head Start program.
During consideration in the Education and the Workforce Committee
this year, Democrats and Republicans worked constructively together to
improve the delivery of Head Start services to the target populations.
The product of this collaborative process was a bill that contained
several forward-looking provisions that would help the overall
administration and accountability of the program. In particular, I
highlight the reauthorization bill's provisions to ensure that Head
Start teachers possess at least an associate's degree in early
childhood education within three years of the bill's enactment. In
addition, I applaud the provision that would allocate 5 percent of
total funds toward programs that support the children of migrant and
seasonal workers, an easily-overlooked populace that is
disproportionately Latino.
It is important to note that I and my fellow Democrats recognize and
appreciate the wonderful work that faith-based organizations do to
support the mission of Head Start. Faith-based groups have and should
continue to play a critical and respected role in the education of our
Nation's youngsters.
While the participation of faith-based groups is respected and
valuable, however, the Boustany amendment would seriously damage the
mission of Head Start, which is to ``level the playing field'' when it
comes to early childhood education. It is essential that faith-based
groups respect the civil rights of the thousands of Head Start teachers
and volunteers who are committed to improving the lives of children,
regardless of their personal religious beliefs. There are many faith-
based groups that

[[Page H8286]]

work to prepare preschool-aged children for school without federal
funds, and it is entirely permissible for these groups using private
funds to hire their teachers based on religious grounds. What the
Boustany amendment would allow, however, is for faith-based groups to
ignore civil rights precedent and discriminate on the basis of religion
when those programs are supported by public funds.
It is important to note that not all faith-based organizations
support the discrimination practices supported by the Boustany
amendment. In fact, many religious organizations specifically oppose
discrimination in hiring based on religion, including: American Jewish
Congress, Church Women United, Interfaith Alliance/Foundation, Union
for Reform Judaism, Unitarian Universalist Association of
Congregations, and United Church of Christ Justice & Witness
Ministries.
Although the Boustany discrimination amendment has forced me to
oppose H.R. 2123, I remain committed to the Head Start program and the
services the program provides to our country's underserved children. I
can only hope that the Republican leadership will come to its senses
during the conference of this bill with the Senate and move to
eliminate this discriminatory provision so that Head Start can once
again go forward with the universal support that it has earned and that
it deserves.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the School
Readiness Act which will reauthorize the Head Start program, but this
measure will not get my vote if the amendment allowing for religious
discrimination is adopted by this House.
I think that we can all agree that this is not a perfect bill, though
it is certainly an improvement over the Head Start reauthorization bill
that the 108th Congress considered.
As a former Mayor of the city of Alexandria, Virginia, I know just
how important Head Start programs are to communities. They help to
provide our low-income preschool-aged children much needed services in
the area of child development. These educational, health and
nutritional activities help them receive greater opportunities in life.
More importantly, these programs help to level the playing field for
disadvantaged children by preparing them for public school.
In addition to the educational services that are provided by Head
Start programs, some of the other services include health screenings,
such as dental and eye care. Statistics have shown that children who
receive these crucial services, along with a hot breakfast every
morning, have increased their readiness for school.
In my congressional district, one of the most successful Head Start
programs is the Alexandria Head Start. This is a collaboration that the
Campagna Center, the City of Alexandria and the Alexandria City Public
Schools system formed about 37 years ago.
AHS serves over 250 Head Start children and because of a wonderful
group of dedicated educators and involved parents, these children are
truly getting a ``head start.''.
I am pleased that many of my low-income constituents are served by
Head Start programs. I am concerned, however, that the School Readiness
Act's authorized funding levels, with limitations, will allow less than
one-half of the eligible preschoolers to participate in Head Start.
Unfortunately the cost of the Iraq war and massive tax cuts have
produced a fiscal crisis which now translates into the under-funding of
critical programs like Head Start and others focused on our low-income
citizens.
I am saddened that so many children, who truly would benefit from
participation in a Head Start program, will not be given a chance of
doing so, and as a result, will be far less likely to reach their true
potential.
Another area of concern in this bill relates to teacher quality.
The School Readiness Act will require that half of the Head Start
teachers nationwide have at least a B.A. in child development or a
related field by 2011, and that all new teachers, beginning three years
after the enactment of bill have at least an associate's degree or be
enrolled in a program to achieve an associate's degree.
While I certainly agree that our Head Start teachers should be highly
educated. However, unless additional funding is provided for increased
salaries, it will be extremely difficult for Head Start programs to
attract and more importantly, retain the highly educated teachers the
bill requires.
Why would someone who is interested in being a teacher and possesses
the education and background the bill requires, choose to make $25,000
a year as a Head Start teacher instead of $41,000 as a kindergarten
teacher for a school system that provides its teachers with cost-of-
living adjustments?
The non-profit Trust for Early Education said it best in a recent
report, ``If we do not provide appropriate compensation for our pre-
kindergarten teachers, they will leave the pre-kindergarten
classroom.''
The School Readiness Act needs to provide Head Start programs with
the financial ability to recruit and retain our nation's brightest
teachers to educate our nation's most disadvantaged.
I am also adamantly opposed to the Boustany amendment.
If a Head Start program is being administered by a faith-based
institution and it is receiving federal funding for the program, it
must not be permitted to discriminate on religious grounds when making
employment decisions.
It is as simple as that.
Head Start teachers and workers not only provide cognitive
development services to children; they help in the development of just
as importantly, they aid them in their character development skills.
Most preschoolers have a strong sense of right from wrong. This will
be setting a confusing example if we authorize discrimination of any
kind.
This amendment is opposed by every credible anti-discrimination and
civil rights protection organization, and I ask my colleagues to oppose
it.
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.''
While I recognize the shortcomings of the School Readiness Act, it is
a worthwhile effort that will help our low-income children by working
to level a very un-level playing field, so they will be prepared and
successful in school.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2123, the
School Readiness Act, which will strengthen the Head Start program by
closing the readiness gap that exists between low and upper income
children. I want to thank my good friends, Chairman Boehner and
Congressman Castle, for their hard work on this important piece of
legislation.
Created in 1965 and located in every community in the country, Head
Start has been a valuable part of our nation in preparing lower-income
children for elementary school. However, in spite of the good efforts
of the program, there are still shortcomings that need to be addressed.
We can do more to ensure that the disadvantaged children in this
country are better prepared for school.
A readiness gap still exists between children in Head Start and their
more affluent peers. The bill before us today will improve the Head
Start program to help close the readiness gap by strengthening academic
standards. The bill emphasizes cognitive development and the use of
scientifically-based research in topics critical to a child's school
readiness.
This bill also seeks to protect parents and taxpayers from financial
mismanagement in the Head Start program. The federal government invests
nearly $7 billion in the program, but sadly, dozens of media stories
and an independent investigation by the Government Accountability
Office revealed problems in the financial management of some Head Start
grantees. We should do all that we can to ensure that Head Start
dollars are going to meet the needs of the students and are not wasted
due to a few bad grantees. The School Readiness Act strengthens
safeguards to protect against financial abuse.
Mr. Chairman, this bill received unanimous support in committee, and
I hope that it will also receive the full support of the whole House.
H.R. 2123 is a good bill that will improve the lives and educational
needs of our nation's most vulnerable children. I urge my colleagues to
support the bill.
Mr. HONDA. Mr. Chairman, as a former teacher and principal, I rise
today to voice my support for H.R. 2123, the bipartisan Head Start
bill.
Since 1965, Head Start has helped over 20 million children build the
confidence and skills they need to succeed in school and to become the
leaders and productive citizens of the future. Children cannot learn
when they are hungry, sick, or too worried about their families to
concentrate in school. That is precisely why we need Head Start.
Head Start is unique in its comprehensive approach to supporting
children and families, offering early education, health care, social
services, and nutrition services, while emphasizing parent involvement
and support. This approach has represented a formula for success for
nearly 40 years.
I am pleased that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have
not pursued their strategy of last year and have worked with Members
from this side of the aisle to produce a bill that does not include the
block grant proposal that was advanced in the last Congress.
I am also pleased that the bill will align Head Start curricula with
K-12 education while preserving the comprehensive nature of the Head
Start program. This will support effective transitions for children's
learning and development and ensure that children will enter school
ready to learn. At the same time, the proposal will provide continuity
for children by retaining

[[Page H8287]]

the essential parental involvement, nutrition, and other non-academic
features of Head Start.
I am glad that H.R. 2123 has a strong focus on early childhood
educator professional development. Improving teacher quality in Head
Start is critical to increasing overall program quality and helping
more children reach kindergarten better prepared to succeed. I am
concerned, however, that while the bill requires teachers to have
higher academic degrees, it provides no funding to support the
implementation of its important teacher quality provisions. Improving
teacher quality is very important, but without providing the means to
support the provision, the initiative is severely undercut. I hope that
this problem is addressed in conference.
Despite my support for the bill, I will vote against it if the
divisive amendment being offered by Mr. Boustany passes. I strongly
oppose this amendment, which would allow faith based-sponsored Head
Start programs to use Federal taxpayer dollars to discriminate against
qualified teachers and other employees solely because of their religion
or personal religious views.
Head Start began as a civil rights platform--ensuring that all
children, regardless of race, ethnicity, or religion--get a head start
in life. This amendment would roll back civil rights for Head Start
teachers and parent volunteers by allowing religious discrimination.
This is an outright assault on religious liberty and civil rights in
federally funded programs. To trample on this now will turn back the
clock on the progress we have made in protecting the civil rights of
the people we entrust to give our children a head start.
Allowing discrimination based on religion would significantly impede
the important goals of Head Start as well as sending a damaging message
to students. Religious institutions have been providing invaluable Head
Start services for years and do not need this misguided amendment to
continue their good work.
As chair of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus, I
recognize how important Head Start is to 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.
I want to support the improvements in Head Start that this bill will
make in order to provide the children in these communities with the
opportunities they richly deserve. But these communities, which have
had to fight so hard to protect their own civil rights, do not want a
Head Start program that discriminates and do not want Congress to act
for the first time to specifically repeal civil rights protections
against discrimination.
Mr. Chairman, I urge all Members to put the needs of children first,
vote against the Boustany amendment which is a poison pill that will
kill this bill, and make a real commitment to improve the Head Start
program.
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my
support for the Head Start Reauthorization Bill that was sent to this
Chamber by the Committee.
Head Start is one of the best programs we offer our youngest
students. A recent report on Head Start released by the Department of
Health and Human Services shows that Head Start helps close the
achievement gap between students of differing socio-economic status.
Since Head Start was created in 1965, it has proven to be our most
valuable school readiness program in the history of this country.
Time after time, we have seen reports that prove students who attend
Head Start perform better than those who don't.
It's important that this body reauthorize this program in a manner
that shows bipartisan support for educating our children.
I agree with many of the provisions in this bill, such as
safeguarding financial abuse and improving disclosure rules. Fraud and
abuse of providers of Head Start Programs is indefensible.
The money allocated to Head Start programs should be used to educate
children. Not for any other purpose. This bill cracks down on those
programs engaging in fraud.
Also, this legislation keeps current health and nutrition services,
which are essential for ensuring children can learn.
Young children have a difficult time learning if their basic needs
aren't met. Providing health care is an essential part of this program.
The ``best practices'' provision of this bill will help improve the
curricula of our Head Start Program.
I urge my colleagues to support this bill as it was reported from
Committee. Thousands of children in my district benefit from Head Start
and it's essential that we reauthorize this program with a bipartisan
plan that will help this Program serve more children effectively.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Bass). All time for general debate has
expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute printed in the bill shall be considered as an original bill
for the purpose of amendment under the 5-minute rule and shall be
considered read.
The text of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute is
as follows:

H.R. 2123

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
2005''.

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, including development of cognitive abilities,
through educational instruction in prereading skills,
premathematics skills, language, and social and emotional
development linked to school readiness 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--
(1) in paragraph (17) by striking ``, but for fiscal
years'' and all that follows down to the period;
(2) by redesignating paragraphs (16) and (17) as paragraphs
(23) and (24), respectively;
(3) by redesignating paragraph (15) as paragraph (21);
(4) by redesignating paragraphs (11) through (14) as
paragraphs (16) through (19), respectively;
(5) by redesignating paragraph (10) as paragraph (14);
(6) by redesignating paragraphs (3) through (9) as
paragraphs (6) through (12), respectively;
(7) by redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph (4);
(8) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following:
``(2) The term `challenging State developed academic
content standards' has the meaning given such term in
paragraphs (1) and (5) of section 1111(b) of the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act of 1965.
``(3) The term `deficient' means--
``(A) systemic or significant failure of a Head Start
agency in an area of performance that the Secretary
determines involves--
``(i) a threat to the health, safety, or civil rights of
children or staff;
``(ii) a denial to parents of the exercise of their full
roles and responsibilities related to program governance;
``(iii) a failure to perform the requirements of section
641A(a), as determined by the Secretary;
``(iv) the misuse of funds received under this subchapter;
``(v) loss of legal status (as determined by the Secretary)
or financial viability, loss of permits, debarment from
receiving Federal grants or contracts, or the improper use of
Federal funds; or
``(vi) failure to meet any other Federal or State
requirement;
``(B) failure of the board of directors of a Head Start
agency to fully exercise its legal and fiduciary
responsibilities;
``(C) failure of a Head Start agency to meet the
administrative requirements of section 644(b); or
``(D) failure of a Head Start agency to meet the
integration requirements of section 642B(a).'';
(9) by inserting after paragraph (4), as so redesignated,
the following:
``(5) 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 education programs.'';
(10) by inserting after paragraph (12), as so redesignated,
the following:
``(13) 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. 11431-11435).'';
(11) by inserting after paragraph (14), as so redesignated,
the following:
``(15) Limited english proficient; limited english
proficiency.--The terms `limited English proficient' and
`limited English proficiency' mean with respect to an
individual, that such individual--
``(A)(i) was not born in the United States or has a native
language that is not English;
``(ii)(I) is a Native American, an Alaska Native, or a
native resident of a territory or possession of the United
States; and
``(II) comes from an environment in which a language that
is not English has had a significant impact on such
individual's level of English language proficiency; or
``(iii) is migratory, has a native language that is not
English, and comes from an environment in which a language
that is not English is dominant; and
``(B) has difficultly in speaking or understanding the
English language to an extent that may be sufficient to deny
such individual--
``(i) the ability to successfully achieve in classrooms in
which the language of instruction is English; or

[[Page H8288]]

``(ii) the opportunity to fully participate in society.'';
(12) by inserting after paragraph (19), as so redesignated,
the following:
``(20) Professional development.--The term `professional
development' means high quality activities that will enhance
the school readiness of eligible children and prevent such
children from encountering difficulties once they enter
school by improving the knowledge and skills of Head Start
teachers and staff, as relevant to their roles and functions,
including activities that--
``(A) provide teachers with the content knowledge and
teaching strategies needed to provide effective instruction
and other school readiness services in early language and
literacy, early mathematics, cognitive skills, approaches to
learning, creative arts, science, physical health and
development, and social and emotional development linked to
school readiness;
``(B) assist teachers in meeting the requirements in
paragraphs (1) and (2) of section 648A(a), as appropriate;
``(C) improve teachers' classroom management skills, as
appropriate;
``(D) for teachers, are sustained, intensive, and
classroom-focused in order to have a positive and lasting
impact on classroom instruction and teachers' performance in
the classroom;
``(E) are not primarily 1-day or short-term workshops or
conferences, and attendance at activities that are 1-day or
short-term workshops or conferences must be as part of the
professional development plan defined in section 648A(f);
``(F) assist teachers and staff in increasing their
knowledge and skills in program administration, program
quality, and the provision of services and instruction, as
appropriate, in a manner that improves service delivery to
eligible children and families;
``(G) are part of a sustained effort to improve overall
program quality and outcomes for eligible children and
families;
``(H) advance teacher understanding of effective
instructional strategies that are--
``(i) based on scientifically based research; and
``(ii) strategies for improving school readiness or
substantially increasing the knowledge and teaching skills of
teachers;
``(I) are, where applicable, aligned with and directly
related to--
``(i) challenging State academic content standards, student
academic achievement standards, assessments, and the Head
Start Child Outcomes Framework developed by the Secretary;
``(ii) the curricula, ongoing assessments, and other
instruction and services designed to help meet the standards
described in section 641A(a)(1); and
``(iii) the Head Start Child Outcomes Framework developed
by the Secretary;
``(J) are developed or selected with extensive
participation of administrators and teachers from Head Start
programs;
``(K) are developmentally appropriate for the children
being served;
``(L) are designed to give teachers of limited English
proficient children, and other teachers and instructional
staff, the knowledge and skills to provide instruction and
appropriate language and support services to increase the
English language skills of such children;
``(M) as a whole, are regularly evaluated for their impact
on increased teacher and staff effectiveness and improved
ability of teachers to support learning and increase
participating children's school readiness, with the findings
of the evaluations used to improve the quality of
professional development;
``(N) provide instruction in methods of teaching children
with special needs, as appropriate;
``(O) include instruction in ways that Head Start personnel
may work more effectively with parents, as appropriate; and
``(P) are designed to give teachers and staff the knowledge
and skills to provide instruction and appropriate support
services to children of diverse backgrounds, as
appropriate.'';
(13) by inserting after paragraph (21), as so redesignated,
the following:
``(22) The term `scientifically based research'--
``(A) means research that involves the application of
rigorous, systematic and objective procedures to obtain
reliable and valid knowledge relevant to education activities
and programs; and
``(B) includes research that--
``(i) employs systematic, empirical methods that draw on
observation or experiment;
``(ii) involves rigorous data analyses that are adequate to
test the stated hypotheses and justify the general
conclusions drawn;
``(iii) relies on measurements or observational methods
that provide reliable and valid data across evaluators and
observers, across multiple measurements and observations, and
across studies by the same or different investigators;
``(iv) is evaluated using experimental or quasi-
experimental designs in which individuals, entities, programs
or activities are assigned to different conditions and with
appropriate controls to evaluate the effects of the condition
of interest, with a preference for random assignment
experiments, or other designs to the extent that those
designs contain within-condition or across-condition
controls;
``(v) ensures that experimental studies are presented in
sufficient detail and clarity to allow for replication or, at
a minimum, offer the opportunity to build systematically on
their findings; and
``(vi) has been accepted by a peer-reviewed journal or
approved by a panel of independent experts through a
comparably rigorous, objective, and scientific review.''; and
(14) by inserting after paragraph (24), as so redesignated,
the following:
``(25) The term `State educational agency' has the meaning
given such term in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
of 1965.
``(26) The term `unresolved area of noncompliance' means a
failure to correct a noncompliance item within 90 days, or
within such additional time (if any) authorized by the
Secretary, after receiving from the Secretary notice of such
noncompliance item.''.

SEC. 4. FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FOR HEAD START PROGRAMS.

Section 638 of the Head Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9833) is
amended by inserting ``for a period of 5 years'' after
``provide financial assistance to such agency''.

SEC. 5. 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
$6,899,000,000 for the fiscal year 2006 and such sums as may
be necessary for the fiscal years 2007 through 2011.
``(b) Specific Programs.--From the amount appropriated
under subsection (a), the Secretary shall make available not
more than $20,000,000 for fiscal year 2006, and such sums as
may be necessary for fiscal years 2007 through 2011 to carry
out such other research, demonstration, and evaluation
activities, including longitudinal studies, under section
649, of which not more than $7,000,000 for each of the fiscal
years 2006 through 2011 to carry out impact studies under
section 649(g).''.

SEC. 6. ALLOTMENT OF FUNDS; LIMITATIONS ON ASSISTANCE.

(a) Allotments.--Section 640(a) of the Head Start Act (42
U.S.C. 9835(a)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (2)--
(A) by amending subparagraph (A) to read as follows:
``(A) Indian Head Start programs, services for children
with disabilities, and migrant and seasonal Head Start
programs, except that--
``(i) there shall be made available for each fiscal year
for use by Indian Head Start programs and by migrant and
seasonal Head Start programs, on a nationwide basis, not less
than the amount that was obligated for use by Indian Head
Start programs and by migrant and seasonal Head Start
programs for fiscal year 2005;
``(ii) migrant and seasonal Head Start programs shall
receive at least 5 percent of the amount appropriated for
such fiscal year until such time as the Secretary can make
funding decisions to ensure access to funding for eligible
children of migrant and seasonal farmworkers is comparable to
access to funding for other eligible children based on the
data collected and reported pursuant to section 648(j),
except that no future reduction in funding shall result in
the termination of Head Start services provided to any
eligible child 3 years of age or older who is participating
in any such program on the date a reduction in funding
occurs, and shall, to the extent possible, continue
participation for children less than 3 years of age receiving
services prior to such reduction in funding; and
``(iii) Indian Head Start programs shall receive at least
3.5 percent of the amount appropriated for such fiscal year
until such time as the Secretary can make funding decisions
to ensure access to funding for eligible Indian children is
comparable to access to funding for other eligible
children;''; and
(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, and subject to the
requirements of section 105(f)(1)(B)(ix) of Public Law 108-
188 to Palau;'';
(C) by amending (C) to read as follows:
``(C) training and technical assistance activities to
foster program quality and management improvement as
described in section 648, in an amount for each fiscal year
which is equal to 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 make program improvements
identified by such agencies and 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 20 percent shall be made available to
support a State system of early childhood education training
and technical assistance, including the State Early Learning
Council described in section 642B(b);
``(iii) not less than 30 percent shall be made available to
the Secretary to assist local programs in meeting the
standards described in section 641A(a)(1) and shall be
allocated to address program weaknesses identified by
monitoring activities conducted by the Secretary under
section 641A(c); 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(d)(4);''; and
(D) by striking the last sentence.
(2) in paragraph (3)--
(A) in subparagraph (A)--
(i) in clause (i)(I) by striking ``year 1999'' and all that
follows down to the semicolon and inserting ``years 2006
through 2011''; and
(ii) by adding at the end the following:
``(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--
``(I) to expand services to underserved populations, such
as children receiving services under Early Head Start
programs and under migrant and seasonal Head Start programs;
and

[[Page H8289]]

``(II) to increase funding to grantees with full enrollment
and whose aggregate amount of financial assistance provides
funding per child that is below the national average.'';
(B) by amending subparagraph (B) to read as follows:
``(B) Funds reserved under this paragraph (in this
paragraph referred to as `quality improvement funds') shall
be used to accomplish 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 limited English proficiency, children referred by child
welfare services, and children with disabilities, when
appropriate.
``(iii) Developing and financing the salary scales
described under section 644(a)(3) 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--
``(I) to assist with the implementation of quality programs
and improve staff qualifications;
``(II) to ensure that staff can promote the language skills
and literacy growth of children and can provide children with
a variety of skills that have been identified, through
scientifically based early reading research, as predictive of
later reading achievement; and
``(III) 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 postsecondary
course work including scholarships or other financial
incentives, such as differential and merit pay, to enable
Head Start teachers to improve competencies and the resulting
child outcomes.
``(ix) Upgrading the qualifications and skills of
educational personnel to meet the professional standards
established under section 648A(a)(1), including certification
and licensure as bilingual education teachers and other
educational personnel who serve limited English proficient
children.
``(x) Promoting the regular attendance and stability of all
children participating in Head Start programs, with
particular attention to highly mobile children, including
children from migrant and seasonal farm worker families (if
appropriate), homeless children, and children in foster care.
``(xi) Making such other improvements in the quality of
such programs as the Secretary may designate.''; and
(C) by amending subparagraph (C) to read as follows:
``(C) Quality improvement funds shall be used to carry out
the activities in any or all of the following clauses:
``(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 may carry out the activities described in
clauses (ii) through (vii).
``(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 limited English proficient children and families, while
ensuring that children are making meaningful progress in
attaining the knowledge, skills, abilities, and development
described in section 641A(a)(1)(B);
``(III) to foster children's school readiness through
activities described in section 648A(a)(1); and
``(IV) to provide education and training necessary to
improve the qualifications of Head Start staff, particularly
assistance to enable more instructors to be fully competent
and 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
challenges of children participating in Head Start programs,
including children from immigrant, refugee, and asylee
families, children from families in crisis, children who
experience chronic violence in their communities, children
who experience substance abuse in their families, and
children with emotional and behavioral problems.
``(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 homeless
children.
``(vii) To conduct outreach to migrant and seasonal farm-
working families and families with children with a limited
English proficiency.
``(viii) Such other activities as the Secretary may
designate.'';
(3) in paragraph (4) by striking ``1998'' in subparagraph
(A) and inserting ``2005'';
(4) in paragraph (5) by amending subparagraphs (A), (B),
and (C) to read as follows:
``(A) From amounts reserved and allotted pursuant to
paragraph (4), the Secretary shall award the collaboration
grants described in subparagraphs (B) and (D).
``(B) From the reserved sums in paragraph (4), the
Secretary shall award a collaboration grant to any State that
submits a written request. Such grant shall be equal to the
amount the State received under this paragraph for such
activity for fiscal year 2005. Such grant shall be used by
the State to facilitate collaboration regarding activities
carried out in the State under this subchapter, and other
activities carried out in and by the State that are designed
to benefit low-income children and families and to encourage
Head Start agencies to collaborate with entities involved in
State and local planning processes (including the State lead
agency administering the financial assistance under the Child
Care and Development Block Grant Act of 1990 and the entities
that provide child care resource and referral services in the
State) in order to better meet the needs of low-income
children and their families.
``(C) In order to improve results for children, a State
that receives a grant under subparagraph (B) shall appoint an
individual to serve as the State Director of Head Start
Collaboration to be a liaison between the appropriate
regional office of the Administration for Children and
Families and agencies carrying out Head Start programs in the
State. The State shall--
``(i) ensure that such Director 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 and local entities,
including--
``(I) the State educational agency;
``(II) the State Department of Health and Human Services;
``(III) the State agency that oversees child care;
``(IV) the State agency that assists children with
developmental disabilities;
``(V) the State Head Start Association;
``(VI) the State network of child care resource and
referral agencies;
``(VII) local educational agencies;
``(VIII) community-based and faith-based organizations;
``(IX) representatives of migrant and seasonal Head Start
programs located in the State;
``(X) representatives of Indian Head Start programs located
in the State;
``(XI) State and local providers of early childhood
education and child care, including providers with experience
serving children with limited English proficiency; and
``(XII) other entities carrying out programs serving low-
income children and families in the State;
``(ii) involve the entities described in clause (i) to
develop a strategic plan for the coordinated outreach to
identify eligible children and to implement strategies based
on a needs assessment, 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 not later than 1 year after the date of enactment
of the School Readiness Act of 2005 and be updated on an
annual basis and shall be made available to the general
public within the State;
``(iii) 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 (20 U.S.C. 1419, 1431 et seq.)), and services
for homeless children (including coordination of services
with the Office of Coordinator for Education of

[[Page H8290]]

Homeless Children and Youth designated under section
722(g)(1)(J)(ii) of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance
Act of 2001 (42 U.S.C. 11432(g)(1)(J)(ii));
``(iv) require the State Director of Head Start
Collaboration to--
``(I) serve on the Early Learning Council pursuant to
section 642B(b);
``(II) consult with the Early Learning Council, chief State
school officer, local educational agencies, 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;
``(III) consult with the chief State school officer, local
educational agencies, State child care administrators, State
human services administrators, representatives of local child
care 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 Association to plan
for the provision of full-working-day, full-calendar-year
early care and education services for eligible children with
working parents who have a demonstrated need;
``(IV) consult with the chief State school officer, local
educational agencies and Head Start agencies to improve
alignment between Head Start programs and State-funded
prekindergarten activities to meet shared goals of school
readiness; and
``(V) establish improved linkages between Head Start
agencies and other children and family agencies, including
agencies that provide health, mental health or family
services or other child and family support services.'';
(C) in subparagraph (D)(i) by inserting ``and providers of
services supporting early childhood education and child
care'' after ``Associations''; and
(D) by amending paragraph (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 each of the fiscal years 2006 through
2011, of the amount appropriated pursuant to section 639(a),
except as provided in subparagraph (B).''.
(b) Service Delivery Models.--Section 640(f) of the Head
Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9835(f)) is amended by inserting before
the period at the end the following: ``, including models
that leverage the existing capacity and capabilities of the
delivery system of early childhood education and child
care''.
(c) Maintenance of Service Levels.--Section 640(g)(2) of
the Head Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9835(g)(2)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``For the purpose of expanding Head Start
programs, in'' and inserting ``In'';
(2) by amending subparagraph (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 Federal, State,
and local 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
individuals, 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-Veto Homeless Assistance Act
(42 U.S.C. 11432(g)(1)(J)(ii));'';
(3) in subparagraph (D) by striking ``other local'' and
inserting ``the State and local'';
(4) in subparagraph (E) by inserting ``would like to
participate but'' after ``community who'';
(5) in subparagraph (G)--
(A) by inserting ``leverage the existing delivery systems
of such services and'' after ``manner that will''; and
(B) by striking ``and'' at the end;
(6) in subparagraph (H)--
(A) by inserting ``, including the local educational agency
liaison designated under section 722(g)(1)(J)(ii) of the
McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C.
11432(g)(1)(J)(ii)),'' after ``community involved'';
(B) by striking ``plans to coordinate'' and inserting
``successfully coordinated its activities''; and
(C) by striking the period at the end and inserting ``;
and''; and
(7) by adding at the end the following:
``(I) the amount of funds used by such agency to pay
administrative expenses and the amount of available funds
received by such agency under this section to serve each
enrolled child.''.
(d) Vehicle Safety Requirements.--Section 640(i) of the
Head Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9835(i)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``(i) The'' and inserting the following:
``(i) Transportation Safety.--
``(1) Regulations.--The''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) Waiver authority.--
``(A) In general.--The Secretary may waive for a period of
up to one year the requirements of regulations promulgated
under paragraph (1) for one or more vehicles used by the
agency or its designee in transporting children enrolled in a
Head Start program or an Early Head Start program if--
``(i) such requirements pertain to child restraint systems
and bus monitors;
``(ii) the agency demonstrates that compliance with such
requirements will result in a significant disruption to the
Head Start program or the Early Head Start program; and
``(iii) is in the best interest of the child.
``(B) Renewal.--The Secretary may renew a waiver under
subparagraph (A).''.
(e) Migrant and Seasonal Head Start Programs.--Section
640(l) of the Head Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9835(l)) is amended--
(1) by amending paragraph (3) to read as follows:
``(3) In carrying out this subchapter, the Secretary shall
continue the administrative arrangement at the national level
for meeting the needs of Indian children and children of
migrant and seasonal farmworkers and shall ensure that
appropriate funding is provided to meet such needs, including
training and technical assistance and the appointment of a
national migrant and seasonal Head Start collaboration
director and a national Indian Head Start collaboration
director.''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(4)(A) For the purposes of paragraph (3), the Secretary
shall conduct an annual consultation in each affected Head
Start region, with tribal governments operating Head Start
programs and Early Head Start programs.
``(B) The consultations shall be for the purpose of better
meeting the needs of American Indian and Alaska Native
children and families pertinent to subsections (a), (b), and
(c) of section 641, taking into consideration funding
allocations, distribution formulas, and other issues
affecting the delivery of Head Start services within tribal
communities.
``(C) The Secretary shall publish a notification of the
consultations in the Federal Register prior to conducting the
consultations.
``(D) A detailed report of each consultation shall be
prepared and made available, on a timely basis, to all tribal
governments receiving funds under this subchapter.''.
(f) Enrollment of Homeless Children.--Section 640 of the
Head Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9835) is amended by adding at the
end the following:
``(m) Enrollment of Homeless Children.--The Secretary shall
by regulation prescribe policies and procedures to remove
barriers to the enrollment and participation of homeless
children in Head Start programs. Such regulations shall
require Head Start agencies--
``(1) to implement policies and procedures to ensure that
homeless children are identified and prioritized for
enrollment;
``(2) to 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 B of title VII of the
McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11431-
11435).
``(n) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this subchapter
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. 7. DESIGNATION OF AGENCIES.

(a) Authority To Designate.-- Section 641(a) of the Head
Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9836(a)) is amended to read as follows:
``(a) Authority To Designate.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary is authorized to designate
as a Head Start agency any local public or private nonprofit
or for-profit agency within a State, including a community-
based or faith-based organization that--
``(A) has power and authority to carry out the purpose of
this subchapter and perform the functions set forth in
section 642 within a State; and
``(B) is determined to be capable of planning, conducting,
administering, and evaluating, either directly or by other
arrangements, a Head Start program.
``(2) Designation requirements.--To be designated as a Head
Start agency and to receive financial assistance under this
subparagraph, an entity described in sub paragraph (1)
shall--
``(A) establish measurable objectives for--
``(i) the school readiness of children participating in the
program under this subchapter;
``(ii) meeting the performance standards described in
section 641A;
``(iii) educational instruction in prereading,
premathematics, and language skills; and
``(iv) the provision of health, educational, nutritional,
social and other services related to school readiness; and
``(B) align curricula to challenging State developed
academic content standards and the Head Start Child Outcomes
Framework developed by the Secretary.
``(3) Eligibility for subsequent financial assistance.--In
order to receive financial assistance under this subchapter
subsequent to the initial financial assistance provided
following the effective date of this subsection, an entity
described in paragraph (1) shall demonstrate that the entity
has met the measurable objectives described in paragraph (2);
``(4) Measuring Progress.--Progress in meeting such
measurable objectives shall not be measured primarily or
solely by the results of assessments.''
(b) Priority in Designation.--Section 641(c) of the Head
Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9836(c)) is amended to read as follows:
``(c) Consultation.--In the administration of this section,
the Secretary shall, in consultation with the chief executive
officer of the State involved, give priority in the
designation of Head Start agencies to Head Start agencies
that--

[[Page H8291]]

``(1) are receiving assistance under this subchapter on the
effective date of this subsection;
``(2) meet or exceed program and financial management
requirements, standards described in section 641A(a);
``(3) meet or exceed the education standards and
requirements described in section 641A(a)(1)(B);
``(4) have no unresolved area of noncompliance;
``(5) have not been deemed deficient since the then most
recent designation;
``(6) employ qualified staff (including in center-based
programs, a teaching staff of whom at least 50 percent have
an associate, baccalaureate, or advanced degree in early
child education or a related field), except that the
Secretary may waive the application of this paragraph, for a
period not to exceed 3 years, for Head Start programs
operating in rural areas, for migrant and seasonal Head Start
programs, and for Indian Head Start programs, on a case-by-
case basis, if the program demonstrates progress in
increasing the qualifications of teaching staff and
demonstrates adequate instructional supervision by qualified
staff;
``(7) were not deemed by the Secretary as chronically
under-enrolled since the then most recent designation;
``(8) utilize curricula based on scientifically based
research, that are aligned with challenging State developed
academic content standards and the Head Start Child Outcomes
Framework developed by the Secretary;
``(9) demonstrate active partnerships with local
educational agencies serving the same communities to
facilitate smooth transitions to kindergarten;
``(10) actively implement a memorandum of understanding
described in section 642B(a) and additional collaborative
partnerships with organizations that enhance the delivery of
services to children;
``(11) demonstrate success in improving child outcomes
across all domains of development, including measurable
progress in language skills, prereading knowledge, and
premathematics knowledge;
``(12) maintain classroom environments constructive to
early learning and future school success;
``(13) demonstrate strong parental involvement and
activities to develop parent skills to support their
children's educational development and ability to participate
effectively in decisions relating to the education of their
children;
``(14) are overseen by a board described in section 642(b)
that provides direction and actively oversees all program
activities;
``(15) document strong fiscal controls, including--
``(A) the employment of well-qualified fiscal staff with a
history of successful management of a public or private
organization;
``(B) having no reportable material weaknesses with
applicable laws and regulations on all annual financial
audits performed since the most recent designation;
``(C) meeting or exceeding annual requirements for
financial support under section 640(b); and
``(D) maintaining total administrative costs at or below 15
percent of total program costs;
``(16) are licensed to operate in accordance with all
applicable State child care regulations;
``(17) conduct outreach activities to ensure that services
are provided to the most at-risk families in the community;
``(18) have developed strong community partnerships with
public and private organizations, such as businesses, health,
and social service providers; and
``(19) provide opportunities for ongoing professional
development.''.
(c) Designation When No Entity Has Priority.--Section
641(d) of the Head Start Act (43 U.S.C. 9836(d)) is amended
to read as follows:
``(d) Designation When No Entity Has Priority.--
``(1) In general.--If no entity in a community is entitled
to the priority specified in subsection (c), the Secretary
shall, after conducting an open competition, designate for a
5-year period a Head Start agency from among qualified
applicants in such community.
``(2) Considerations in designation.--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--
``(A) any past performance of such applicant in providing
services comparable to Head Start services, including how
effectively such applicant provided such comparable services;
``(B) the plan of such applicant to provide comprehensive
health (including mental and behavioral health), educational,
nutritional, social, and other services needed to prepare
children to succeed in school;
``(C) the capacity of such applicant to serve eligible
children with curriculum and teaching practices based on
scientifically based research that promote the school
readiness of children participating in the program;
``(D) 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;
``(E) the proposed budget and plan of such applicant to
maintain strong fiscal controls and cost effective fiscal
management;
``(F) the plan of such applicant to coordinate the Head
Start program the applicant proposes to carry out with other
educational programs for young children, including--
``(i) the Early Reading First and Even Start programs under
subparts 2 and 3 of part B of title I of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6371 et seq., 6381
et seq.);
``(ii) programs under section 619 and part C of the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1419,
1431 et seq.);
``(iii) State prekindergarten programs;
``(iv) child care programs;
``(v) the educational programs that the children
participating in the Head Start program involved will enter
at the age of compulsory school attendance; and
``(vi) reading readiness programs such as those conducted
by public and school libraries;
``(G) the plan of such applicant to coordinate the Head
Start program that the applicant proposes to carry out, with
public and private entities that are willing to commit
resources to assist the Head Start program in meeting its
program needs;
``(H) the plan of such applicant--
``(i) to seek the involvement of parents (including
grandparents and kinship caregivers, as appropriate) of
children participating in the proposed Head Start program, in
activities (at home and, if practicable, at the location of
the Head Start program) designed to help such parents become
full partners in the education of their children;
``(ii) to afford such parents the opportunity to
participate in the development and overall conduct of the
program at the local level;
``(iii) to offer (directly or through referral to local
entities, such as entities carrying out Even Start programs
under subpart 3 of part B of title I of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6381 et seq.),
public and school libraries, and entities carrying out family
support programs) to such parents--

``(I) family literacy services; and
``(II) parenting skills training;

``(iv) to offer to parents of participating children,
substance abuse counseling (either directly or through
referral to local entities), including information on the
effect of drug exposure on infants and fetal alcohol
syndrome;
``(v) at the option of such applicant, to offer (directly
or through referral to local entities) to such parents--

``(I) training in basic child development (including
cognitive development);
``(II) assistance in developing literacy and communication
skills;
``(III) opportunities to share experiences with other
parents (including parent mentor relationships);
``(IV) regular in-home visitation;

``(V) mental and behavioral health services; or
``(VI) any other activity designed to help such parents
become full partners in the education of their children;

``(vi) 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 subparagraph (H) in
which such parents may choose to become involved (taking into
consideration their specific family needs, work schedules,
and other responsibilities); and
``(vii) to extend outreach to fathers, in appropriate
cases, in order to strengthen the role of fathers in
families, in the education of their young children, and in
the Head Start program, by working directly with fathers and
father figures through activities such as--

``(I) in appropriate cases, including fathers in home
visits and providing opportunities for direct father-child
interactions; and
``(II) targeting increased male participation in the
conduct of the program;

``(I) the ability of such applicant to carry out the plans
described in paragraphs (2), (4), and (5);
``(J) the plan of such applicant to meet the needs of
limited English proficient children and their families,
including procedures to identify such children, plans to
provide trained personnel, and plans to provide services to
assist the children in making progress toward the acquisition
of the English language, while making meaningful progress in
attaining the knowledge, skills, abilities, and development
described in section 641A(a)(1)(B);
``(K) the plan of such applicant to meet the diverse
cultural needs of the population served;
``(L) the plan of such applicant to meet the needs of
children with disabilities;
``(M) the plan of such applicant who chooses to assist
younger siblings of children who will participate in the Head
Start program, to obtain health services from other sources;
``(N) the plan of such applicant to collaborate with other
entities carrying out early childhood education and child
care programs in the community;
``(O) the plan of such applicant to meet the needs of
homeless children, including transportation needs, and
children in foster care;
``(P) the plan of such applicant to maintain a qualified
staff, including a teaching staff qualified to implement
research-based educational curricula aligned with challenging
State-developed academic content standards, the Head Start
Child Outcomes Framework developed by the Secretary, and the
State early learning standards in States in which such
standards are developed;
``(Q) the plan of such applicant to enter into memoranda of
understanding with local educational agencies, child care
providers, and other entities within the service area; and
``(R) other factors related to the requirements of this
subchapter.''.
(d) Selection of Applicants.--Section 641(g) of the Head
Start Act (43 U.S.C. 9836(g)) is amended to read as follows:
``(g) Issuance of Rules.--Not later than 180 days after the
enactment of the School Readiness Act of 2005, the Secretary
shall issue rules to carry out this section.''.

SEC. 8. QUALITY STANDARDS; MONITORING OF HEAD START AGENCIES
AND PROGRAMS.

(a) Quality Standards.--Section 641A(a) of the Head Start
Act (42 U.S.C. 9836a(a)) is amended--

[[Page H8292]]

(1) by amending paragraph (1)(B)--
(A) in clause (i)--
(i) by inserting ``based on sound scientific evidence''
after ``standards''; and
(ii) by inserting ``and sustained academic gains'' after
``readiness''; and
(B) by amending clause (ii) to read as follows:
``(ii) additional scientifically-based education standards
to ensure that the children participating in the program, at
a minimum develop and demonstrate--
``(I) language knowledge and skills, including oral
language and listening comprehension;
``(II) prereading knowledge and skills that prepare
children for early literacy in schools, including
phonological awareness, print awareness and print skills, and
alphabetic knowledge;
``(III) premathematics knowledge and skills, including
aspects of classification, seriation, number, spatial
relations, and time;
``(IV) cognitive abilities related to academic achievement
and child development;
``(V) social and emotional development related to early
learning, school success, and sustained academic gains; and
``(VI) in the case of limited-English proficient children,
progress toward acquisition of the English language while
making meaningful progress in attaining the knowledge,
skills, abilities, and development described in subclauses
(I) through (IV);'';
(2) in paragraph (2)--
(A) by amending subparagraph (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 research based 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 physical
development, including outdoor activity that supports
children's motor development and overall health and
nutrition;
``(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) scientifically based research to ensure that
children participating in Head Start programs make a
successful transition to schools that the children will be
attending; and
``(viii) the unique challenges faced by individual
programs, including those that are seasonal or short term,
and those that serve rural populations; and''; and
(B) in subparagraph (C)(ii) by striking ``the date'' and
all that follows through ``Act of 1998'', and inserting
``October 27, 1998''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(4) Evaluations and corrective actions for delegate
agencies.--
``(A) Procedures.--The Head Start agency shall establish
procedures relating to its delegate agencies, including--
``(i) procedures for evaluating delegate agencies;
``(ii) procedures for defunding delegate agencies; and
``(iii) procedures for appealing a defunding decision
relating to a delegate agency.
``(B) Evaluations.--Each Head Start agency--
``(i) shall evaluate its delegate agencies using the
procedures established pursuant to this section, including
subparagraph (A); and
``(ii) shall inform the delegate agencies of the
deficiencies identified through the evaluation that shall be
corrected.
``(C) Remedies to ensure corrective actions.--If the Head
Start agency identifies a deficiency for a delegate agency
through the evaluation, the Head Start agency may--
``(i) initiate procedures to terminate the designation of
the agency unless the agency corrects the deficiency;
``(ii) conduct monthly monitoring visits to such delegate
agency until all deficiencies are corrected or the Head Start
agency decides to defund such delegate agency; and
``(iii) release funds to such delegate agency only as
reimbursements until all deficiencies are corrected or the
Head Start agency decides to defund such delegate agency.
``(D) Rule of construction.--Nothing in this paragraph
shall be construed to impact or obviate the responsibilities
of the Secretary with respect to Head Start agencies or
delegate agencies receiving funding under this subchapter.''.
(b) Results-Based Performance Measures.--Section 641A(b) of
the Head Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9836a(b)) is amended--
(1) by amending paragraph (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 subparagraphs (A) and (B) of
subsection (a)(1).'';
(2) by amending paragraph (3) to read as follows:
``(3) Use of measures.--
``(A) The Secretary shall use the performance measures
pursuant to this subsection to identify--
``(i) strengths and weaknesses in the operation of Head
Start programs nationally, regionally, and locally; and
``(ii) program areas that may require additional training
and technical assistance resources.
``(B) The Secretary shall provide a detailed justification
to the Congress regarding the planned uses of the data
collected by the National Reporting System developed by the
Secretary and shall demonstrate its scientific validity and
reliability for such purposes, including its scientific
validity and reliability with children with limited English
proficiency for such purposes;
``(C) The Secretary shall not use the National Reporting
System assessment results either as the primary method for
assessing program effectiveness or as the primary method for
making grantee funding determinations.
``(D) The Secretary shall develop a process to ensure that
the National Reporting System shall not be used to exclude
children from Head Start programs.''; and
(3) by amending paragraph (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.''.
(c) Monitoring of Local Agencies and Programs.--Section
641A(c) of the Head Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9836a(c)) is
amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)--
(A) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A) by inserting
``develop and utilize a risk-based assessment system to''
after ``shall'';
(B) by amending subparagraph (C) to read as follows:
``(C) Followup reviews, including unannounced reviews as
appropriate, of programs with 1 or more findings of
deficiencies not later than 6 months after the date of such
finding.''; and
(C) by amending subparagraph (D) to read as follows:
``(D) Unannounced site inspections of Head Start centers
and other reviews, as appropriate.'';
(2) by amending paragraph (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, may be done
without prior notice of the visit to the local agency or
program;
``(B) are conducted by review teams composed of individuals
who are knowledgeable about the program areas they are
reviewing 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, including
strengths and areas for improvement, 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);
``(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); and
``(I) are conducted in a manner that evaluates program
performance, quality, and overall operations with consistency
and objectivity, and based on a transparent and reliable
system of review.''.
(d) Corrective Action; Termination.--Section 641A(d) of the
Head Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9836a(d)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1) by amending the matter preceding
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

[[Page H8293]]

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--'';
(2) by amending paragraph (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 that 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.''; and
(3) in paragraph (3) by inserting ``and programs'' after
``agencies'';
(4) by amending subsection (e) 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 children receiving assistance under this
subchapter in an 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.'';
and
(5) by adding at the end the following:
``(f) Reduction of Grants and Redistribution of Funds in
Cases of Under-Enrollment.--
``(1) Definitions.--In this subsection:
``(A) Actual enrollment.--The term `actual enrollment'
means, with respect to the program of a Head Start agency,
the actual number of children enrolled in such program and
reported by the agency (as required in paragraph (2)) in a
given month.
``(B) Base grant.--The term `base grant' means, with
respect to a Head Start agency for a fiscal year, that
portion of the grant derived--
``(i) from amounts reserved for use in accordance with
section 640(a)(2)(A), for a Head Start agency administering
an Indian Head Start program or migrant and seasonal Head
Start program;
``(ii) from amounts reserved for payments under section
640(a)(2)(B); or
``(iii) from amounts available under section 640(a)(2)(D)
or allotted among States under section 640(a)(4).
``(C) Funded enrollment.--The term `funded enrollment'
means, with respect to the program of a Head Start agency in
a fiscal year, the number of children that the agency is
funded to serve through a grant for the program during such
fiscal year, as indicated in the grant agreement.
``(2) Enrollment reporting requirement for current fiscal
year.--Each entity carrying out a Head Start program shall
report on a monthly basis to the Secretary and the relevant
Head Start agency--
``(A) the actual enrollment in such program; and
``(B) if such actual enrollment is less than the funded
enrollment, any apparent reason for such enrollment
shortfall.
``(3) Secretarial review and plan.--The Secretary shall--
``(A) on a semiannual basis, determine which Head Start
agencies are operating with an actual enrollment that is less
than the funded enrollment based on not less than the average
of 4 consecutive months of data;
``(B) for each such Head Start agency operating a program
with an actual enrollment that is less than 95 percent of its
funded enrollment, as determined under subparagraph (A),
develop, in collaboration with such agency, a plan and
timetable for reducing or eliminating under-enrollment taking
into consideration--
``(i) the quality and extent of the outreach, recruitment,
and community needs assessment conducted by such agency;
``(ii) changing demographics, mobility of populations, and
the identification of new underserved low-income populations;
``(iii) facilities-related issues that may impact
enrollment;
``(iv) the ability to provide full-day programs, where
needed, through Head Start funds or through collaboration
with entities carrying out other preschool or child care
programs, or programs with other funding sources (where
available);
``(v) the availability and use by families of other
preschool and child care options (including parental care) in
the local catchment area; and
``(vi) agency management procedures that may impact
enrollment; and
``(C) provide timely and ongoing technical assistance to
each agency described in subparagraph (B) for the purpose of
implementing the plan described in such subparagraph.
``(4) Implementation.--Upon receipt of the technical
assistance described in paragraph (3)(C), a Head Start agency
shall immediately implement the plan described in paragraph
(3)(B).
``(5) Secretarial action for conversion to serve younger
children.--If, after implementing the plan described in
paragraph (3)(B), the grantee continues to operate a program
at less than full enrollment, the grantee may, upon approval
by the Secretary, be permitted to use a portion of the base
grant equal to the percentage difference between funded
enrollment and actual enrollment for the most then recent
year, to serve persons described in section 645A(c) if such
agency currently operates a grant described in section 645A
and submits an application containing--
``(A) evidence of community need for such services;
``(B) a description of how the needs of pregnant women,
infants, and toddlers will be addressed in accordance with
section 645A(b) and with regulations prescribed by the
Secretary pursuant to section 641A in areas including--
``(i) the approach to childhood development and health
services; and
``(ii) the approach to family and community partnerships;
and approach to program design and management;
``(C) assurances that the agency will participate in
technical assistance activities for newly funded and existing
grantees under section 654A; and
``(D) evidence that the agency meets the eligibility
criteria as grantees under section 645A.
Any grantee permitted to serve children under this paragraph
shall be subject to the rules, regulations, and conditions
under section 645A.
``(6) Secretarial action for continued under-enrollment.--
If, 1 year after the date of implementation of the plan
described in paragraph (3)(B), the Head Start agency
continues to operate a program at less than full enrollment,
the Secretary shall, where determined appropriate, continue
to provide technical assistance to such agency.
``(7) Secretarial review and adjustment for chronic under-
enrollment.--
``(A) In general.--If, after receiving technical assistance
and developing and implementing a plan to the extent
described in paragraphs (3), (4), and (5) for 6 months, a
Head Start agency is still operating a program with an actual
enrollment that is less than 95 percent of its funded
enrollment, the Secretary may--
``(i) designate such agency as chronically under-enrolled;
and
``(ii) recapture, withhold, or reduce the base grant for
the program by, a percentage equal to the percentage
difference between funded enrollment and actual enrollment
for the program for the most recent year in which the agency
is determined to be under-enrolled under paragraph (2)(B).
``(B) Waiver or limitation of reductions.--If the
Secretary, after the implementation of the plan described in
paragraph (3)(B), finds that--
``(i) the shortfall can reasonably be expected to be
temporary; or
``(ii) the number of slots allotted to the agency is small
enough that under-enrollment does not constitute a
significant shortfall,

the Secretary may, as appropriate, waive or reduce the
percentage recapturing, withholding, or reduction otherwise
required by subparagraph (A).
``(C) Procedural requirements; effective date.--The actions
taken by the Secretary under this paragraph with respect to a
Head Start agency shall take effect 1 day after the date on
which--
``(i) the time allowed for appeal under section 646(a)
expires without an appeal by the agency; or
``(ii) the action is upheld in an administrative hearing
under section 646.
``(8) Redistribution of funds.--
``(A) In general.--Funds held by the Secretary as a result
of recapturing, withholding, or reducing a base grant in
accordance with paragraph (6) in a fiscal year shall be
redistributed in such fiscal year as follows:
``(i) If such funds are attributable to the portion of a
base grant derived from amounts specified in paragraph
(1)(B)(i) payable, but for the operation of this paragraph,
to carry out an Indian Head Start program, then such funds
shall be redistributed to increase enrollment in such fiscal
year in 1 or more Indian Head Start programs.
``(ii) If such funds are attributable to the portion of a
base grant derived from amounts specified in paragraph
(1)(B)(i) payable, but for the operation of this paragraph,
to carry out a migrant and seasonal Head Start program, then
such funds shall be redistributed to increase enrollment in
such fiscal year in 1 or more migrant and seasonal Head Start
programs.
``(iii) If such funds are attributable to the portion of a
base grant derived from amounts specified in clause (ii) or
(iii) of paragraph (1)(B) payable, but for the operation of
this paragraph, to carry out a Head Start program (excluding
Indian Head Start programs, and migrant and seasonal Head
Start programs) in a

[[Page H8294]]

State, then such funds shall be redistributed to increase
enrollment in such fiscal year in 1 or more--

``(I) other Head Start programs (excluding Indian Head
Start programs and migrant and seasonal Head Start programs)
that are carried out in such State; or
``(II) if the Secretary determines that children eligible
under section 641 are being adequately served within such
State, 1 or more Early Head Start programs (excluding Indian
Head Start programs and migrant and seasonal Head Start
programs) or 1 or more Head Start programs for the purpose of
becoming a grantee pursuant to section 645A.

``(B) Adjustment to funded enrollment.--The Secretary shall
adjust as necessary the requirements relating to funded
enrollment indicated in the grant agreement of a Head Start
agency receiving funds redistributed under this paragraph.''.

SEC. 9. POWERS AND FUNCTIONS OF HEAD START AGENCIES.

(a) Qualifications for Designation.--Section 642(b) of the
Head Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9837(b)) is amended to read as
follows:
``(b) In order to be so designated, a Head Start agency
shall do all of the following:--
``(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) Establish an independent board of directors selected
from among eligible individuals who shall serve on the board
(or may designate an existing entity whose members are
eligible individuals, that shall be such board) for a period
not to exceed 5 years, except that board members who oversee
a public entity and who are selected by election (or members
of a board of a local educational agency or a local council,
appointed by an elected official or an official of a general
purpose local government), may serve for such period as may
be determined by the electing or appointing authority, as the
case may be. An individual who has a conflict of interest is
ineligible to serve as a member of the board. Members of the
board of all nonpublic entities shall include representatives
of the local community (including at least 1 member with
significant financial management or accounting experience and
the chair of the council described in section
642(b)(4)(B)(ii)). Additional members shall be selected for
their expertise in education, business administration,
community affairs, government, legal affairs, and such other
areas of expertise as may contribute to effective governance
of the Head Start agency. All members of the board shall
receive training in the management responsibilities and
obligations, ethics, and financial literacy and management,
and shall adopt practices that assure active, independent and
informed governance of the Head Start agency, including
independent oversight of the financial and management
practices of such agency. The board shall provide direction
to the executive director of the Head Start agency and shall
operate as an entity independent of staff employed by the
Head start agency, entity, or applicant and have the
following duties and responsibilities:
``(A) To provide independent oversight to ensure that the
Head Start agency under the direction of the executive
director is delivering high quality services to children and
families in compliance with all applicable standards in
effect under this subchapter and with the applicable
performance measures established by the Secretary under
section 644.
``(B) To establish 2 or more standing committees to
facilitate governance of the Head Start agency which shall
include both of the following:
``(i) An audit and finance committee whose primary
responsibility shall be--

``(I) to approve annually the operating budget of the Head
Start agency;
``(II) to review and recommend to the board the selection
of independent auditors who shall report all critical
accounting policies and practices to the finance and audit
committee;
``(III) to review and recommend to the board the
termination or extension of the existing audit firm at least
once every 5 years;
``(IV) to review and advise the board of the audit
management letter provided pursuant to the chapter 75 of
title 31 of the United States Code, and of any audit
findings; and
``(V) to monitor agency actions to correct any such audit
findings or other actions necessary to comply with applicable
laws (including regulations) governing financial statements
and accounting practices.

``(ii) A policy council, a majority of whose
representatives shall be parents of children participating in
a Head Start program or in an Early Head Start program, or of
children who participated in a Head Start program or in an
Early Head Start program in the then most recent 5-year
period preceding the selection of the particular
representative involved, and whose primary responsibility
shall be to serve as a link between parents and the board of
directors and to make and submit recommendations on the
following activities to the Board:

``(I) The strategic direction of the program, including
long and short-term planning goals and objectives.
``(II) Program operation policies, including standards of
conduct for program staff and volunteers.
``(III) Activities to support the active involvement of
parents in supporting program operations.
``(IV) Classroom activities and staffing.
``(V) Program responsiveness to community and parent needs.
``(VI) Other areas the committee identifies as necessary to
improve program operations.

``(C) To approve the selection and dismissal of the Head
Start director, and to review annually the human resources
available to ensure the effective operation of the Head Start
agency.
``(D) To consult, on a regular basis, with the policy
committee and to take actions on recommendations submitted by
such committee.
``(E) To review and approve the major operational policies
of the Head Start agency, including policies addressing
accounting, financial management, procurement, record
confidentiality, and personnel (including specific standards
governing salaries, salary adjustments, travel and per diem
allowances, and other employee benefits).
``(F) To ensure that the Head Start agency is operated in
compliance with applicable Federal, State, and local laws
(including regulations), and to monitor agency implementation
of any corrective action necessary to comply with applicable
laws (including regulations);
``(G) To oversee the program planning of the Head Start
agency, including adoption of the Head Start agency
philosophy and mission statement, adoption of policies for
determining community needs, setting long- and short-range
goals and objectives, establishment of criteria for selecting
families in Head Start programs or Early Head Start programs,
and to oversee and approve the agency's applications to
receive funds made available under this subchapter; and
``(H) To establish, to adopt, and to periodically update
written standards of conduct that establish standards and
formal procedures for disclosing, addressing, and resolving--
``(i) any conflict of interest, and any appearance of a
conflict of interest, by board members, officers, employees,
consultants, and agents who provide services or furnish goods
to the Head Start agency; and
``(ii) complaints, including investigations, when
appropriate.
``(5) To seek the involvement of parents, area residents,
and local business in the design and implementation of the
program.
``(6) To 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.
``(7) To establish effective procedures to facilitate 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 and
overall conduct of the program at the local level, including
a process through which parents of children currently
participating in a Head Start program or an Early Head Start
program select the parent representatives to serve on the
council under section 642(b)(4)(B)(ii).
``(8) To conduct outreach to schools in which children
participating in Head Start programs 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.
``(9) To offer (directly or through referral to local
entities, such as entities carrying out Even Start programs
under subpart 3 of part B 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.
``(10) 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.
``(11) At the option of such agency, to offer (directly or
through referral to local entities), to such parents--
``(A) training in basic child development (including
cognitive development);
``(B) assistance in developing literacy and communication
skills;
``(C) opportunities to share experiences with other parents
(including parent-mentor relationships);
``(D) mental and behavioral health services;
``(E) regular in-home visitation; or
``(F) any other activity designed to help such parents
become full partners in the education of their children.
``(12) 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 paragraphs (5) through
(8) in which such parents may choose to be involved (taking
into consideration their specific family needs, work
schedules, and other responsibilities).
``(13) To consider providing services to assist younger
siblings of children participating in its Head Start program
to obtain health services from other sources.
``(14) To perform community outreach to encourage
individuals previously unaffiliated with Head Start programs
to participate in its Head Start program as volunteers.
``(15)(A) To 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.
``(16) provide parents of limited English proficient
children outreach and services under this subchapter, in an
understandable and uniform format and, to the extent
practicable, in a language that such parents can
understand.''.

[[Page H8295]]

(b) Coordination and Collaboration.--Section 642(c) of the
Head Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9837(c)) is amended 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 B of title VII of
the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11431-
11435), Even Start programs under subpart 3 of part B 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.''.
(c) Other Coordination.--Section 642(d) of the Head Start
Act (42 U.S.C. 9837(d)) is amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraphs (2) through (4) as
paragraph (5) through (7), respectively;
(2) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following:
``(2) Coordination.--
``(A) Local educational agency.--In communities where both
public prekindergarten programs and Head Start programs
operate, a Head Start agency shall collaborate and coordinate
activities with the local educational agency or other public
agency responsible for the operation of the prekindergarten
program and providers of prekindergarten, including outreach
activities to identify eligible children.
``(B) Elementary schools.--Head Start staff shall, with the
permission of the parents of children enrolled in Head Start
programs, regularly communicate with the elementary schools
such children will be attending--
``(i) to share information about such children;
``(ii) to receive advice and support from the teachers in
such elementary schools participating in Early Reading First
programs funded under subpart 1 of part B of title I of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 regarding
scientifically based teaching strategies and options; and
``(iii) to ensure a smooth transition to elementary school
for such children.
``(C) Other early education and child development
programs.--The head of each Head Start agency shall
coordinate activities 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 entities carrying out
early childhood education and development programs, programs
under subtitle B of title VII of the McKinney-Vento Homeless
Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11431-11435), Even Start programs
under subpart 3 of part B of title I of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6381 et seq.), and
programs under section 619 and part C of the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C 1419, 1431 et seq.),
serving the children and families served by the Head Start
agency.
``(D) Other programs.--Each Head Start agency shall
collaborate, as appropriate, with providers of social and
community services available to children and families
participating in Head Start programs, and may support such
partnerships with financial agreements, when applicable, for
the provision of such services.
``(3) Collaboration.--A Head Start agency shall take steps
to coordinate activities with the local educational agency
serving the community involved and with schools in which
children participating in a Head Start program operated by
such agency will enroll following such program, including--
``(A) collaborating on the shared use of transportation and
facilities;
``(B) collaborating to enhance the efficiency of services
while increasing the program participation of underserved
populations of eligible children; and
``(C) exchanging information on the provision of
noneducational services to such children.
``(4) Parental involvement.--In order to promote the
continued involvement of the parents (including grandparents
and kinship caregivers, as appropriate) of children that
participate in Head Start programs in the education of their
children upon transition to school, the Head Start agency
shall work with the local educational agency--
``(A) to provide training to the parents--
``(i) to inform the parents about their rights and
responsibilities concerning the education of their children;
and
``(ii) to enable the parents--

``(I) to understand and work with schools in order to
communicate with teachers and other school personnel;
``(II) to support the schoolwork of their children; and
``(III) to participate as appropriate in decisions relating
to the education of their children; and

``(B) to take other actions, as appropriate and feasible,
to support the active involvement of the parents with
schools, school personnel, and school-related
organizations.'';
(3) in paragraph (5), as so redesignated--
(A) by striking ``A'' and inserting ``Each'';
(B) by striking ``may'' and inserting ``shall'';
(C) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (A);
(D) by redesignating subparagraph (B) as subparagraph (C);
and
(E) by inserting after subparagraph (A) the following:
``(B) collaborating to increase the program participation
of underserved populations of eligible children; and''; and
(4) by adding at the end the following:
``(8) Head Start agencies shall implement a research-based
early childhood curricula that promotes young children's
school readiness in the areas of language and cognitive
development, early reading and premathematics skills, socio-
emotional skills, physical development, and approaches to
learning. Such curricula shall be--
``(A) based on scientifically based research and have
standardized training procedures and published curriculum
materials to support implementation; and
``(B) comprehensive, outcomes based, and linked to ongoing
assessment with instructional goals and measurable
objectives.
``(9) Head Start agencies shall use ongoing, research-based
assessment methods that are developmentally appropriate,
culturally and linguistically responsive, and tied to
children's daily activities in order to support the
educational instruction of children in the program, including
language skills, prereading knowledge and premathematics
knowledge. Assessment instruments shall be those designed and
validated for making decisions about teaching and learning
and aligned with the program's curricula and Section
641A(a)(1).
``(10) For the purpose of meeting the performance
standards, Head Start agencies shall use high-quality
research-based developmental screening tools that have been
demonstrated to be standardized, reliable, valid, and
accurate for children from a range of racial, ethnic,
linguistic, and cultural backgrounds.''.
(d) Assessment.--Section 642 of the Head Start Act (42
U.S.C. 9837) is amended by striking subsection (e) and
inserting the following:
``(e) Assessment.--Each Head Start agency shall adopt, in
consultation with experts in child development and with
classroom teachers, an assessment to be used when hiring or
evaluating any classroom teacher in a center-based Head Start
program. Such assessment shall measure whether such teacher
has mastered the functions described in section 648A(a)(1)
and attained a level of literacy appropriate to implement
Head Start curricula.
``(f) Funded Enrollment; Waiting List.--Each Head Start
agency shall enroll 100 percent of its funded enrollment and
maintain an active waiting list at all times with ongoing
outreach to the community and activities to identify
underserved populations.''.

SEC. 10. LOCAL AND STATE INTEGRATION OF EARLY CHILDHOOD
EDUCATION.

The Head Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9831 et. seq.) is amended by
inserting after section 642A the following:

``SEC. 642B. LOCAL AND STATE INTEGRATION OF EARLY CHILDHOOD
EDUCATION.

``(a) Local Integration.--In general, Head Start agencies
shall enter into ongoing partnerships with local educational
agencies, State-funded preschool and other early childhood
programs. Head Start agencies shall operate in a manner
consistent with the goal of creating and expanding an
efficient and effective system of early childhood and school
readiness services in each State and community, while
maintaining compliance with Standards under section 641A(a).
``(1) Memoranda of understanding.--Each Head Start agency
shall enter into a memorandum of understanding with any local
educational agencies or local councils, responsible for
managing publicly funded prekindergarten programs in the
service area of the Head Start agency (or if such agencies
and such councils are not applicable in the service area,
with the largest provider of publicly funded prekindergarten
in the service area), that shall include plans to coordinate
the following activities:
``(A) Educational activities, curricula, and instruction
aligned to challenging State developed educational
activities, curricula, and instruction aligned to challenging
State developed academic content standards.
``(B) Public information dissemination and access to
programs for families contacting any of the early childhood
programs.
``(C) Selection priorities for eligible children to be
served by programs.
``(D) Service delivery areas.
``(E) Staff training, including opportunities for joint
staff training on topics such as academic content standards
and instructional methods.
``(F) Program technical assistance.
``(G) Provision of additional services to meet the child
care needs of working parents.
``(H) Planning and parent education for smooth transitions
to kindergarten as required in section 642A(3) and 642A(6).
``(I) Provision and use of facilities, transportation, and
other program elements.
``(J) Other elements mutually agreed to by the parties to
such memorandum.
``(2) Timing of memoranda.--Each Head Start agency shall
enter into a memorandum of understanding under paragraph (1)
not later than 1 year after the effective date of this
section.
``(3) Secretarial review.--Each memorandum of understanding
entered into under paragraph (1) shall be submitted to the
Secretary not later than 30 days after entering into such
memorandum.
``(A) If a Head Start agency is unable to comply with the
requirement in (1) the Head Start agency shall notify the
Secretary and the chief executive officer of the State not
later than 30 days after determining that they are unable to
enter into such memorandum. The Secretary, in cooperation
with the State Early Learning Council and the State Director
of Head Start Collaboration, shall evaluate the causes of
failure to enter into a memorandum of understanding under
paragraph (1). With the assistance of the State Early
Learning Council and the State Director of Head Start
Collaboration, all parties shall again attempt to enter into
a

[[Page H8296]]

memorandum of understanding under paragraph (1). Then if no
such memorandum of understanding is entered into, the
Secretary shall make 1 of the following determinations:
``(i) The local educational agency, local council, or other
appropriate entity is unable or unwilling to enter into such
a memorandum despite reasonable efforts on the part of the
Head Start agency.
``(ii) The Head Start agency has not engaged in reasonable
efforts to successfully negotiate and enter into a memorandum
of understanding pursuant to paragraph (1).
``(iii) There is an absence of publicly funded
prekindergarten in the service area of the Head Start agency.
``(B) If the Secretary determines the Head Start agency is
not making reasonable efforts to enter into a memorandum of
understanding pursuant to paragraph (1), the Head Start
agency shall be found deficient and shall be considered by
the Secretary in the same manner as other deficiency
findings.
``(C) If the Secretary concludes that the local educational
agency, local council, or other appropriate entity is not
making reasonable efforts to reach such a memorandum of
understanding, the Head Start agency shall not be found out
of compliance with paragraph (1).
``(4) Revision of memoranda.--Each memorandum of
understanding shall be revised and renewed annually by the
parties to such memorandum, in alignment with the beginning
of the school year.
``(5) Absence of prekindergarten.--In the absence of
publicly funded prekindergarten in the service area of a Head
Start agency, the Head Start agency shall submit notice to
the Secretary and the chief executive officer of the State,
and shall work with the State Early Learning Council and the
State Director of Head Start Collaboration to improve
coordination in their service area.
``(b) Statewide Integration.--From the amounts reserved
under section 640(a)(2)(C)(ii), the Secretary shall award an
early learning collaboration grant to each State for the
purposes of supporting a State Early Learning Council
responsible for advancing the development of a coordinated
early childhood services delivery system in the State. A
State that receives a grant under this subparagraph shall--
``(1) establish a State Early Learning Council, which shall
include the State Director of Head Start Collaboration,
representatives from the State preschool programs,
representatives of local educational agencies, the State
official who oversees child care programs, the State official
who oversees section 619 and part C of the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1419, 1431 et seq.),
the State official who oversees the State educational agency,
and representatives from Head Start agencies located in the
State, including migrant and seasonal Head Start programs and
Indian Head Start programs. The chief executive officer of
the State may designate an existing entity to serve as the
Early Learning Council if such entity includes
representatives described in this paragraph;
``(2) ensure that allotted funds distributed to a State for
a fiscal year to carry out this subsection may be used by the
State to pay not more than 30 percent of the cost of carrying
out this subsection;
``(3) direct the Early Learning Council--
``(A) to increase coordination and collaboration among
State preschool, Head Start programs, child care programs,
early childhood special education, and other early childhood
programs, including in the areas of outcomes and standards,
technical assistance, coordination of services, cross-sector
professional development and training, community outreach,
communication, and better serving the needs of working
families through provision of full-day and full-year early
education services;
``(B) to work with State agencies responsible for
education, child care, and early intervention to provide
leadership and assistance to local Head Start programs,
school districts, and State and locally funded preschool and
child care programs to increase integration among early
childhood programs through adoption of local memoranda of
understanding described in subparagraph (A) and other means;
``(C) to work with State agencies responsible for
education, child care, and early intervention to provide
leadership and assistance to develop a coherent sequence of
standards for children age 3 through the early elementary
grades to effect a smooth transition to and success in the
early elementary grades;
``(D) to conduct periodic statewide needs assessments
concerning early care and education programs for children
from birth to school entry;
``(E) to work to identify and address barriers to and
opportunities for integration between entities carrying out
Federal and State child development, child care, and early
childhood education programs;
``(F) to develop recommendations regarding means of
establishing a unified data collection system for early care
and education programs operating throughout the State;
``(G) to address coordination of early learning programs
with health care (including mental and behavioral health
care), welfare, family literacy and services for homeless
children;
``(H) to support a State system of early childhood
education, and training and technical assistance that
improves the quality of early learning programs and the
capacity of such programs to deliver services pursuant to
section 648(b); and
``(I) to develop a plan for increasing the participation of
children underrepresented in State early childhood education
and child care programs, including Head Start, State
preschool programs, and programs carried out under the Child
Care and Development Block Grant Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 9858
et seq.).
``(4) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to
provide the Early Learning Council with authority to alter
the provisions of this Act.
``(5) Funds made available under this section shall be used
to supplement, and not supplant, other Federal, State, and
local funds that would otherwise be expended to carry out the
purposes of this section.''.

SEC. 11. HEAD START ALIGNMENT WITH K-12 EDUCATION.

Section 642A of the Head Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9837a) is
amended--
(1) by amending the heading to read as follows:

``SEC. 642A. HEAD START ALIGNMENT WITH K-12 EDUCATION.'';

(2) in paragraph (2)--
(A) by inserting ``ongoing'' after ``establishing''; and
(B) by inserting ``McKinney-Vento liaisons as established
under section 722 (g)(1)(J)(ii) of the McKinney-Vento
Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11432(g)(1)(J)(ii)),''
after ``social workers,'';
(3) by redesignating paragraphs (3) through (7) as
paragraphs (5) through (9), respectively; and
(4) by inserting the following after paragraph (2):
``(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) organizing and participating in joint training,
including transition-related training for school staff and
Head Start staff;'';
(5) by amending paragraph (7), as so redesignated, to read
as follows:
``(7) 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 B of title VII of the
McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11431-
11435);'';
(6) in paragraph (8), as so redesignated--
(A) by inserting ``and continuity in parental involvement
activities'' after ``developmental continuity''; and
(B) by striking ``and'' at the end;
(7) by amending paragraph (9), as so redesignated, to read
as follows:
``(9) linking the services provided in such Head Start
program with the education services, including services
relating to language, literacy, and numeracy, provided by
such local educational agency;''; and
(8) by adding at the end the following:
``(10) helping parents (including grandparents and kinship
caregivers, as appropriate) 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;
``(11) developing and implementing a system to increase
program participation of underserved populations of eligible
children; and
``(12) coordinating activities and collaborating to ensure
that curricula used in the Head Start program is aligned
with--
``(A) State early learning standards with regard to
cognitive, social, emotional, and physical competencies that
children entering kindergarten are expected to demonstrate;
and
``(B) the Head Start Child Outcomes Framework developed by
the Secretary.''.

SEC. 12. ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS AND STANDARDS.

Section 644 of the Head Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9839(f)(2)) is
amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) by inserting ``(1) Standards.--'' after ``(a)''; and
(B) by inserting after the 3d sentence the following:
``(2) Annual report.--Each Head Start agency shall make
available to the public a report published at least once in
each fiscal year that discloses the following information
from the then most recently concluded fiscal year, except
that reporting such information shall not reveal personally
identifiable information about an individual child:
``(A) The total amount of public and private funds received
and the amount from each source.
``(B) An explanation of budgetary expenditures and proposed
budget for the following fiscal year.
``(C) The total number of children and families served and
percent of average monthly enrollment, including the percent
of eligible children served.
``(D) The results of the most recent review by the
Secretary and the financial audit.
``(E) The percentage of enrolled children that received
medical and dental exams.
``(F) Information about parent involvement activities.
``(G) The agency's efforts to prepare children for
kindergarten.
``(H) Any other information that describes the activities
of the agency.
``(3) Procedural conduct.--''; and
(2) in subsection (f)(2)
(A) by redesignating subparagraphs (A) through (E) as
subparagraphs (B) through (F), respectively; and
(B) by inserting before subparagraph (B), as so
redesignated, the following:
``(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 subchapter, 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;''.

[[Page H8297]]

SEC. 13. ELIGIBILITY.

Section 645(a) of the Head Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9840) is
amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)--
(A) in subparagraph (B)(i)--
(i) by striking ``to a reasonable extent'' and inserting
``not to exceed 10 percent of the total enrollment'';
(ii) by striking ``benefit from such programs'' and
inserting ``benefit from such programs, including children
referred by child welfare services,''; and
(iii) by inserting ``(a homeless child shall be deemed to
meet the low-income criteria)'' before the semicolon; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(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. 14. EARLY HEAD START PROGRAMS.

(a) In General.--Section 645A(b) of the Head Start Act (42
U.S.C. 9840a(b)) is amended--
(1) by amending paragraphs (4) and (5) 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 and programs for homeless infants
and toddlers) to ensure a comprehensive array of services
(such as health and mental health services, and family
support services);'';
(2) by amending paragraph (8) 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 section 106 of the Child Abuse
Prevention and Treatment Act (42 U.S.C. 5106a);'';
(3) by redesignating paragraph (9) as paragraph (11); and
(4) by inserting after paragraph (8) the following:
``(9) develop and implement a systematic procedure for
transitioning children and parents from an Early Head Start
program into a Head Start program or another local early
childhood education program;
``(10) establish channels of communication between staff of
Early Head Start programs and staff of Head Start programs or
other local early childhood education programs, to facilitate
the coordination of programs; and''.
(b) Migrant and Seasonal Programs; Community- and Faith-
Based Organizations.--Section 645A(d) of the Head Start Act
(42 U.S.C. 9840a(d)) is amended--
(1) by amending paragraph (1) to read as follows:
``(1) entities operating Head Start programs under this
subpart, including migrant and seasonal Head Start programs;
and''; and
(2) in paragraph (2) by inserting ``, including community-
and faith-based organizations'' after ``entities'' the 2d
place it appears.
(c) Training and Technical Assistance Account.--Section
645A(g)(2)(B) of the Head Start Act (42 U.S.C.
9640a(g)(2)(B)) is amended--
(1) in clause (iii) by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) in clause (iv) by striking the period at the end and
inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(v) providing professional development designed to
increase program participation for underserved populations of
eligible children.''.
(d) Center-Based Staff.--Section 645A of the Head Start Act
(42 U.S.C. 9840a) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(h) Center-Based Staff.--The Secretary shall ensure that,
not later than September 30, 2008, all teachers providing
direct services to children and families participating in
Early Head Start programs located in Early Head Start centers
have a minimum of a child development associate credential or
an associate degree, and have been trained (or have
equivalent course work) in early childhood development.''.

SEC. 15. PARENTAL CONSENT REQUIREMENT FOR NONEMERGENCY
INTRUSIVE PHYSICAL EXAMINATIONS.

The Head Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9831 et seq.) is amended by
inserting after section 645A the following:

``SEC. 645B. PARENTAL CONSENT REQUIREMENT FOR NONEMERGENCY
INTRUSIVE PHYSICAL EXAMINATIONS.

``(a) Definition.--The term `nonemergency intrusive
physical examination' means, with respect to a child, a
physical examination that--
``(1) is not immediately necessary to protect the health or
safety of such child, or the health or safety of another
individual; and
``(2) includes incision or is otherwise invasive, or
includes exposure of private body parts.
``(b) Requirement.--Before administering any health care
service (including any nonemergency intrusive physical
examination) to a child (or referring such child to obtain
such service) in connection with participation in a program
under this subchapter, a Head Start agency and an entity that
receives assistance under section 645A shall obtain the
written consent of a parent of such child.
``(c) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section shall
be construed to prohibit a Head Start agency or an entity
that receives assistance under section 645A from using
established methods, for handling cases of suspected or known
child abuse and neglect, that are in compliance with
applicable Federal, State, or tribal law.''.

SEC. 16. RIGHT TO APPEAL.

Section 646(a)(3) of the Head Start Act (42 U.S.C.
9841(a)(3)) is amended to read as follows:
``(3) if financial assistance under this subchapter is
terminated or reduced, an application for a noncompeting
continuation award is denied based on a previous failure to
comply with terms applicable to financial assistance
previously provided this subchapter, or suspension of
financial assistance is continued for more than 30 days, the
recipient with respect to whom such action is taken shall
have the opportunity to appeal such action in accordance with
such procedures, except that no funds made available under
this subchapter may be used to reimburse any such recipient
for legal fees and other costs incurred in pursuing such an
appeal;''.

SEC. 17. AUDITS.

Section 647 of the Head Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9842) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(c)(1) Not later than 180 days after the end of each
fiscal year, each Head Start agency, and each entity that
receives assistance under section 645A, shall submit to the
Secretary an independent financial audit of the Head Start
program carried out with financial assistance provided under
this subchapter. Such audit shall be carried out by a
certified public accountant selected through a competitive
process from among qualified certified accountants by the
local oversight board established in accordance with section
642(b)(4) by such agency, except that no accountant may
perform audits of such program for a period exceeding 5
consecutive fiscal years.
``(2) Not later than 60 days after receiving such audit,
the Secretary shall provide to such agency or such entity,
and to the chief executive officer of the State in which such
program is operated, a notice identifying the actions such
agency or such entity is required to take to correct all
deficiencies identified in such audit.
``(d) Each recipient of financial assistance under this
subchapter shall--
``(1) maintain, and annually submit to the Secretary, a
complete accounting of its administrative expenses (including
a detailed statement identifying the amount of financial
assistance provided under this subchapter used to pay
expenses for salaries and compensation and the amount (if
any) of other funds used to pay such expenses); and
``(2) provide such additional documentation as the
Secretary may require.''.

SEC. 18. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND TRAINING.

(a) Allocation of Resources.--Section 648(c) of the Head
Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9843(c)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (2) by inserting ``and for activities
described in section 1221(b)(3) of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965'' after ``disabilities'' ;
and
(2) in paragraph (5) by inserting ``, including the needs
of homeless children and their families'' after
``assessment'';
(3) in paragraph (10) by striking ``and'' at the end;
(4) in paragraph (11) by striking the period at the end and
inserting a semicolon; and
(5) by adding the following at the end:
``(12) assist Head Start agencies and programs in
increasing program participation of homeless children; and
``(13) assist Head Start agencies and Head Start programs
in improving outreach to, and the quality of services
available to, limited English proficient children and their
families, particularly in communities that have experienced a
large percentage increase in the population of limited
English proficient individuals, as measured by the Bureau of
the Census.''.
(b) Training in Use of Media.--Section 648(d) of the Head
Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9843(d)) is amended by inserting ``,
including community- and faith-based organizations'' after
``entities'' the first place such term appears.
(c) Child Development and National Assessment Program.--
Section 648(e) of the Head Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9843(e)) is
amended to read as follows:
``(e) 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
limited English proficient 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.''.
(d) Addressing Unique Needs.--Section 648 of the Head Start
Act (42 U.S.C. 9843) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(f) 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.
``(g) More than 50 percent of funds expended under this
section shall be used to provide high quality, sustained,
intensive, and classroom-focused training and technical
assistance in order

[[Page H8298]]

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.
``(h) 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.
``(i)(1) The Secretary shall work in collaboration with the
Head Start agencies that carry out migrant and seasonal Head
Start programs, State Directors of Head Start Collaboration,
the migrant and seasonal Head Start collatoration director,
and other appropriate entities--
``(A) to accurately determine the number of children
nationwide who are eligible to participate in migrant and
seasonal Head Start programs each year;
``(B) to document how many of these children are receiving
Head Start services each year; and
``(C) to the extent practicable, to ensure that access to
migrant and seasonal Head Start programs for eligible
children is comparable to access to other Head Start programs
for other eligible children;
``(2) In carrying out paragraph (1)(A), the Secretary shall
consult with the Secretary of Education about the Department
of Education's systems for collecting and reporting data
about, and maintaining records on, students from migrant and
seasonal farmworker families.
``(3) Not later than 9 months after the effective date of
this subsection, the Secretary shall publish in the Federal
Register a notice of how the Secretary plans to carry out
paragraph (1) and shall provide a period for public comment.
To the extent practicable, the Secretary shall consider
comments received before submitting a report to the Congress.
``(4) Not later than 1 year after the effective date of
this subsection, the Secretary shall submit a report 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, detailing how the
Department of Health and Human Services plans to carry out
paragraph (1).
``(5) The Secretary shall submit annually a report to the
Congress detailing the number of children of migrant and
seasonal farmworkers, who are eligible to participate in Head
Start programs and the number of such children who are
enrolled in Head Start programs.
``(6) The Secretary shall take appropriate action,
consistent with section 444 of the General Education
Provisions Act, to ensure the protection of the
confidentiality of any personally identifiable data,
information, and records collected or maintained by the
Secretary, by Head Start agencies that carry out migrant and
seasonal Head Start programs, by State Directors of Head
Start Collaboration, by the Migrant and Seasonal Farmworker
Collaboration Project Director, and by other appropriate
entities pursuant to this subsection.
``(7) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to
authorize the development of a nationwide database of
personally identifiable information on individuals involved
in studies or other collections of data under this
subsection.
``(j) 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. 19. STAFF QUALIFICATIONS AND DEVELOPMENT.

(a) Classroom Teachers.--Section 648A(a)(2) of the Head
Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9843a(a)(2)) is amended to read as
follows:
``(2) Degree requirements.--
``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall ensure that not
later than September 30, 2011, 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 Start 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 effective date of this subparagraph, the
Secretary shall require that all Head Start teachers
nationwide in center-based programs hired following the
effective date of this subparagraph--
``(i) have an associate, baccalaureate, or advanced degree
in early childhood education or a related field; or
``(ii) 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 subchapter 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.
``(E) Limitation.--The Secretary shall require that any
Federal funds provided directly or indirectly to comply with
subparagraph (A) shall be used toward degrees awarded by an
institution of higher education, as defined by sections 101
or 102 of the Higher Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1001-1002).''.
(b) Classroom Teachers.--Section 648A of the Head Start Act
(42 U.S.C. 9843a) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(f) Professional Development Plans.--Each 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. 20. RESEARCH, DEMONSTRATIONS, AND EVALUATION.

(a) New Ideas and Approaches.--Section 649(a)(1)(B) of the
Head Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9844(a)(1)(B)) is amended to read
as follows:
``(B) use the Head Start programs to develop, test, and
disseminate new ideas and approaches based on existing
scientifically based research, 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.''.
(b) Study.--Section 649(d) of the Head Start Act (42 U.S.C.
9844(d) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (7) by adding ``and'' at the end;
(2) in paragraph (8) by striking the semicolon and
inserting a period;
(3) by striking paragraph (9); and
(4) by striking the last sentence.
(c) Expert Panel.--Section 649(g) of the Head Start Act (42
U.S.C. 9844(g)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)(A)--
(A) by striking clause (i); and
(B) by redesignating clauses (ii) and (iii) as clauses (i)
and (ii), respectively; and
(2) in paragraph (7)(C)(i) is amended to read as follows:
``(i) Not later than September 30, 2007, the Secretary
shall transmit to the committees specified in clause (ii) the
final report.''.
(d) NAS Study.--Section 649(h) of the Head Start Act (42
U.S.C. 9844(h)) is amended 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 to 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 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 (including
systematic observation assessment in a child's natural
environment, and parent and provider interviews) for purposes
of improving instruction, services, and program quality, and
accommodations for children with disabilities and appropriate
assessments for children with special needs (including needs
related to the acquisition of the English language).
``(D) An evaluation of the current and appropriate uses of
the National Reporting System developed by the Secretary.
``(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 the enactment of the School Readiness Act of
2005. The panel shall complete its recommendations within 18
months of its convening.
``(4) Application of panel recommendations.--The
recommendations of the panel 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.''.
(e) Study of Status of Limited English Proficient
Children.--Section 649 of the Head Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9844)
is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(i) Limited English Proficient Children.--
``(1) Study.-- Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of the School Readiness Act of 2005, the Secretary
shall conduct a study on the status of limited English
proficient children and their families in Head Start programs
and Early Head Start programs.
``(2) Report.--The Secretary shall prepare and submit to
Congress, not later than September 2008, a report containing
the results of such study, including information on--

[[Page H8299]]

``(A)(i) the demographics of limited English proficient
children less than 5 years of age and the geographical
distribution of such children; and
``(ii) the number of such children receiving Head Start
services and the number of such children receiving Early Head
Start services, and the geographical distribution of such
children receiving such services;
``(B) the nature of the Head Start services and of the
Early Head Start services provided to limited English
proficient children and their families, including the types,
content, duration, intensity, and costs of family services,
language assistance, and educational services;
``(C) procedures in Head Start programs for assessing
language needs and for making the transition of limited
English proficient children to kindergarten, including the
extent to which Head Start programs meet the requirements of
section 642A for limited English proficient children;
``(D) the qualifications and training provided to Head
Start teachers and Early Head Start teachers who serve
limited English proficient children and their families;
``(E) the rate of progress made by limited English
proficient children and their families in Head Start programs
and in Early Head Start programs, including--
``(i) the rate of progress made by limited English
proficient children toward meeting the additional educational
standards described in section 641A(a)(1)(B)(ii) while
enrolled in Head Start programs;
``(ii) the correlation between such progress and the type
and quality of instruction and educational programs provided
to limited English proficient children; and
``(iii) the correlation between such progress and the
health and family services provided by Head Start programs to
limited English proficient children and their families; and
``(F) the extent to which Head Start programs make use of
funds under section 640(a)(3) to improve the quality of Head
Start services provided to limited English proficient
children and their families.''.

SEC. 21. REPORTS.

(a) Report.--Section 650(a) of the Head Start Act (42
U.S.C. 9845(a)) is amended--
(1) by amending the first sentence 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 limited English proficient children)
in Head Start programs, including the number of children and
the services being provided to such children.''; and
(2) in paragraph (8) by inserting ``, homelessness'' after
``background''.
(b) National Reporting System.--Section 650 of the Head
Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9845) is amended by adding at the end
the following:
``(c) National Reporting System.--The Secretary shall
submit annually 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 on the status of the National Reporting System
developed by the Secretary. Such report shall include--
``(1) information on all contracts, grants, and expenses
relating to the development and implementation of the
National Reporting System;
``(2) information described in section 641A(b)(3)(B); and
``(3) a description of the recommendations made by the
Technical Working Group, including issues of the technical
adequacy, purpose, and administration of the System, and an
explanation of how the Secretary plans to address these
recommendations.''.

SEC. 22. LIMITATION ON RATE OF FEDERAL FUNDING FOR
COMPENSATION.

Section 653 of the Head Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9848) is
amended--
(1) by striking the heading;
(2) by striking ``Sec. 653. The'' and inserting the
following:

``SEC. 653. WAGES AND COMPENSATION.

``(a) Comparability of Wages.--The''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(b) Federal Rate Limitation.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, no Federal funds shall be used to pay all
or any part of the compensation of an individual employed by
a Head Start agency in carrying out programs under this
subchapter, either as direct or indirect costs or any
proration thereof, at a rate in excess of the rate then
payable for level II of the Executive Schedule under section
5316 of title 5, United States Code.''.

SEC. 23. LIMITATION ON USE OF FUNDS.

The Head Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9831 et seq.) is amended by
inserting after section 656 the following:

``SEC. 656A. LIMITATION ON CERTAIN USES OF FUNDS.

``No funds made available to carry out this subchapter may
be used--
``(1) for publicity or propaganda purposes not heretofore
authorized by the Congress; or
``(2) unless authorized by law in effect on the effective
date of this section, to produce any prepackaged news story
intended for broadcast or distribution unless such story
includes a clear notification contained within the text or
audio of such story stating that the prepackaged news story
was prepared or funded by the Department of Health and Human
Services.''.

SEC. 24. CONFORMING AMENDMENT.

Section 641A(a)(2)(A) of the Head Start Act (42 U.S.C.
9836a(a)(2)(A)) is amended by striking ``non-English language
background'' and inserting ``limited English proficient''.

SEC. 25. EFFECTIVE DATE; APPLICATION OF AMENDMENTS.

(a) General Effective Date.--Except as provided in
subsections (b) and (c), this Act and the amendments made by
this Act shall take effect on the date of the enactment of
this Act.
(b) Application of Amendments.--The amendments made by this
Act shall not apply with respect to any fiscal year that
begins before the date of the enactment of this Act.
(c) Priority in the Designation of Head Start Agencies.--
(1) Effective date.--Section 641(c), as amended by section
7(b) of this Act, shall take effect exactly twelve months
from the date of the enactment of this Act, except for
section 641(c)(5), which shall take effect on the date of the
enactment of this Act.
(2) Implementation rule.--For purposes of carrying out
section 641(c) of the Head Start Act, as amended by section
7(b) of this Act, the Secretary may only consider the
performance of a Head Start program in meeting the
requirements described in section 641(c) of the Head Start
Act, as amended by section 7(b) of this Act, from the date of
enactment of this Act, except any performance that
constitutes a deficiency since the then most recent
designation.

The Acting CHAIRMAN. No amendment to the committee amendment is in
order except those printed in House Report 109-229. Each amendment may
be offered only in the order printed in the report, by a Member
designated in the report, shall be considered read, shall be debatable
for the time specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by
the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and
shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question.
It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in House
Report 109-229.

Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Castle

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Castle:
Page 8, line 23, insert ``and''.
Page 9, line 2, strike ``and''.
Page 9, strike lines 3 and 4.
Page 9, line 15, before the semicolon insert ``, as
appropriate''.
Page 12, line 10, strike the closing quotation mark and the
period that follows.
Page 12, after line 10, insert the following:
``(27) the term `auditor' means a certified public
accountant or a Federal, State, or local government audit
organization, which meets the general standards specified in
generally accepted government auditing standards.''.
Page 13, line 25, insert ``(including under any decision
made by the Secretary under clause (ii) or (iv))'' before the
semicolon.
Page 14, line 10, strike ``648(j)'' and insert ``648(i)''.
Page 15, line 2, after ``children'' insert ``based on the
data collected, and in accordance with the requirements of,
section 648(i), except that no future reduction in funding
shall result in the termination of Head Start services
provided to any eligible child 3 years of age or older who is
participating in any such program on the date a reduction in
funding occurs, and shall, to the extent possible, continue
participation for children less than 3 years of age receiving
services prior to such reduction in funding''.
Page 26, line 22, strike ``and''.
Page 28, line 9, insert ``, other State and local agencies
administering the State prekindergarten program, as
applicable,''.
Page 35, line 3, insert ``and developmentally'' after
``age''.
Page 37, line 1, strike ``Progress'' and insert
``progress''.
Page 38, line 13, strike ``research,'' and insert
``research''.
Page 40, line 10, after ``health,'' insert ``providers of
early childhood education,''.
Page 46, line 25, before the semicolon insert ``, including
private entities and charter schools offering pre-
kindergarten''.
Page 49, line 7, strike ``and'' after the semicolon.
Page 49, after line 7, insert the following:
``(VI) approaches to learning related to child development
and early learning; and
Page 49, line 8, strike ``(VI)'' and insert ``(VII)''.
Page 54, line 12, before the semicolon insert ``as
appropriate''.
Page 62, beginning in line 11, strike ``the program of a
Head Start agency,'' and insert ``a Head Start program,'' .
Page 62, beginning in line 13, strike ``and reported by the
agency (as required in paragraph (2))''.
Page 67, line 9, strike ``and (5)'' and insert ``(5), and
(6)''.
Page 67, line 16, strike ``by,'' and insert ``by''.
Page 69, line 1, strike ``(6)'' and insert ``(7)''.
Page 72, line 14, after ``chair of'' insert ``(or the
designee of the chair, approved by)''.
Page 74, line 2, insert ``except when the auditor is
assigned by the State under State law'' before the semicolon.
Page 76, line 2, strike ``committee'' and insert
``council''.
Page 76, line 3, strike ``committee'' and insert
``council''.
Page 80, line 13, insert ``to'' before ``refer''.
Page 80, line 15, insert ``To'' before ``provide''.

[[Page H8300]]

Page 85, beginning in line 6, strike ``as appropriate'' and
insert ``, as appropriate,''.
Page 86, line 6, strike ``socio-emotional skills,'' and
insert ``socio-emotional development,''.
Page 87, after line 20, insert the following:

SEC. 10. HEAD START ALIGNMENT WITH K-12 EDUCATION.

Section 642A of the Head Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9837a) is
amended--
(1) by amending the heading to read as follows:

``SEC. 642A. HEAD START ALIGNMENT WITH K-12 EDUCATION.'';

``SEC. 645B. PARENTAL CONSENT REQUIREMENT FOR HEALTH CARE
SERVICES, INCLUDING NONEMERGENCY INTRUSIVE
PHYSICAL EXAMINATIONS.

``(a) Definitions.--For purposes of this section:
``(1) The term `health care service' includes--
``(A) any nonemergency intrusive physical examination; and
``(B) any screening, included but not limited to, a
medical, dental, developmental, mental health, social, or
behavioral screening.
``(2) The term `nonemergency intrusive physical
examination' means, with respect to a child, a physical
examination that--
``(A) is not immediately necessary to protect the health or
safety of such child, or the health or safety of another
individual; and
``(B) includes incision or is otherwise invasive, or
includes exposure of private body parts.
``(b) Requirement.--Before administering any health care
service to a child (or referring a child to obtain such
service) in connection with participation in a program under
this subchapter, a Head Start agency or an entity that
receives assistance under section 645A shall obtain the
informed written consent of a parent of such child indicating
consent for each specific health care service to be
performed.
``(c) Rules of Construction.--
``(1) Nothing in this section shall be construed to
prohibit a Head Start agency or an entity that receives
assistance under section 645A from using established methods
for handling cases of suspected or known child abuse or
neglect that are in compliance with applicable Federal,
State, or tribal law.
``(2) Nothing in this subchapter shall be construed to
permit a Head Start agency, an entity that receives
assistance under section 645A, or the personnel of such
agency or entity to administer any health care service to a
child (or to refer a child to obtain such service) without
the informed written consent of a parent of such child
indicating consent for each specific health care service to
be performed.
``(3) Nothing in this section shall be construed to require
a Head Start agency or an entity that receives assistance
under section 645A to provide separate consent forms for each
specific health care service.''.
Page 106, line 20 through page 108 line 2, strike section
17 and insert the following:

SEC. 17. AUDITS.

Section 647 of the Head Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9842) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(c)(1) Not later than 270 days after the end of each
fiscal year, each Head Start agency and each entity that
receives assistance under section 645A shall, with financial
assistance provided by this subchapter--
``(A) undergo a single audit under the requirements of the
Single Audit Act and submit its financial statement audit and
compliance audit of Federal assistance to the Secretary and
to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse an independent financial
audit of the Head Start program if subject to the Single
Audit Act Amendments of 1996; or
``(B) undergo a financial statement audit in accordance
with the generally accepted government auditing standards
issued by the American Institute of Certified Public
Accountants and Government Auditing Standards issued by the
Comptroller General of the United States, if not subject to
the Single Audit Act.
``(2) Audits described in subparagraph (A) and (B) shall be
carried out by an auditor selected through a competitive
process by the board described in section 642(b)(4) except
when conducted by the State auditor as required by State law.
``(3) No audit partner shall perform audits of such agency
for a period exceeding 5 consecutive fiscal years except when
such agency notifies the Secretary that rotation is not
possible because an alternate audit partner is not available
or would present a significant challenge to the agency.
``(4) Not later than 60 days after receiving such audit,
the Secretary shall provide to such agency or such entity,
and to the chief executive officer of the State in which such
program is operated, a notice identifying the actions such
agency or such entity is required to take to correct all
deficiencies identified in such audit.
``(d) Each recipient of financial assistance under this
subchapter shall--
``(1) maintain, and annually submit to the Secretary, a
complete accounting of its administrative expenses (including
a detailed statement identifying the amount of financial
assistance provided under this subchapter used to pay
expenses for salaries and compensation and the amount (if
any) of other funds used to pay such expenses); and
``(2) provide such additional documentation as the
Secretary may require.''.
Page 111, line 5, insert ``and Indian Head Start programs''
after ``programs''.
Page 111, line 6, insert ``the Indian Head Start
Collaboration Director,'' after ``Collaboration,''.
Page 111, line 7, insert ``, including tribal governments''
after ``appropriate entities''.
Page 111, line 10, insert ``and Indian'' after
``seasonal''.
Page 111, line 15, insert ``and Indian'' after
``seasonal''.
Page 111, line 22, insert ``and American Indian and Alaska
Native students'' before the period.
Page 112, line 14, insert ``American Indian and Alaska
Native children'' after ``farmworkers,''.
Page 112, line 22, insert ``and Indian'' after
``seasonal''.
Page 113, line 1, insert ``by the Indian Head Start
Collaboration Project Director,'' after ``Director,''.
Page 116, line 20, strike ``(7)'' and insert ``(8)''.
Page 116, line 22, strike ``(8)'' and insert ``(9)''.
Page 116, line 24, strike ``(9)'' and insert ``(10)''.
Page 122, line 22, strike line 21 through page 123, line 6,
and insert the following:
(1) by amending the first sentence 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 limited English proficient children) in Head
Start programs, including the number of children and the
services being provided to such children.''; and

The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 455, the gentleman
from Delaware (Mr. Castle) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle).

{time} 1315

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

[[Page H8301]]

I am pleased to offer this amendment which I indicated was drafted on
a bipartisan basis. Specifically, the amendment would revise the
financial audit language to ensure that financial audit requirements
for Head Start programs are consistent with those required under the
Single Audit Act Amendments of 1986; that it builds on parental consent
requirements included in H.R. 2123 as reported, to further clarify that
any health service available to children in Head Start may not be
performed without the prior written consent of the parent; and included
a number of technical and conforming amendments.
To the best of our knowledge, there is no dispute about this, and the
details of it can be discussed at further length if anybody wants.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I want to thank the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from
Delaware (Mr. Castle), for his hard work on this bill. This language
has been negotiated, and we have no objections to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Bass). The question is on the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle).
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2
printed in House Report 109-229.

Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Souder

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. Souder:
Strike page 71, line 22 through page 77, line 13, and
insert the following:
``(4) Implement a system of shared governance for oversight
of the Head Start program, which includes the following:
``(A) An independent board of directors selected from among
eligible individuals who shall serve on the board of
directors (or may designate an existing entity whose members
are eligible individuals, that shall be such board) for a
period not to exceed 5 years, except that board members who
oversee a public entity and who are selected by election (or
members of a board of a local educational agency or a local
council, appointed by an elected official or an official of a
general purpose local government), may serve for such period
as may be determined by the electing or appointing authority,
as the case may be. An individual who has a conflict of
interest is ineligible to serve as a member of the board of
directors. Members of the board of all nonpublic entities
shall include representatives of the local community
(including at least 1 member with significant financial
management or accounting experience and the chair of the
council described in section 642(b)(4)(B)). Additional
members shall be selected for their expertise in education,
business administration, community affairs, government, legal
affairs, and such other areas of expertise as may contribute
to effective governance of the Head Start agency. All members
of the board of directors shall adopt practices that assure
active, independent and informed governance of the Head Start
agency, including independent oversight of the financial and
management practices of such agency. The board of directors
shall provide direction to the executive director of the Head
Start agency and shall operate as an entity independent of
staff employed by the head Start agency, entity, or applicant
and have the following duties and responsibilities:
``(i) To provide independent oversight to ensure that the
Head Start agency under the direction of the executive
director is delivering high quality services to children and
families in compliance with all applicable standards in
effect under this subchapter and with the applicable
performance measures established by the Secretary under
section 644.
``(ii) To establish 1 or more standing committees to
facilitate governance of the Head Start agency which shall
include the following: an audit and finance committee whose
primary responsibility shall be--

``(I) to approve annually the operating budget of the Head
Start agency;
``(II) to review and recommend to the board of directors
the selection of independent auditors who shall report all
critical accounting policies and practices to the finance and
audit committee;
``(III) to review and recommend to the board of directors
the termination or extension of the existing audit firm at
least once every 5 years;
``(IV) to review and advise the board of directors of the
audit management letter provided pursuant to the chapter 75
of title 31 of the United States Code, and of any audit
findings; and
``(V) to monitor agency actions to correct any such audit
findings or other actions necessary to comply with applicable
laws (including regulations) governing financial statements
and accounting practices.

``(iii) To approve the selection and dismissal of the Head
Start director, and to review annually the human resources
available to ensure the effective operation of the Head Start
agency.
``(iv) To consult on a regular basis, with the policy
council and to take actions on recommendations submitted by
such council.
``(v) To review and approve the major operational policies
of the Head Start agency, including policies addressing
accounting, financial management, procurement, record
confidentiality, and personnel (including specific standards
governing salaries, salary adjustments, travel and per diem
allowances, and other employee benefits)
``(vi) To ensure that the Head Start agency is operated in
compliance with applicable Federal, State, and local laws
(including regulations), and to monitor agency implementation
of any corrective action necessary to comply with applicable
laws (including regulations);
``(vii) To oversee the program planning of the Head Start
agency, including adoption of the Head Start agency
philosophy and mission statement, adoption of policies for
determining community needs, setting long- and short-range
goals and objectives, establishment of criteria for selecting
families in Head Start programs or Early Head Start programs,
and to oversee and approve the agency's applications to
receive funds made available under this subchapter; and
``(viii) To establish, to adopt, and to periodically update
written standards of conduct that establish standards and
formal procedures for disclosing, addressing and resolving--

``(I) any conflict of interest, and any appearance of a
conflict of interest by board members, officers, employees,
consultants, and agents who provide services or furnish goods
to the Head Start agency; and
``(II) complaints, including investigations, when
appropriate.

``(ix) To develop processes, in consultation with the
policy council, to resolve internal disputes in the instance
when the board of directors and the policy council have
reached an impasse on an issue of dispute relative to matters
of joint governance.
``(x) In all matters of serious fiscal mismanagement,
fraud, or criminal activity, the board of directors will have
discretionary authority to act unilaterally without policy
council approval.
``(B) A policy council, a majority of whose representatives
shall be parents of children participating in a Head Start
program or in an Early Head Start program, or of children who
participated in an Early Head Start program in the then most
recent 5-year period preceding the selection of the
particular representative involved, and whose primary
responsibilities shall be to serve as a link between parents
and the board of directors and to share joint
responsibilities with the board of directors in making
recommendations and approving or disapproving the following
program planning and operation activities:
``(i) Program planning, including--

``(I) program design and management, including long and
short-term planning goals, all funding applications and
amendments to funding applications and objectives based on
the annual community assessment and self-assessment;
``(II) program recruitment, selection, and enrollment
priorities;
``(III) budget planning for program expenditures, including
policies for reimbursement and participation in policy
council activities; and
``(IV) the operating budget of the Head Start agency.

``(ii) Program operation policies, including standards of
conduct for program staff and volunteers, and policies
governing employment and dismissal of program staff.
``(iii) Selection and dismissal of the Head Start director
and program staff.
``(iv) Activities to support the active involvement of
parents in supporting program operations.
``(v) Classroom activities and staffing.
``(vi) Program responsiveness to community and parent
needs.
``(vii) Processes to resolve internal disputes in the
instance when the board of directors and the policy council
have reached an impasse on an issue of dispute relative to
matters of joint governance.
``(vii) Other areas the council identifies as necessary to
improve program operations.
``(C) Training for all members of the board of directors
and policy council in the management responsibilities and
obligations, ethics, and financial literacy and
management.''.
Page 78, line 6, strike ``section 642(b)(4)(B)(ii)'' and
insert ``section 642(b)(4)(B)''.

The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 455, the gentleman
from Indiana (Mr. Souder) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner)
each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder).
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes.

[[Page H8302]]

(Mr. SOUDER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, first I want to again thank the chairman
for making my amendment in order. Let me give a very short history, and
then I will elaborate a little further.
After the Great Society was less than sensitive to many urban areas
in the United States, empowerment movements developed in America, led
actually by a leftist named Sal Olinsky, that said local people, when
they are being displaced, ought to have more input into the decisions
that are being made in their lives. This happened originally in Chicago
and it is something that we are looking at doing in New Orleans in the
name of empowerment.
We saw, when the Republicans came to power in the 1980s and to the
Presidency, President Reagan put Jack Kemp in charge of HUD, Housing
and Urban Development, and we had tenant management and resident
management moving to homeownership and we said, let the people make the
decisions themselves. Sometimes it was messy. Sometimes we did not
really like their decisions, just like sometimes we do not necessarily
agree with the people who they elect to Congress; but we let the people
make the decisions.
Head Start, when it came in the 1970s as part of Richard Nixon's
efforts to block grant, to give more local empowerment to react to the
programs of the 1960s, the heart and soul of this program was to say,
we are going to let the parents, in these preschool situations, in
these low-income situations, we are going to let them make the
decisions. It is not going to be like PTAs in schools where often they
become fund-raising supplements and they are allowed to give their
opinions, but they have no vote. We are going to let them actually
vote. When you go into Head Start programs, they get to vote on what
they are going to serve for lunch, they get to vote on the textbooks,
they get to hire and fire the teachers.
This bill, unfortunately, because of a broader concern about how to
address some of the problems in Head Start, removes the voting rights,
the actual powers of those parents. Not because of any GAO report. Not
because the GAO report says there is a problem with the parents. There
is no reference to the parents in the GAO report, other than one. It
says the tips of financial mismanagement came from the parents. It is
not because of the boards because, in the GAO report, the boards are
only mentioned twice, because they had financial problems.
The underlying part of the bill addresses the financial difficulties
that we have, and we have added in our amendment to make sure that
fraud is actually addressed because there the board has legal liability
if there is fraud, but not what is being served for lunch or what
textbook or even who is hired and fired. They have legal liability for
fraud. That is already granted. But we made it clear that the board has
the legal liability on fraud and they have the decision-making power on
fraud.
I somehow think that we have drifted into this policy that we think
we know better than the people who are making the decisions themselves.
How are we going to move ahead in New Orleans with this attitude? We
cannot one week strip the number one empowerment program in America,
and the next week say we are going to empower in New Orleans.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the amendment offered by my friend, the
gentleman from Indiana, a member of our committee. It is over a very
sensitive issue of how to deal with the parent councils. Under the
current law, the current practice, these parent advisory councils have
actually had veto authority over the decisions of the Head Start
grantee.
Now, there is no one in this House who believes more in empowering
parents to be active participants with their children, active and
empowered parents with Head Start programs. But we have seen a number
of problems in Head Start programs, from financial abuses to very poor
results for children; and the gentleman from California (Mr. George
Miller) and I have worked closely to develop this bill and to develop
this proposal that continues to allow parents to be actively involved.
It still requires the grantees to urge parents to be involved; but we
do it, though, in a strictly advisory capacity. They are still going to
play a big role. The only difference here is the veto power: whether,
in fact, the parent councils can veto the decisions of the board or the
management.
Now, this bill came out of committee 48 to nothing with the language
that we are trying to preserve. I appreciate my colleague from Indiana
coming along at the eleventh hour, wanting to change it, but the fact
is that the committee endorsed the underlying language, and I would ask
my colleagues to reject this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Chairman, there was no testimony at any hearings about this
subject. The only reference in the hearings, I believe, was actually on
the Senate side from the deputy mayor of Memphis who complained that he
did not have decision-making powers to make some changes that he wanted
to make, but it was not financial abuse or financial waste. I have
asked the committee staff, as well as the chairman, to come up with an
example. There is not an example.
There are problems in the whole system; but mostly it is the grantees
and the board that have been the problems. The board is not as engaged
like the parents. In this case, it is not a question of whether the
parents have veto power. The parents have the power, the board has
shared power, and the parents have the primary power, the board has the
veto power. The parent council is 51 percent parents, 49 percent
community leaders who are actively engaged. The board tends to be
leading citizens of the community who come in and review that.
We are gutting, for a pat on the head, saying we like your opinion,
but not your vote. You are not good enough to vote, but you are good
enough to give your opinion.
This is an empowerment program by the people who are running it, it
has worked well, and we should not change it.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. George Miller), the ranking Democrat on the committee.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman
for yielding me this time, and I rise in opposition to this amendment.
What we tried to do in the committee bill is to make sure that there
was a clear line of accountability on some of these fiscal matters. We
struggled long and hard on this committee with the question of fiscal
management and mismanagement of a number of these programs. While the
vast majority of Head Start programs are well-run programs that provide
excellent services, the services that we have come to expect from those
programs on behalf of these children in Head Start, we have had some
problems.
This is not about reducing the parents' role. It is about increasing
the accountability, increasing the accountability of this board, so
they will understand the gravity of the situation, which they have. We
have also strengthened the parent policy council to be involved in all
aspects of program authorization, and we require that the board act on
those priorities. Whether they agree or disagree, they must act on it.
The fact of the matter is, I think many, many people involved in Head
Start believe that this is a very substantial improvement that will
avoid the kinds of problems that we have seen in the past that have
drained resources from this agency, taken away from the services
provided to these children.
Parents have been an integral part of this program from the
beginning, they continue to be, and, in fact, their position is
strengthened in this legislation. But we must deal in a forthright
manner with this question of fiscal accountability, and we are making
those boards more accountable in this legislation; and I hope that we
would reject the Souder amendment.
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Florida

[[Page H8303]]

(Mr. Keller), a member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce
and a leader on education issues.
Mr. KELLER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Chairman, the Head Start bill before us today is a good bill, I
plan on voting for it, but I also believe that the Souder amendment
will make it an even better bill by restoring the full authority of the
parent policy councils in the Head Start program.
Currently, Head Start programs across the country are jointly
governed by a board of directors made up of experts and by a policy
council made up of parents. Regrettably, the Head Start reauthorization
bill before us fundamentally changes the authority of the parent policy
councils. Specifically, it removes their ability to vote on program
policy and instead makes them merely an advisory committee to the
board. Well, who knows what is best for kids, the parents who are with
them every day, or the bureaucrats and politicians who live 1,000 miles
away?
Clearly, the parents are in the best position to know what is best
for the children, and I do not have to guess about that. On August 8,
2005, I personally met with 120 Head Start parents in Orlando, Florida.
They told me they were concerned about the reduced role of the parent
policy councils under this bill, and they wanted to restore the voting
authority. That is what the Souder amendment does. I urge my colleagues
to vote ``yes.''
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time.
Let us make this absolutely clear. Advice is nice. We just went
through this in high-intensity drug trafficking areas where we tried to
take the voting power away and we resisted that in Congress.
Power comes from voting, not advise. This strips the parents of their
power and lets them give their opinions. This is a tremendous reversal
for either side of the aisle to make of the number one parent advisory
program in America. There are not financial problems with the parent
councils. The financial problems were with the agencies that were
granted to and the boards. For fraud, they need to be held accountable.
This bill does that. Do not take the power away from the parents.
I have also received these letters which help explain my concerns.

Dear Mr. Mark Souder: My name is Chris Wallace Sr. and I am
a parent of 3 children. Two of which have been enrolled and
ongoing participants in CANI's Headstart program, my third
child is going into her 2nd grade year with Adams Elementary,
Fort Wayne Community Schools. I am currently the Policy
Council President, and the Vice-President of MILC (Males
Involved Leading Children), and my wife and I are repeatedly
volunteering for CANI (in-kind). I have received the
Volunteer of the Year Award from CANI, and I have also
received a Certificate of Recognition from the City of Fort
Wayne, for my ongoing commitments with CANI. Currently I am
looking forward to another successful year with my
involvement with CANI, MILC, and introducing MILC along with
All Pro Dads into the Fort Wayne Community school system.
Which brings me to my disappointment with the news that
some of these programs, most importantly the parent
involvement initiative may be withdrawn from CANI's Headstart
programs. I would like for you and those involved with this
decision to understand the importance of parent involvement.
It has not only allowed for me to be more involved in the
decisions that affect my children, it has also allowed me to
be involved in some of the decisions that affect my
community. These programs allow parents to understand more
how important education, family and social development is to
their family, and the community around them. I believe that
these programs empower parents, and give them leadership
skills that they may never learn elsewhere. I can attest to
this, for I have learned many leadership, mentoring, and role
model skills. I also have learned how important I am to the
community and the development of my children, and my peers
children.
I believe it would be an injustice to take this away from
so many who are currently involved and those in the future
that have yet to benefit. Please pass on our plea, meaning
the parents, employees, and even more important our children,
that you work for keeping the current programs well
established within CANI's Headstart program. This will
continue to allow us to provide a good start to our future
leaders.
On behalf of parents of CANI Headstart.
Sincerely,
Chris Wallace, Sr.,
Parent, Volunteer.
____

September 18, 2005.
Re Head Start Reauthorization.

Hon. Mark Souder,
E. Ross Adair Federal Building,
Fort Wayne, IN.
Dear Congressman Souder: I am writing to urge you to
support the restoration of full authority to Parent Policy
Councils in Head Start reauthorization legislation. It is my
observation that parents provided with a meaningful governing
role in their children's Head Start education gain valuable
skills that will help them to proactively support their
children's education in elementary, middle, high school and
beyond.
The personal growth of parents involved in the Head Start
Program is a natural consequence of their participation in
Head Start governance. Weakening or eliminating this role
will eliminate a valuable training resource for parents and
will make them less effective in supporting their children's
future education.
I have been a community representative on the CANI Head
Start Policy Council in Fort Wayne for two years. One of the
most rewarding benefits of my participation on the Policy
Council has been to watch the growth and development of the
Male Involvement Committee. This group provides many
opportunities for fathers, grandfathers, uncles and other
adult males to interact significantly with their children in
positive ways. This is particularly significant in low-income
communities where children need positive adult male role
models.
Thank you for your consideration of these issues. I hope
that my views will be addressed in your vote for the
reauthorization of Head Start.
Sincerely,
Barbara L. Jones.
____

Indiana PTA,

Hammond, IN, July 11, 2005.
To Whom It May Concern: I am writing about the Head Start
Program and its importance to families.
The Head Start Program is a vital part of the education
process. The program offers opportunities early in the lives
of children to build skills that will be needed in school and
in life. Research shows that the sooner children are in a
structured educational environment; the better their
performance is throughout their formal education.
I became involved in Head Start in 1995 when my son entered
the program and have continued to volunteer/work with Head
Start though the years. I have served as a site chairperson,
a member of the Policy Committee and currently serve as a
Community Representative. It is because of the parent
involvement component of the Head Start Program that parent
involvement became so important in my life. It is because of
these beginnings that I continue to advocate for children on
all levels.
For many families, access to Head Start is the only way for
their children to have any type of educational experience
prior to elementary school. Many of these children continue
on to Kindergarten because they have a head start in
education and their parents realize how important early
intervention is. Since kindergarten is not mandated in
Indiana, many children come to school for the first time when
entering the 1st grade. These children are not ready to work
at their grade level and come to school at all developmental
levels.
As president of the Indiana PTA, I know how important the
Head Start Program is to children and families. It is
critical that services like this continue and be adequately
funded for our children. It is important that monies be made
available for Early Intervention efforts across the board. If
we don't take care of our chi1dren today . . . our children
won't take care of us tomorrow. Some of the issues that
Indiana PTA will be focusing on are: Early Intervention,
Literacy; Parent Involvement, Advocacy and Drug Use.
Respectfully,
Dee Jones,
President.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield the balance of my
time to the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), the chairman of the
subcommittee and the author of the bill.
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I totally oppose this amendment, and I
oppose the statements which have been made here that it takes away from
the parents, the rights they may have. Basically, what our bill does is
reinstate the parents council where it was always supposed to be.
Dr. Edward Zigler, who is opposed, by the way, to some things that I
was for in the past, so I do not always quote him, but he is widely
credited as the Father of Head Start, and many people follow him here,
and he stated with respect to the policy council: ``I created and
implemented the policy councils in the early 1970s. The time was past
due to take a fresh look at the government issue. In fact, I very much
like that the House bill keeps in place the policy council with the
role I had in mind for it, while putting above it a board of directors
with what I see to be some good requirements for membership on this
board. I like the synergism that you have built between the board and
the policy council,'' said Zigler's letter.

[[Page H8304]]

I think this is the right governance for our Head Start operations in
the United States of America. I would encourage everyone here to listen
carefully, as it is very easy to say, oh, give the authority to the
parents. The bottom line is they will be involved and engaged, but the
board will make the decisions. That is the way it should be. I urge the
defeat of this amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
noes appeared to have it.
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr.
Souder) will be postponed.
It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 printed in House
Report 109-229.

Amendment No. 3 Offered by Ms. DeLauro

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 3 offered by Ms. DeLauro:
Page 87, line 4, strike the close quotation marks and the
period at the end.
Page 87, after line 4, insert the following:
``(11) Head Start agencies may develop or maintain
partnerships with institutions of higher education and non-
profit organizations that recruit, train, place, and support
college students to serve as mentors and reading coaches to
preschool children in Head Start programs.''.

The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 455, the
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) and a Member opposed each
will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, for four decades, Head Start has provided comprehensive
child development, literacy, family services to more than 18 million
preschoolers from low-income and working poor families. It is a proven
success. Head Start graduates are less likely to need special education
services, to be held back a grade, or to get in trouble with the law.
They are more likely to go on to college and to have professional
careers. It is unquestionably the most effective early childhood
development program ever developed.
For all the program's success, we know that even the best teachers
struggle with overwhelming class sizes, particularly with young
children, and Head Start's 10 to 1 ratio of students to teachers in the
classroom presents clear challenges in helping Head Start children gain
the cognitive skills other children have.
That is why this amendment, allowing Head Start centers to recruit
and train college students as mentors, reading mentors for preschool
children, is so needed.

{time} 1330

We all know the benefits of mentoring, whether it is after school, on
weekends, or during the school day, mentoring programs change young
peoples' lives. There is a proven link between mentoring and reduced
substance abuse later in life and improved academic achievement.
And of course the benefits of mentoring are mutual. Some of the
college student mentors in this initiative will even become Head Start
teachers themselves some day. That is what we have seen in one program
which deploys 2,100 college students who devote 15 hours per week
during the school year to mentor Head Start students. That program is
also a proven success.
I want to be clear, my amendment would not replace the specialized
work of Head Start teachers. There is no substitute for the work of a
qualified, trained teacher, nor would anything in this amendment
require local Head Start centers to offer mentoring programs.
Head Start grantees would have the chance whether or not to start a
mentoring program for Head Start children. Mr. Chairman, with this
amendment we are simply seeking to supplement the remarkable work of
our Head Start teachers in a way that allows for children to learn at
their optimum capacity.
It allows Head Start teachers to make the greatest impact possible.
And that is why I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I do not oppose the amendment, but I ask
unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Bass). Is there objection to the request of
the gentleman from Ohio?
There was no objection.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) brings a
very good amendment to this debate. And I certainly support the good
work of Jump Start and think that the amendment that she offers makes a
valuable contribution to the bill.
Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Regula), the chairman of the Labor-HHS Subcommittee of the
Committee on Appropriations, and the Dean of the Ohio Delegation, for
general remarks on the bill.
(Mr. REGULA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the School
Readiness Act. Let me first begin by recognizing the tremendous efforts
of my colleagues, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) and the
gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) in crafting a good bill.
As a former teacher and elementary principal, I am aware of the
necessity of a first-rate education and need to ensure that children
have adequate skills before entering kindergarten.
As chairman of the Labor-HHS-Education Subcommittee of the Committee
on Appropriations, funding Head Start in the amount of $6 billion, this
bill will achieve a better use of those moneys. For over four decades
the Head Start program has provided comprehensive early childhood
development services to low-income children.
By providing educational, health, nutritional, social and other
services to the most needy in our society, this program prepares
children to enter kindergarten and to improve the conditions necessary
for their success in later school and life.
Head Start strongly emphasizes the involvement of families in the
local community to ensure that the programs are responsive to the
unique needs of each community. As you know, in the aftermath of
Hurricane Katrina, the Head Start Bureau has urged all of its grantees
to provide Head Start services to any displaced children and families
now in their communities. Very important, so they do not fall behind.
As successful as Head Start has been, I believe that the program can
be even more successful by maintaining the comprehensive services
already provided and enhancing the academic component. Consistent with
the goal of strengthening this program, H.R. 2123 will help to
eliminate financial mismanagement by increasing the competitive nature
of the current program. The competition requirements are intended to
help drive program improvement across the board and to ensure that the
$6 billion we spend is spent constructively and wisely.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to emphasize that a good education is the
cornerstone for success in life and that it is critical to have the
basic skills to build the foundation before entering kindergarten. We
have found a large dropout problem in our inner-city schools, in some
cases exceeding 50 percent. In fact, the national average is 32
percent. And this is a terrible waste of human resources.
In many cases, the students dropping out cannot read at beyond the
elementary school level, and see no reason to stay in school when they
cannot keep up with the school work. The problems of dropouts and
illiteracy do not begin in high school. They manifest themselves in
high school, but they begin in elementary and pre-elementary.
These problems begin in the school when the students fall behind
their classmates in the early years, because they did not start with
the same skill sets. We need to ensure that these students have an
equal start, and H.R. 2123 will help us in the mission.

[[Page H8305]]

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Woolsey).
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Connecticut
(Ms. DeLauro) for offering this amendment, and the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Boehner) for supporting it.
Mr. Chairman, helping Head Start centers develop with college
students, students who will then help young children when they are
learning to read, certainly will help those children. But also it is
going to encourage more students at the college level to become and
remain Head Start teachers.
Anything that accomplishes both of these goals is worth doing. And I
support the amendment.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, in closing, let me just say that I am excited about the
opportunity for this amendment, because I think that we can create a
partnership with the Head Start program and with our college students.
And the beneficiaries are our youngsters.
And we give an opportunity to college students to be stakeholders in
an education process. It keeps them involved in their community. It
keeps them involved in public life. And they have so much to offer and
to give, and then couple that with the tremendous work of the Head
Start teachers.
So with that, I would urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong
support of the amendment offered by my distinguished colleague, the
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) that would allow Head Start
centers to partner with colleges, universities and community-based
organizations to recruit and train college students to serve as mentors
and reading coaches to preschool children.
Early childhood is a critical time for children to develop reading,
language and cognitive skills. For 40 years, Head Start has worked to
increase the overall school preparedness for the Nation's young
children in low-income communities. As Congress moves forward to
reauthorize Head Start and make a number of changes, the
reauthorization should include meaningful programming to improve the
offerings of Head Start programs. This amendment, that allows Head
Start centers to partner with an institution of higher education or a
community-based organization in order to recruit and train college
students to serve as mentors and reading coaches to preschool children,
and would allow children to receive the personal instruction and
attention they need to be successfully prepared for school.
One-to-one learning is a proven teaching method that strengthens
cognitive skills in young children. Mentors provide children with the
additional support they need to boost comprehension and self-
confidence. Back home in my district in Connecticut, the Jumpstart
Hartford program is an excellent example of this type of comprehensive
learning partnership. Jumpstart Hartford, in partnership with the
University of Hartford, facilitates one-on-one instruction with
students from the University and young children from low-income
families in Hartford. The program places special focus on developing
stronger language, literacy, social and initiative skills. The program
has made significant gains in narrowing language and literacy gaps with
its young children.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the DeLauro amendment
that would allow mentor partnerships in Head Start and make real
progress towards preparing all children in Head Start for success in
school and throughout life.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4
printed in House Report 109-229.

Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Stearns

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 4 offered by Mr. Stearns:
Page 110, line 7, after ``families,'' insert ``families
with one or more children with disabilities,''.

The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 455, the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Stearns) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns).
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, the Individuals with Disabilities Act and the 1998 Head
Start Act simply required Head Start programs to reach out to families
who have children with disabilities. Including children with
disabilities in Head Start programs can be a rewarding experience for
all involved: children, parents, and of course Head Start employees.
But the linchpin for success with inclusion is proper training of
employees to care for the children's unique needs. However, the
underlying legislation I think perhaps can be strengthened in this
area.
My amendment would simply do that. How? Include families who have one
or more children with disabilities in the list of training course
subjects the Secretary is directed to provide for Head Start training
employees so they can cope with that. I know firsthand, personally,
both the victories and pitfalls of families who have dealt with
children with learning disabilities.
I know the worry and concern parents feel when they entrust the most
precious being in their lives to the care of a stranger. Head Start
personnel need to be trained, my colleagues, to mitigate these many
concerns, and of course to provide meaningful guidance when a family
faces a new challenge.
So families with children with disabilities need support. Proper
training of Head Start employees will enable them to anticipate
possible challenges, evaluate the current difficulties that they may or
may not have, and will educate the employees in current strategies and
resources which are available to parents.
For parents' piece of mind, it is imperative that those individuals
caring for their children are simply equipped to handle any situation
that may arise in that classroom. If not convinced, they will not send
their child to the Head Start program, which would deprive the child
from needed preparation for school.
Now, for Head Start teachers, training will equip them with the
necessary tools, of course, to be successful. Many human resources
studies show the most common cause for dissatisfaction with a job is
when employees feel ill equipped to meet the goals that are expected of
them.
Now this dissatisfaction is compounded for educational professionals,
because when they fail to meet their goals, they feel they have failed
the child. With proper training, teachers will feel empowered. They
will have greater understanding of the underlying issues causing
difficulty for that child and will be armed with a strategy to help
them so they can ultimately succeed.
Training can make that experience teaching children with disabilities
a positive one instead of a negative one. Now, there was a teacher who
did not feel properly trained, for example, to teach a child with
disabilities. When required to include a student with disabilities in
her classroom, she then received the necessary training to do it. As a
result, and this is a good clear example, this is what she said.
``Ronnie is truly my most favorite student and my greatest
accomplishment.'' Now that is a learning disability student. Bear with
me here. ``Thanks to him, I cannot wait to get to school every morning
to see what he has learned today. Thanks to him I feel proud to be a
teacher again. On November 3, 2001, I never thought anything good could
come out from having him in my class. Little did I know that he would
be a great blessing for which I will always be thankful.''
Our children deserve effective teachers. Children with a disability
generally do not respond well to change. We all know that. School is an
enormous change that needs to be adequately prepared for. When starting
school, they enter that simple, unknown world that scares them.
Many of the expectations are new. Directions from the teachers do not
make sense. They feel out of control themselves and they feel sort of
helpless. Teachers can ease that child's anxiety, see when they are
feeling overwhelmed, and simply provide support, and, more importantly,
guidance.
They are also able to give children specific strategies to handle
these feelings, their feelings on their own, so that they in turn will
feel more in control.

[[Page H8306]]

By attending Head Start programs staffed with trained professionals,
children will experience less stress, be more comfortable with their
peers, accustom themselves with the behavioral expectations of
classrooms, and learn strategies to deal with the inevitable
distractions that are in a school setting.
These are vital skills for them to learn at any time. And by learning
them before beginning school, they will be better focused, more and
better equipped to learn.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support my amendment. Provide
Head Start employees with the training they need to support families
and children with disabilities.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I do not oppose the amendment, but I ask
unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Delaware?
There was no objection.
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to say how strongly I personally, and I
hope all of us would support the Stearns amendment. I think it makes a
tremendous amount of sense.
This amendment, the one before it, and a couple of others we have I
think actually truly improve the bill. They are not just amendments we
are accepting, but they are amendments which indeed make the bill
better.
The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) has pointed out, in my
judgment, a significant problem in education. I think it is greater as
you deal with lower-income children, to even a greater extent than
perhaps it is with other children, and as a result of that, I think
such training is absolutely in order.
So I would like to thank the gentleman for that and I would like to
congratulate him for thinking of the idea. Certainly I am in support of
the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns.)
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Stearns) will be postponed.

{time} 1345

The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Bass). It is now in order to consider
amendment No. 5 printed in House Report 109-229.

Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Davis of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 5 offered by Mr. Davis of Illinois:
Page 110, after line 19, insert the following new
subsection (and redesignate subsequent subsections proposed
to be added by the relevant provision accordingly):
``(h) The Secretary shall develop and implement an outreach
program to train and recruit African-American and Latino-
American men to become Head Start teachers in order to
increase the provision of quality services and instruction to
children with diverse backgrounds.''.

The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 455, the gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. Davis) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I know that there are many people who believe that good
teachers are good teachers and wherever good teaching takes place
learning will also occur. And I believe that teaching is the most noble
of all professions that exists on the face of the Earth, because when
you teach, you bind yourself to someone else and they often bond and
bind themselves to you and a transference of learning often takes place
that way.
My amendment addresses the fact that there are so few African
American and Latino males teaching Head Start and we need to do
something about that. My amendment instructs the Secretary of HHS to
develop a recruitment and training program to help get rid of this
absence of male African American and Latino teachers.
I have observed that many African American and Latino boys go through
all of elementary school never having access to a male black or Latino
teacher. As a result of that, many of them grow up with the idea that
education is not for them, that it is a female thing, that it is a
woman thing, that it is a girl thing. And they drop out at third and
fourth grades because psychologically and emotionally and
experientially they have decided that this is not the way to go.
This amendment need not cost a great deal of money at its onset; but
it will, in fact, prevent a rise in drop-out rates. It will, in fact,
prevent many of the ills and social problems that we encounter today as
a result of the high number of boys who drop out of school.
I would urge support for this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I do not oppose the amendment, but I ask
unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Delaware?
There was no objection.
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I do rise in support of the Davis amendment. I believe
this is one that improves our legislation.
The amendment supports outreach efforts to train and recruit African
American and Latino American men to become Head Start teachers. Any
such teachers would still be required to meet teacher qualification
requirements, of course, which are in the School Readiness Act.
The amendment would help to ensure African American and Latino
American men are encouraged to become teachers, Head Start teachers. I
think that is a goal that is very laudable, teachers in general, as a
matter of fact.
This amendment supports these men to provide quality services and
instruction to the many children with diverse backgrounds and
participate in the Head Start program. That is absolutely true. That
there are many people with diverse backgrounds in the Head Start
program. It is important to understand this amendment does not create a
new program. Instead, it directs the Secretary of HHS to support
outreach to minorities. That is only correct and right, and for that
reason I hope we would all support the Davis amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may
consume time to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend, the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Davis), for offering this amendment and the gentleman
from Delaware (Mr. Castle) for his support.
Approximately two-thirds of Head Start children are African American
or Hispanic, but not nearly so many of their teachers are. The more
diverse our teachers are, the better they will be able to understand
the experiences of children in our evermore diverse society, and the
better they will be able to help those children learn. And the children
will also learn better because they will have models that they are
missing in their lives right now.
I want to caution, however, any Member that cares about teacher
diversity not to vote for the Boustany amendment because religious
discrimination bears a direct relationship to race and ethnicity. It
goes hand in hand. Think about that if you want diversity with your
teachers.
This is an excellent amendment that is provided by the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Davis) and I support it.
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for supporting this amendment. We

[[Page H8307]]

have had a very good process I think in the Committee on Education and
the Workforce in moving toward the reauthorization of Head Start. It is
a good group of people to work with. It is a committee that I enjoy
working with.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois
(Mr. Davis) will be postponed.
It is now in order to consider amendment No. 6 printed in House
Report 109-229.

Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Kind

Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 6 offered by Mr. Kind:
Page 122, after line 17, insert the following (and make
such technical and conforming changes as may be appropriate):
(e) National Assessmenet System.--Section 649 of the Head
Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9834), as amended by subsection (d), is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(j) National Reporting System.--The Secretary shall
temporarily suspend the implementation of the National
Reporting System pending the completion of the
recommendations required by subsection (h), and shall
integrate such recommendations to develop a national
assessment system, as appropriate, that will inform improving
Head Start program success.''.

The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 455, the gentleman
from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment is very simple and straightforward. It
would suspend the use and implementation of the National Reporting
Service until the National Research Council of the National Academy of
Sciences has an opportunity to conduct their study to determine what
would be the proper measurements, standards, and assessments to be used
with children at this age with different developmental stages in their
life.
Mr. Chairman, I believe this is a very important issue because there
has been a lot of outside expertise devoted to early childhood
learning, and we are going to be taking measurements that they are done
appropriately so we do not do any harm to them; and that is why I
believe that what is in the bill right now calling for a National
Academy study to be conducted so that the National Reporting System can
use those recommendations for measurements and standards as we move
forward will improve the quality of Head Start.
It was not so long ago, Mr. Chairman, when the National Research
Council of the academy published a book called ``Eager to Learn,
Educating Our Preschoolers.'' And in that publication they indicated
why it is important for us to take the time and the energy to make sure
that we get the measurements done correctly rather than wrongly.
In that book I quote their summary: ``All assessments, and
particularly assessments for accountability, must be used carefully and
appropriately if they are to resolve and not create educational
problems. Assessments of young children pose greater challenges than
people generally realize. The first five years of life are a time of
incredible growth and learning. But the course of development is uneven
and sporadic. The status of a child's development, as of any given day,
can change very rapidly. Consequently, assessment results, in
particular, standardized test scores that reflect a given point in
time, can easily misrepresent children's learning.''
Now, when the National Reporting System was created, it was done
internally. I do not believe that there was any consultation with us
members of the committee, nor were any outside experts brought in for
advice or consent or what standards and assessments should be used.
Shortly after the National Reporting System was implemented, the
President then appointed his technical working group for the NRS. This
was a group of outside experts. Even the technical working group trying
to work with the National Reporting System has highlighted a lot of
problems and deficiencies with the current system and is recommending
changes to it.
That advice from the technical working group was recently backed up
and supported by a May GAO report which found, among other things: ``If
the test is to be used as a measure of program performance or assess
changes in child outcomes, it is important to ensure that it is
sensitive to the range of development typically demonstrated in Head
Start. Based on our analysis and that of the technical working group
and independent experts, we continue to believe that further study is
necessary to ensure that the NRS results are reliable and valid and the
results are appropriate for intended purposes.''
Mr. Chairman, we have had a lot of discussions in this committee. We
have had a discussion during the hearings and markup of this bill. I
have enjoyed working with the chairman of the committee and the ranking
members of the appropriate committees in trying to resolve this issue.
I think we can resolve it. I think it is the right direction to go with
the amendment that I am offering. I hope my colleagues will support it.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I do not oppose the amendment, but I ask
unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Ohio?
There was no objection.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).
The amendment would temporarily suspend a large-scale assessment of
Head Start children while needed work is done to ensure that the test
is suitable for Head Start children and until we have greater
assurances that the results are accurate and used for appropriate
purposes.
The Head Start National Reporting System developed by the Department
of Health and Human Services is a standardized assessment administered
at the beginning to all 4- and 5-year-olds enrolled in Head Start.
During the first year's administration, the National Reporting System
was completed by nearly 437,000 preschool children participating in
Head Start, including 35,000 children with disabilities and 125,000
children with limited English proficiency.
The NRS was developed with limited congressional authority and input
and has been the subject of great concern by many child development and
early childhood advocates. There was general agreement by early
childhood experts on the value of the assessment, and I tend to agree
with that; and children are assessed regularly in nearly every
preschool program across the country, including all Head Start
classrooms.
I, too, recognize that early childhood assessments play an important
role in measuring children's progress in key areas such as vocabulary,
letter recognition, and early math, as well as other aspects of early
childhood development.
I also agree with this administration that better data is needed on
how well individual Head Start programs are doing in preparing children
for kindergarten. However, we have a responsibility to ensure that
assessments are conducted appropriately and effectively. And if we are
going to do this, we need to make sure we get it right.
I want to commend the Secretary for convening panels to review and
take steps to improve the National Reporting System, but I also believe
that more time should be taken to make sure we get it right before its
data are used to evaluate the progress of children participating in
individual Head Start programs.
Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy).

[[Page H8308]]

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, the most important people
in a child's life are their parents. The success of Head Start has been
that the parents have been involved at the earliest of ages in their
child's development.
The amendment by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind), which I
rise to support, is an amendment that simply says let us take the
evidence based on how we should approach education for children and let
us apply what we know is the best way to include measurements of a
child in their formative years of life.
What I think all of us saw in the expeditious movement to put in
place these tests was the fact that we rushed into it without taking
enough time to take a look at it. All of my Head Start teachers have
told me that the testing that is currently in place is testing that is
not effective and that what would be more effective would be finding
out through the National Academy of Sciences what they recommend in
terms of the evaluation of those children.

{time} 1400

So I want to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) and I want
to join him in saying that learning, as we know and as the chairman
knows so well, does not begin in first grade. It begins at birth, and
the parents need to be involved in their child's life. Head Start is
about the emotional and social development of a child which can guide
their ability to learn literacy all the way down their educational
life.
They will not learn unless they have the best emotional and social
development from early on because they will not be able to sit still;
they will not be able to focus; they will not be able to do those
things that we are going to be testing them for down the line.
With that, I thank the chairman of the Committee on Education and the
Workforce for this time.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I suggest to my colleagues that the
amendment the gentleman from Wisconsin offers, he and I have worked
together on this closely over the course of this year. I think it is a
good amendment and would urge my colleagues to adopt it.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman of the committee for his
support of the amendment and for working with us in order to get this
accomplished. I also want to thank the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr.
Kennedy), my good friend, for helping to elevate this issue and educate
other Members in this place about the importance of the measurements
and the assessments that are being used, especially for these children
at this early age.
Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent
request to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), the ranking
member of the subcommittee, and thank her for her support.
(Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Kind) for yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my friend, Mr. Kind, for offering this
important amendment.
It is one thing to assess children to understand how best to help
them learn.
But, this Administration rushed to test hundreds of thousands of
children, and in so doing, used tests that are invalid and unreliable.
Moreover, in its rush, the Administration also seems to have
virtually no idea how to use this unreliable data. Had the data been
reliable, it would still have been virtually useless.
This amendment will bring a critically needed scientific perspective
to bear on the Administration and keep them from implementing this
program until they do it right. It is an important amendment and I
support it.
Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the remainder of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Bass). The question is on the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 7
printed in House Report 109-229.

Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Mica

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 7 offered by Mr. Mica:
At the end of the bill, insert the following new sections:

SECTION ___. QUALITY STANDARDS; MONITORING OF HEAD START
AGENCIES AND PROGRAMS.

Section 641A of the Head Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9836a) is
further amended by adding at the end the following new
subsection:
``(g) In carrying out the provisions of section 641A, and
in addition to the use of whatever other resources the
Secretary deems appropriate, the Secretary shall--
``(1) contract with an intermediary organization which, in
the determination of the Secretary, meets each of the
following criteria--
``(A) focuses on improving the performance management and
the use of technology for non-profit, educational, and social
service organizations;
``(B) has demonstrated experience in providing a range of
assistance, including but not limited to--
``(i) assessing performance metrics;
``(ii) the use of technology;
``(iii) improving financial management; and
``(iv) developing recommendations to improve performance
and the use of technology;
``(C) has a proven methodology for systemic change in the
not-for-profit sector, including governmental and
nongovernmental entities;
``(D) has demonstrated results in providing performance
management support to small-, mid- and large-size not-for-
profit organizations annually on a pro bono basis;
``(E) has demonstrated the ability to identify areas for
program improvement related to--
``(i) accomplishing the goals and objectives as outlined in
Head Start regulations, reporting criteria and measurement of
program outcomes;
``(ii) meeting reporting requirements
``(iii) using technology in classrooms and enabling its use
by administrators;
``(F) has demonstrated the ability to develop an
implementation plan for recommended improvements by the
organizations it assists;
``(G) has demonstrated the ability to assist with and
provide on-site, hands-on guidance with the implementation of
the recommendations;
``(H) has demonstrated the ability to tailor the assessment
and implementation process to the children and communities
served (where appropriate); and
``(I) has demonstrated the ability to create an online
community that allows Head Start administrators, teachers,
service providers, parents, policy makers, and other
stakeholders to communicate and provide support during and
following the assessment and subsequent implementation
process;
``(2) utilize the intermediary organization selected in
paragraph (1) not later than 90 days from the date of
enactment of this Act to--
``(A) assess the performance of the Secretary in overseeing
the Head Start Bureau and ensuring the effective management
of the Head Start program in the areas of finance,
operations, human capital, and customer service;
``(B) evaluate the Department's organizational structure,
policies, and procedures for managing Head Start grant
recipients, make recommendations to improve national program
quality and maximize the efficiency in the use of program
dollars, and support implementation of the recommendations;
``(C) evaluate the Secretary's administrative resource
allocations to determine if investment is properly targeted
based on risk assessment to address the program's most
significant national and local challenges, and propose
adjustments as appropriate;
``(D) evaluate and identify best practice Head Start models
and build process models to enable their replication;
``(E) develop early warning systems to identify Head Start
programs that need intervention;
``(F) evaluate processes to assist Head Start programs that
need intervention in implementing necessary program
improvements;
``(G) evaluate the effectiveness of the current process for
selecting Head Start organizations and develop and implement
improvements to ensure that performance metrics emerge as a
key criteria for evaluating successful Head Start applicants,
including the creation of evaluation criteria that ensure the
selection of quality Head Start applicants;
``(H) evaluate how the Department targets resources to
remedy ongoing problems or deficiencies in the program's
management or governance, and propose solutions as
appropriate; and
``(I) conduct a detailed assessment of the Secretary's
ability to monitor grantees.''.

SEC. ___. ALLOTMENT OF FUNDS.

Section 640(a)(2) of the Head Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9835) is
further amended by adding at the end the following new
clause:
``(v) not less than $7,500,000 of the amount in clause
(iii) appropriated for fiscal years 2006 and 2007 shall be
made available to carry out activities described in section
641A(g).''.

The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 455, the gentleman

[[Page H8309]]

from Florida (Mr. Mica) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica).
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
First, I want to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Boehner),
also the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis), the gentleman from
Delaware (Mr. Castle), the subcommittee chairman, and others who have
worked on this legislation. There is probably no piece of legislation
in this Congress that is more important to the future of this country
and our children and our students than this piece of legislation.
I have educated as an educator and have worked over the years to try
to get improvement in the quality of Head Start, and I commend all of
those involved and also the President of the United States for
emphasizing improving the quality of Head Start.
We spend $7,222 per student for some 900,000 students involved in
Head Start and improving the quality. These young people can learn, and
they should have an academic component, and we should have the best
personnel in these Head Start programs, and we have gone a long way in
that regard.
Unfortunately, over the course of the last years, we have had
incidents of waste, fraud, abuse, mismanagement, even financial abuse
of taxpayer dollars in the Head Start programs, and again, we have
limited taxpayer dollars to expend, and we want them expended in the
most efficient and proper manner.
While a large majority of Head Start programs have very responsible
management and organization in place, I think Congress has an
obligation to improve known problems before they get worse and also
insist on correction.
Weak or failing Head Start programs are unfair to taxpayers, but
mostly, and most importantly, they are unfair to the children who need
assistance in these programs, not to mention they are unfair to the
taxpayers.
So this amendment directs the Secretary of HHS to undertake a
management reform initiative, and I want to thank the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Boehner) for crafting this amendment, and he has my strong
support, and I am pleased to offer it because we want this to be the
best program possible.
In conclusion, I just want to give a couple of examples. I have one
Head Start program I looked at that has 135 students, 17 teachers, and
none of the teachers are certified in the program. That should be
corrected by this legislation. But the cost for the program is
$900,000, and we are spending $72,000 per student on this one Head
Start program.
I have other Head Start programs, one in my district, where we have
526 students, and we reviewed what other preschool programs were
paying. Right now, it is costing us about $8,439 per student. The most
expensive private prep school in the district costs $8,400 a year. The
private Catholic school costs $2,160 a year, and the private Christian
academy costs $4,400 a year.
We need to look at what the management, what the waste and
inefficiencies are in the programs that we have with Head Start, make
certain that we are expending this money properly, that we eliminate
bureaucracy, wasteful mismanagement and, unfortunately, in some
instances, fraud and abuse.
This amendment will go a long way towards achieving that goal and
making certain that every one of these taxpayer dollars are spent in
the best way to benefit these children and give them truly a head
start.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I do not oppose the amendment, but I ask
unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Ohio?
There was no objection.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise in support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Mica) which makes further improvements to the management
of the Head Start program. This has been a particular concern of mine
as we have held hearings and taken a comprehensive look at how we can
improve the effectiveness of the program on behalf of children and
families. As we have heard here today, there are many great things
happening in Head Start, but many of my colleagues on both sides of the
aisle share my view that not everything is working as well as it
should.
When approaching this reauthorization, I took my job seriously to
take a hard look at every aspect of the Head Start program and work
toward the reforms that were necessary to make this program the very
best that it can be. And to be perfectly frank, I did not like
everything that I saw.
Over the course of the last several years, incidents of waste, fraud,
program mismanagement, and even financial abuse of taxpayer dollars
have been reported in at least two dozen Head Start programs across the
country. While a large majority of the Head Start programs have
responsible management organizations in place, I think this Congress
has an obligation to improve known problems before they get worse. I
think it is unfair to taxpayers, but most importantly, it is unfair to
children and their parents who count on the Head Start program.
The underlying bill contains meaningful program reforms, focused
primarily on improving program oversight and accountability at the
local level, but in my assessment, additional reforms are needed to
ensure effective program management at the top. In fact, as a recent
General Accountability Office report reveals, there are systemic flaws
in the program's Federal management, and these systemic flaws have been
there for many, many years.
There is no need no question that we need to fix the problems at the
local level. However, addressing issues locally is not enough, and I
believe weaknesses in the Federal oversight mechanisms have contributed
to the rash of financial mismanagement that we have seen in recent
years because Head Start lacks the fundamental management standards and
risk-based assessment tools necessary to prevent these types of abuses.
This amendment offers reforms that will lead to more efficient and
effective Federal management of the Head Start program. In my view, the
best way to accomplish this goal is for the department to contract with
an experienced, independent organization to conduct a wholesale review,
and support the implementation of reforms to the system of Federal
management of Head Start grants. The amendment would task the
intermediary organization to evaluate all systems affecting program
quality, including grant selection, resource allocation, and processes
to ensure the early identification of programs in need of intervention.
This amendment I think is a commonsense opportunity to inject
accountability and sound management principles into the upper levels of
the Head Start program. This bill seeks excellence from local Head
Start programs, and I believe the same standard should be applied to
the Federal Head Start structure as well.
Mr. Chairman, passage of the underlying bill will mark an important
step toward enactment of the most far-reaching reforms to Head Start
since the program first began 40 years ago, and this amendment could
greatly improve the national program quality and maximize the use of
taxpayer dollars. I want to thank my colleague from Florida, once
again, for offering this amendment and ask my colleagues to support it.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
In conclusion, I know we all saw the pictures that were quite
shocking in New Orleans, and many people were stunned by the level of
poverty that we saw when the dikes and the levees broke. Much more was
broken in that community and our communities, and that is, the
education of our poorest children. No piece of legislation will do
more, I think, in advancing the interests and the educational
opportunities for our children than this legislation.
So I thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), I thank the
gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Boehner), the gentleman from Delaware
(Mr. Castle), and others involved in moving this important piece of
legislation forward, improving the quality and also improving the
management, making certain with this amendment

[[Page H8310]]

that every dollar goes towards the betterment of those disadvantaged in
our society.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica).
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 8
printed in House Report 109-229.

Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Filner

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 8 offered by Mr. Filner:
At the end of the bill, add the following new section:

SEC. ___. TEACHER RETENTION REPORT.

Not later than one year after implementation of the Head
Start teacher qualifications and development under amendments
made by this Act, the Secretary of Health and Human Services
shall submit to Congress a report on Head Start teacher
retention levels.

The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 455, the gentleman
from California (Mr. Filner) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner).
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I just would read the amendment: ``Not later than one year after
implementation of the Head Start teacher qualifications and development
under amendments made by this Act, the Secretary of Health and Human
Services shall submit to Congress a report on Head Start teacher
retention levels.''
I rise to support this amendment, and I want to thank the gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Woolsey), my good friend, who for the 13 years she
has been here has been a tireless advocate for Head Start and all other
education programs that provide access of all our country's children to
the quality education that they deserve. I know she looks forward to
the day, as I do, that we do get full funding for the Head Start
program for all children who are eligible in this Nation, and we will
work with the gentlewoman toward that end.
We all know and we have heard today from both sides of the aisle
about the importance and quality of Head Start. It has played, for four
decades now, a vital role in the lives of thousands of children and
parents across the country, and certainly in my home area of San Diego
and Imperial Counties of California.
The government gets it right on Head Start. We are providing
opportunities for children in underserved areas where parents may not
be able to afford preschool so they can begin their schooling with a
running or Head Start.
I have witnessed Head Start's benefits firsthand at different levels.
Before entering Congress, I taught for 20 years as a history professor
at San Diego State University, and I will tell my colleagues that, even
at that level, the students who had been through Head Start as children
owe that program a great deal for their getting through college, and
they may not even have been able to get through high school without it.
I was on the San Diego school board for 4 years, where I watched
children successfully matriculate into elementary schools from Head
Start programs from all around our city. It was clear then, and remains
equally clear today, that the work of Head Start plays an enormously
significant role within our education community.

{time} 1415

Now, as we know, in this year's reauthorization, Congress is
implementing the strongest requirements for teacher qualifications and
development in Head Start's history. Teachers will have to have more
incoming experience and face more on-the-job professional development
than ever before.
I commend the committee and I commend this Congress for taking that
action, but we have to remember that, as we add these more stringent
requirements and more accountability and more professional development,
we are going to have to fund the resources necessary to achieve that.
In fact, we have to answer the question: Might we be pricing Head
Start right out of the teaching market? Right now, teaching is a
profession that has more openings than can be filled. When we
drastically increase the work requirements without increasing the
salary levels, there is a risk of running many successful and
experienced teachers right out of the program. If we narrow Head
Start's hiring pool, it may be forced to compete with institutions that
have greater funding and resources to hire. So without providing far
more funding than this bill offers, hiring may become difficult as
prospective teachers may go elsewhere.
We have seen that, in another unfunded mandate, the so-called No
Child Left Behind Act, which created tougher standards, and we all
support that, but Congress did not provide the money to attract and
hire the best teachers. So since there is a real possibility of
increased teacher requirements leading to a dropoff in the number of
experienced Head Start teachers, I hope the House will accept my
amendment, which calls for the Secretary of Health and Human Services
to submit to Congress a study reporting on Head Start's teacher
retention levels. This study will be completed within 1 year of the
enactment of the new regulations.
With this study, we will have an early look at the impact of these
regulations. It will paint a picture of whether Head Start teachers are
staying and meeting the new requirements or whether these new
requirements are inadvertently driving experienced teachers from such
an important program as Head Start. These early results will tell us if
we are on the correct path or if we need to modify some of the rules
before there is more damage.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I do not oppose the amendment, but I ask
unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Bass). Is there objection to the request of
the gentleman from Delaware?
There was no objection.
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
First, let me just say that I strongly support the Filner amendment.
Actually, it is interesting to hear some of these amendments, because
they would apply to education in general and not just to Head Start,
and I think this is one that falls into that category.
It is very important to understand qualifications, retention, and
what is happening in that particular area. I think, as I know the
gentleman from California (Mr. Filner) is aware, but I think everybody
needs to be aware of the fact that the underlying bill requires that at
least 50 percent of all Head Start teachers nationwide have a
baccalaureate or advanced degree in early childhood education or
related field by September 30, 2011. And it also requires that within 3
years all Head Start teachers hired after the date of enactment of this
act must have at least an associate degree in early childhood education
or related field, or be enrolled in a program of study leading to an
associate degree in early childhood education or related field within 3
years.
These are significant steps. They will enhance the educational
progress as far as Head Start is concerned. We also need to worry about
the retention. It is going to raise economic issues in terms of being
able to pay for this. We are clearly going to have to look at that in
terms of our future appropriations. So I think all this melds together
in what in my mind would be a dramatic improvement in Head Start.
Again, we retain all of the services presently provided. It is just
that there is an added emphasis on the educational side of it, which I
think we all agree is needed. So I am strongly in support of the
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman both for his support
and for his commitment to Head Start. I also have fond remembrance of
being a graduate student at the University of Delaware, which the
gentleman knows very well, and appreciate the education in his State of
Delaware.
Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Woolsey).

[[Page H8311]]

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from
California (Mr. Filner) for offering this amendment and the chairman,
the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) for supporting it.
We know the base bill increases teacher quality requirements, and we
also know that we are not doing nearly enough to help Head Start
programs hire and keep these more qualified teachers. So I support my
colleague's interests and understanding on making this happen.
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Filner).
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Committee will rise informally.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Terry) assumed the Chair.

____________________