[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 11]
[House]
[Pages 15183-15189]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                   HEAD START AND PRESCRIPTION DRUGS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 7, 2003, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, it is certainly my pleasure this evening 
to come here to the floor of the House to address on behalf of the 
Congressional Black Caucus two issues that are of

[[Page 15184]]

paramount concern. Both of them go to the very essence of life and both 
of them address two populations within these United States who are so 
often quite vulnerable.
  Those issues go to addressing our Head Start program, which is one of 
the most effective programs in the world with regard to lifting up our 
children so that they can be all that God meant for them to be; and the 
other one goes to our seniors, with regard to their need for 
prescription drugs.

                              {time}  1715

  Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that these generations, the generations 
that count on us the most, are being neglected, overlooked and 
underprotected by this Nation's policymakers. My Republican colleagues 
seemed to be running trains in opposite directions on the same track 
this week; and, as a result, the programs that benefit children and the 
services needed by seniors are inevitably headed on a collision course 
that benefits no one.
  First, the House Committee on Education and the Workforce is 
considering the School Readiness Act of 2003. The supposed intention of 
this bill is to better prepare Head Start graduates to begin 
kindergarten, as well as to set high standards for preschool readiness, 
teacher qualifications and comprehensive services. I say the supposed 
intention, Mr. Speaker, because this bill is, in truth, a thinly veiled 
attempt to dismantle one of the best tools used by the Federal 
Government to combat the negative effects of poverty on child learning.
  It seems evident to me that my Republican colleagues do not believe 
that the government's role is to provide social services or provide a 
safety net for the American people. So my colleagues on the other side 
of the aisle have begun to attack these social programs that lend a 
hand up to many in hopes of greatly enriching the few with tax cuts we 
simply cannot afford.
  My Republican colleagues are masking the true intentions of this 
bill, Mr. Speaker, and their deceit must be exposed. But this is no 
surprise, because it has been done before, again and again. The tax cut 
that passed this House not too long ago, with its sunset provisions, is 
a good example of Republican attempts to mask the true purpose of 
legislation.
  The administration, Mr. Speaker, is claiming that Head Start children 
do not perform as well as other children once they get to kindergarten. 
Just the other day, I was at the Union Baptist Church Head Start Center 
in Baltimore, which is approximately 3 minutes from my home. I went 
there, Mr. Speaker, to watch little children graduate from Head Start, 
to hear many of them read on a second and third grade level, yet still 
we have those on the other side of the aisle who say that Head Start 
simply does not work. I would say to them that they need to go to the 
Union Baptist Church in Baltimore, only a 50-minute drive from D.C., 
and they will see young, beautiful children born into poverty but 
enriched by caring parents, caring teachers, and administrators at 
their Head Start center, and they are going to be all that God meant 
for them to be.
  But, Mr. Speaker, the comparison of Head Start students with students 
who are not from poverty situations is a false comparison. Studies have 
shown that those students who participate in Head Start versus those 
that are similarly situated but do not participate in Head Start are 
far better off having been exposed to the Head Start program. But I 
should be clear: Head Start is not intended to be a solution. It is 
intended to be a head start.
  We cannot solve all the problems of society that these kids are 
exposed to in the Head Start program. I have often seen where children 
will come to school and because they have not had the advantage of 
having been in Head Start, a lot of times those students from poor 
areas are already behind. Then what happens is they will go into a 
school and the kindergarten teachers tell us that they have to spend a 
phenomenal amount of time making sure that the other children, the 
children who are behind, are able to catch up to the other children. 
So, therefore, all the children are held up.
  Mr. Speaker, instead of skewing survey results that benefit certain 
political ideologies, what we should be focusing on is improving what 
we know works. What we should focus on is strengthening and expanding 
this vital program for our youth and not seek to undermine and 
eventually eliminate it as we know it.
  Mr. Speaker, I now want to discuss Medicare and the proposed 
prescription drug plan. Mr. Speaker, one's retirement years are often 
referred to as the golden years. But, today, the high cost of living 
and our slowing economy are making these golden years very difficult 
ones to enjoy. For that reason, I urge the House to pass a Medicare 
prescription drug plan that will alleviate the burdens retired seniors 
face when they are on a fixed budget.
  The median household income of 65 and over is a mere $23,118. In my 
home State of Maryland, 70,000 seniors currently live on incomes that 
fall below the Federal poverty line of $12,120, yet most of us know 
that one of the biggest obstacles to enjoying their golden years is the 
cost of prescription drugs. Eighty percent of American seniors take a 
prescription drug every day. Of this, approximately 5 million seniors 
must pay for prescription drugs that cost more than $4,500 a year, 
while almost 3 million must pay more than $5,800 for their medicines. 
If we do the math, this comes out to paying anywhere from $375 to $483 
per month, on top of the challenges I just mentioned.
  Mr. Speaker, beyond the numbers are the real stories of real people. 
When I visit senior citizens throughout my district, the one thing they 
ask is for us to be honest with them and to pass a meaningful and 
workable prescription drug plan; and they say, ``Please do it now, 
Congressman. We can't wait 5 years, because in 5 years we will be dead 
without our prescriptions.'' One lady told me she must go from pharmacy 
to pharmacy just to find free samples of the medicine she needs to 
survive. Another lady told me that she must cut her pills in half in 
order to save on the cost. And it is not unusual for me to hear stories 
about how seniors have gone without groceries, electricity, or other 
necessities just so they can pay for their prescription drugs. These 
are people that I hope my colleagues will think of as they vote on a 
Medicare prescription drug plan in the next few weeks.
  I believe these stories I just shared are not unique to Baltimore. 
Every Member of this House probably has individuals such as the ones I 
described in his or her district. Yesterday, the Committee on Ways and 
Means passed H.R. 2473, the Prescription Drug and Medicare 
Modernization Act of 2003. That sounds awfully good in name, but it 
actually undermines the very nature of the health care program that 
serves more than 40 million elderly and disabled Americans. Although 
there is a prescription drug coverage provision in this bill, seniors 
still have to struggle to pay for their medicines.
  Although the plan would cover 80 percent of drugs that cost between 
$251 and $2,000, this leaves out millions of people I mentioned earlier 
whose average cost of drugs is $4,500. This is because the bill passed 
by the Committee on Ways and Means would provide zero coverage for 
drugs that cost between $2,000 and $4,900. This is a huge gap where no 
assistance or coverage is available. I therefore urge my colleagues to, 
instead, adopt a Medicare prescription drug program that is affordable, 
available to all seniors and disabled Medicare beneficiaries, offers 
meaningful benefits, and is available within the traditional Medicare 
program.
  We have introduced such a plan, H.R. 1199, the Medicare Prescription 
Drug Benefit Discount Act of 2003. I applaud my good friend and 
distinguished colleague from New York Congressman (Mr. Rangel) for 
sponsoring this bill. I am also a cosponsor, along with most of the 
members of the Congressional Black Caucus.
  Another concern I have about the Republican sponsored H.R. 2473 is 
that it relies heavily on privatization in order to manage cost. The 
problem with the GOP plan, Mr. Speaker, is that it

[[Page 15185]]

would force seniors to use private insurance companies for drug 
coverage rather than relying on Medicare, which by the way seniors have 
paid for all their lives. They have worked day after day, year after 
year, given their blood, sweat and tears to support a program which now 
seems, if the Republicans' efforts are successful, to abandon them.
  Although supporters of the GOP plan claim that competition would help 
control cost, the truth is that privatization would open a Pandora's 
box, because private insurance companies and managed care plans would 
design the new prescription drug plans. The private companies would 
also decide what to charge and then decide which drugs seniors would 
get. And private insurance plans would only have to promise to stay in 
the program for 1 year. This would result in seniors being compelled to 
change plans, change doctors, and even change the drugs they take every 
12 months.
  Skeptics who are listening to me right now, Mr. Speaker, may be 
thinking that this is only speculation. But in April, I spoke with a 
group of seniors at the Vantage House Continuing Care Retirement 
Community in Columbia, Maryland, who testified that privatization would 
be detrimental to the health care needs of our seniors. For example, 
under a similar program called Medicare-Plus Choice, that was mandated 
by the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, many seniors have experienced 
obstacles in receiving quality health care. Medicare-Plus Choice is a 
Medicare program administered by an HMO.
  The program was introduced to provide Medicare beneficiaries with 
access to greater benefits than the traditional Medicare program and, 
at the same time, to reduce Medicare spending. However, the Alliance of 
Retired Americans has reported that this goal has failed. For example, 
over 2.2 million beneficiaries have been involuntarily kicked out of 
the program since 1999, 327,000 of whom had no other Medicare-Plus 
Choice program available to them. Nearly 200,000 more beneficiaries are 
expected to be dropped by their Medicare-Plus Choice plan in 2003.
  One of the main reasons for the policy cancellation is because 
providers, such as doctors and hospitals, are increasingly unwilling to 
accept HMO payments they consider inadequate to cover the cost of care. 
This is exactly what will happen if the Republican plan is adopted. If 
we really and truly want to make sure that seniors enjoy their golden 
years, then this particular bill take us in the wrong direction.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to not overlook our 
concerns. This is not about politics, it is about people, my 
constituents, who have worked hard all their lives, who have built this 
country and made it one of the best countries in the world, and now 
they simply ask that they be treated fairly.
  I also want to take a moment to thank our leader on the Democratic 
side, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi). She has been at the 
forefront of both of these issues, addressing the issue of prescription 
drugs and addressing the issue of Head Start. Her sensitivity, her 
constant efforts to bring these issues before the American people is 
greatly appreciated by our caucus and I am sure greatly appreciated by 
all Americans.
  Mr. Speaker, it gives me great honor and great privilege to yield to 
my colleague, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Watson).

                              {time}  1730

  Ms. WATSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address my concerns about 
H.R. 2210, the School Readiness Act. The major changes and new 
requirements under title II and title I will damage the integrity and 
efficacy of the program. This overhaul reverses the precedence in 
achievement that was created by the No Child Left Behind Act. NCLB 
seeks to close the achievement gap through stronger standards and 
stronger Federal oversight. H.R. 2210 attempts to reach the same 
solution by eliminating standards and oversight.
  Title I serves to weaken the performance standards of the current 
Head Start program. States will be able to lower teacher standards. 
H.R. 2210 decreases the percentage of funds reserved for training and 
technical assistance from no less than 2 percent to 1 to 2 percent. The 
bill requires minimal parental involvement. Head Start will become 
disassociated with the Department of Health and Human Services.
  A process of contracting out monitoring programs strikes the 
requirement that HHS oversee Head Start. The block grant encourages 
States to refer families to outside services for assistance that was 
once under the jurisdiction of HHS. This nullifies the 13 areas of Head 
Start performance standards that maintain the program's high level of 
quality. Under this legislation, the Secretary approves applications 
from States that meet the loose eligibility criteria by default. In 
essence there is no oversight or evaluation of the quality of the State 
plan.
  Mr. Speaker, since its inception under the guise of HHS, Head Start 
was designed to help the whole child. Current service offered through 
HHS cannot be carried out as effectively with minimum input by the 
Department.
  Above all, States will be forced to reduce the overall number of Head 
Start children served. States have already been forced to cut early 
childhood education programs outside of Head Start due to the budget 
crunch. The block grant allows States to use Head Start funds to 
supplement other Federal programs. Governors may be able to use this 
money to cover budget deficits in their States. In California, that 
receives over $800 million for Head Start, at the same time there is a 
$38 billion budget deficit. With the block grant proposal, my State has 
the option to use $800 million to close this budgetary gap.
  Changing the funding formula to block grants, under title II, creates 
a daunting scenario for the Head Start program. The four eligibility 
requirements under title II do not address quality or expertise. The 
legislation requires the bare minimum of States: an existing 
prekindergarten system, standards for school readiness, allocating no 
less than 50 percent of funds to grantees and their interagency 
coordination. All 50 States meet these requirements, but too few 
provide the quality level of services.
  At present only three States provide all the services needed to get 
at-risk children ready to learn. These States provide the same set of 
eight comprehensive services required of Head Start through state-run 
prekindergarten programs.
  Mr. Speaker, 30 States have such programs; yet only three are able to 
meet the standards that they created in order to prepare our children 
for success in school.
  Now we want to give all 50 States this responsibility, knowing full 
well that these States have not proven that they are able to do so. 
This will be a great disservice to our Nation's youth. We must make 
better investments in our children and our future instead of stuffing 
the pockets of millionaires. An investment in our children equals an 
investment in our Nation's strength, in our Nation's security, and in 
the future.
  The economic plans and the focus of the administration must be 
balanced between future consequences and immediate gain. We must also 
continue to keep the facts at the front of the debate so that the 
administration and Congress can make policy decisions based on the 
facts rather than on misguided interpretations and subjective 
judgments.
  Since 1965, Head Start has been one of the most successful anti-
poverty programs. According to a recent report of the President's 
Management Council, Head Start received the highest consumer 
satisfaction rating of any government agency or private business.
  The program has helped millions of children prepare for school, 
become productive students and improve the quality of their lives. The 
current program narrows the readiness gap between Head Start children 
and their more affluent peers. Almost 70 percent of children enrolled 
in Head Start programs are from minority groups. One-third of these 
students are African

[[Page 15186]]

Americans. Over 34,000 migrant and seasonal workers' children are 
served annually.
  Improving Head Start can be done without this major overhaul. As in 
the past, improvement can be done under the existing structure.
  Mr. Speaker, in 1998 Head Start supporters sought to ensure that at 
least 50 percent of all Head Start teachers acquire an associate of 
arts degree or better by the year 2003. The program has met this goal. 
The HeadsUp! Reading Network was established to train Head Start and 
other early childhood teachers across the Nation. These are 
improvements that we hope to establish through the No Child Left Behind 
Act. We have not yet met these goals, but Head Start has met its goals 
internally.
  Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to maintain Head Start as it 
is. It is the duty of Congress to protect the current and the future 
security of our Nation. We must continue to help the children of 
migrant workers, at-risk youth, and their parents. By supporting Head 
Start in its current form, we will be doing just that.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Watson) talked about block granting and how so many States have 
deficits, and I understand that California has a large deficit; is that 
correct?
  Ms. WATSON. We have a $38.5 billion deficit.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. I think just about every State has a deficit, and I 
think one of the things that we have been most concerned about is if 
this money then goes to the States, this Head Start money goes to the 
States, we are afraid what might happen to that money on its way to our 
children.
  Ms. WATSON. Certainly one would be tempted to fill in the gap. 
Because of our shortfall in funds and because of the oncoming tax cut, 
we will have fewer revenues and we will find programs like health 
competing against educational programs, and I do not know how they can 
be separated, and other social programs that are the safety net. You 
have to be compelled in some way when you have some money coming in to 
close the gap here and close the gap there. They are not going to be 
closed because they are too deep, but to address the needs with these 
funds intended for the Head Start program.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. One of the things that came out during the 
Congressional Black Caucus hearing yesterday was a parent from 
Baltimore, a woman name Portia Deshields, and she said the Head Start 
program had opened her eyes to so much. First of all, she was a Head 
Start child, and she placed her child in Head Start. The child just 
developed by leaps and bounds, had some problems, but Head Start was 
able to refer them to an appropriate therapist, was able to bring about 
this type of psychological counseling that the child needed, and then 
the child was able to graduate from Head Start.
  But the thing that was so interesting about what she said was by 
seeing what Head Start had done for her child and by being involved in 
Head Start, and as I understand it Head Start, the way the legislation 
is now, that is the present law, parents must be involved. It is a 
very, very important thing. She sat on the council for her Head Start 
organization; and the next thing she said she was so moved by what was 
going on with her child in Head Start and was so moved by the way she 
could affect her own Head Start program, she decided to go back to 
school, and in a few years she will be graduating from college. So her 
child was lifted up. And she and her family were lifted up.
  Ms. WATSON. Head Start is needed now more so than ever. With the new 
TANF requirements, you as a welfare recipient have to go back to work 
when the child is 6 months old. That means you are not in the home from 
zero to 5 to help nurture that child and teach them because you are 
working, and you are working a full day. So we need Head Start now so 
children can be ready to learn when they go to kindergarten, simple 
things like tying one's shoe, buttoning one's jacket, being able to 
share and work with others, those things that were done in the home 
that will no longer be able to be done in the home because one parent 
has to go to work, and these are single-parent families so they do not 
have the time to train their child.
  Head Start was created during the War on Poverty during the 1960s. It 
was the best thing we did to close the safety net. Why would we take a 
program which has had such successful outcomes, and these can be 
measured, and start whittling it away? I do not understand the 
thinking. It will cost us less in the long run to have a Head Start 
program and not a block grant in every State.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Research has shown that for every dollar we spend for 
Head Start, we save 4 to $7 later on. Of course we are talking about we 
help children avoid teenage pregnancy, juvenile delinquency, dropping 
out of school, which later on cost society quite a bit; but just as 
significant or more, the child has then missed out on his or her dream 
to be all that God meant for them to be. That is such a sad thing when 
they are denied the opportunity of getting to where they could be.
  Ms. WATSON. The research clearly shows if you invest in the early 
years, there will be more of a guarantee of success in the later years.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman's 
clarification on those issues.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), 
someone who has been at the forefront of people issues. When children 
come on the Earth, we already know that they have gifts; and the 
question is what will we do as adults to help them develop those gifts. 
She has certainly been at the forefront of the Head Start program to 
make sure we maintain Head Start and make it better, as well as a 
Member who has worked very hard on this issue of prescription drugs.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Cummings), chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, for the 
gentleman's leadership and for once again holding this Special Order to 
attempt to wake up America.

                              {time}  1745

  Tonight, of course, under the gentleman's leadership, we are once 
again talking about children and our senior citizens. Once again we are 
talking about the Bush administration's dismantling, total dismantling, 
of social programs. The Bush administration has really waged war on 
children and our senior citizens. They continue to dismantle, 
privatize, and create unfunded mandates that truly compound our State 
budget crisis and leave our children and our senior citizens behind. I 
have yet to see the compassionate conservatism which was promised over 
2 years ago. Actually on my report card, the Bush administration gets 
first an F for attempting to block grant the section 8 program, which 
helps kids live in mixed income areas and have the chance to go to 
mixed and integrated schools, and for eliminating the drug elimination 
program which provides violence prevention efforts in public housing to 
increase their safety at home.
  The Bush administration gets another F for attempting to block grant 
Medicare and Medicaid to the States and removing the responsibility of 
the Federal Government to provide health insurance to millions of 
children and to families by trying to give this to the States which are 
really suffering from fiscal shortfalls and extreme budget crises.
  They also get an F for failing to include the 12 million children, 12 
million, mind you, in their tax cut proposal. They also, based on my 
report card, get an F for attempting to privatize not only Social 
Security but the current Republican prescription drug benefit which 
will leave millions of seniors without coverage. They want to give 
really the insurance companies and the pharmaceutical companies another 
way to make more profits. In fact, according to Consumers Union, more 
seniors would pay more for medicines than they now do under their 
proposal. That is why they get an F for their prescription drug benefit 
plan.
  They also get an F on the economy, because the Bush administration 
and

[[Page 15187]]

this Congress has not provided a secure economy where families can 
provide for their children because they have jobs and a sense of 
stability and economic security, not because they have an alleged tax 
cut. They also get another F for their current Head Start attempts and 
for continuing to dismantle Head Start really, and that is what they 
are doing by block granting it and by reducing the effectiveness of 
Congress, State governments, and our communities.
  Tonight, many of us are talking specifically about Head Start and why 
we cannot stand by and allow our Republican colleagues and the 
administration to move forward with their plan to test kids, mind you, 
at age 4, I believe, literacy testing. How cynical. Age 4. Their plan 
would require care givers as well as teachers to have college degrees 
instead of concern and sincere interest in their students and would 
reduce, instead of expand, the success of the current Head Start 
program. That is why they get an F on my report card for block granting 
Head Start.
  Over the last 4 decades, Head Start nationwide has reached an 
unbelievable number of students. Since 1965, over 20 million children 
across the country have participated in Head Start. Last year alone, 
Head Start and Early Head Start programs worked with more than 900,000 
children; that is 900,000 in over 2,500 local programs. In my own 
hometown of Oakland, California, 1,600 children are part of our area 
Head Start program. But we are still not reaching enough kids. On any 
particular day, 300 to 400 young people are on a waiting list for the 
Oakland Head Start centers. In fact, all 30 centers have children on a 
waiting list, meaning that all areas are being affected; 300 to 400 
children are far too many to have to begin school already behind. In 
fact, one child on a waiting list is one too many who do not have 
access to early participation. Just a couple of months ago, over 300 to 
400 families, children, men and women, came to a rally and 
participated. In no uncertain terms they said very clearly to me, do 
not tamper with Head Start. If it ain't broke, do not fix it. Leave it 
alone. Let us put more money in Head Start. Do not subject us to the 
whims of the State budget crisis.
  We cannot stand by and allow this administration and this Republican 
Congress to dismantle good programs like Head Start. We cannot allow 
them to succeed in the ongoing elimination, and that is what is going 
on. It is the systematic elimination of proven programs that benefit 
and lift up all people in our country. We cannot allow the President 
and the Republican Congress to dilute what has been one of our most 
successful programs over the last 4 decades. We must stop this assault 
on Head Start, we must stop this assault on our children, we must stop 
this assault on our senior citizens, we must stop this assault in terms 
of the bogus prescription drug benefit program that the Republicans are 
pushing, we must stop the assault on section 8, we must stop the 
assault on Social Security and in terms of our overall domestic 
economic agenda.
  Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues, all of us, to join with our 
Chair of the Congressional Black Caucus to once again this evening try 
in another instance to wake up America in terms of what type of dismal, 
very backwards policies that this Republican Congress and this 
administration are shoving down the American people's throats.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, the Congressional Black Caucus and the 
Congressional Hispanic Caucus work very closely on a number of issues. 
It so happens that we work on the two that we are addressing tonight. 
There is no greater leader that I have come to know than the head of 
the Hispanic Caucus, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez). Our 
caucuses have worked hard on many issues. We may not have been able to 
stop everything, but we certainly were able to throw up a few 
roadblocks. The fact is that he comes tonight, and I am so glad that 
our caucuses could join together tonight to address this House.
  I yield to my friend, the gentleman from Texas, the Chair of the 
Hispanic Caucus.
  Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I want to thank the gentleman from Maryland for 
yielding. His leadership has also been noticed throughout the country. 
I want to personally thank him. I want to also specifically thank him 
for reaching out to the Hispanic community across this country and 
reaching out to the Hispanic Caucus. To me it has been a pleasure 
working with him. I know we have a great 2 more years to go, and I look 
forward to continuing to work with him.
  I want to also congratulate him on the efforts that he just conducted 
and we had the pleasure this week of attending a hearing on Head Start. 
I want to thank him for inviting me there. We had some beautiful panels 
that went before the Congressional Black Caucus to talk about the needs 
of Head Start and to talk about the research regarding Head Start and 
how to best reach our young people. I want to personally thank the 
gentleman for the leadership. I want to thank him for that energy that 
he shows in reaching out. I know that we probably have had for the 
first time in a long time both Hispanic and African Americans, more 
press conferences together than anyone else, and we are going to 
continue to do that. I know that there are a lot of issues that 
confront the African American community, as well as the Hispanic 
community, and everyone, the entire community in the country, that we 
are going to continue to work on. I want to thank the gentleman for his 
leadership.
  Tonight we are here, and I am glad that I have an opportunity to be 
here to talk about the importance of Head Start. The adequate care in 
the development of our children is perhaps the greatest hope of 
America. For those who lack the resources, for those who face the 
social barriers, the educational barriers, the linguistic barriers, the 
cultural barriers in the pursuit of this necessary goal, we offer them 
a program that has worked and that is Head Start, a program that has 
been there for approximately 35 years, since 1965, a program that has 
shown that it can reach out to our youngsters and meet the needs.
  As chairman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus and also as a 
parent, and I speak as a father, recognizing the importance of Head 
Start, recognizing the importance of starting early with some of these 
youngsters. I just compare myself to my daughter also, where my 
daughter has had some opportunities to get access to a lot of books. 
When I was growing up, I did not have those opportunities, and I know 
that Head Start provides that initial effort that allows those 
youngsters to be able to compete.
  Head Start is a highly successful program. Since its founding in 
1965, the Head Start program has provided comprehensive child 
development and family support services to more than 18 million low-
income preschool children and their families. I stress ``their 
families.'' Given the broad objectives of the programs, it is difficult 
to compare its success against other programs with more narrow 
objectives. For over 3 decades, Head Start has been there for our kids. 
Head Start is the first and foremost federally funded comprehensive 
child and family development program designed to meet the needs of low-
income families with preschool children. This is why it must stay in 
the Department of Health and Human Services. It reaches out and works 
with young people.
  Head Start currently is only serving 40 percent of the children that 
are eligible due to the lack of funding, and only 3 percent of the 
eligible infants and toddlers. So there is still a lot that we can do. 
Children born into families of poverty start at a marked disadvantage 
to their peers in the middle-income and wealthy families. Studies 
suggest that they do not have that richness of books in their home, 
proper nutrition or access to continued health care. And so Head Start 
was created to address this facet of issues, improving the richness of 
early learning experiences for not only young children but also for 
their parents as well.
  In fact, Head Start focuses on families in fighting poverty in a 
comprehensive manner that has led the

[[Page 15188]]

program to its success at getting children ready for school, improving 
their literacy and improving their skills and giving their parents the 
skills needed to become the child's first teacher, their best teacher, 
their parents. Administering the program through the Department of 
Health and Human Services ensures greater collaboration and the 
integrity of all the components essential to a child's and family's 
development. Providing comprehensive education, health and family 
community resources contribute to children's readiness, especially for 
low-income children and families. Transferring the program to the 
Department of Education would undermine the comprehensive program with 
no guarantees that these essential programmatic components would be 
preserved. So it is important that this program continues to remain in 
the Department of Health and Human Services. I know the administration 
has made every effort to try to change that.
  In addition, the President in his 2004 budget proposal introduced 
initiatives that wage a war on the poorest children of our country, 
Head Start. The administration purports that moving Head Start to the 
Department of Education would be the best thing to do. In reality, this 
program has been working well under the Department of Health and Human 
Services. We cannot see how this can be improved when it has already 
been doing a good job. I can only conclude that the President fails to 
recognize the true value of Head Start. We must ensure that Head Start 
continues to provide our children with comprehensive services. If the 
administration continues to want to move Head Start to the Department 
of Education, if they want to continue to push to put it into a block 
grant, one can only conclude that this administration and that this 
President does not support Head Start and is not willing to allow it 
and fund it at the level where it should be and allow it to continue to 
make progress.
  Besides trying to dismantle the Head Start program, the President 
also announced in his 2004 budget an increase of only $148 million for 
Head Start. This small increase would not cover the inflation cost that 
is needed in order to make things happen and in order to continue to 
meet the needs of more than 60 percent of youngsters that qualify under 
this program that are not receiving services. And so this increase is 
not sufficient.
  Further, the President's budget proposal of 2004 includes a 
legislative proposal to introduce an option available to the States to 
participate in an alternative financing system. Under his proposal, 
States would receive their Head Start funds under a flexible grant. 
States are grappling with their own budgets at the present time. In 
fact, we started this program through the Federal Government because 
States were unwilling to be responsive.

                              {time}  1800

  States such as Texas, for example, fund only kindergarten at half 
day. The local community has to fund the rest of it. So we can imagine 
what they would do with the resources. They would not go to Head Start. 
They would go somewhere else.
  At the same time, the State funding for Early Childhood is at a 
dismal situation. After this last session, it even got worse, so that 
we are really concerned that the President's effort at trying to 
dismantle and attack Head Start is a way of trying to get the resources 
away from these kids that drastically need them to provide to the 
States. We are concerned that those resources will be used for other 
purposes.
  I also want to take this opportunity to talk about an important 
aspect of Head Start that we very seldom talk about, and that is, I 
would like to take a moment on the seasonal and migrant Head Start 
programs. Many young migrants and seasonal children in the United 
States are taken into the fields because the parents have no other 
place to leave them while they are at work.
  Now we are seeing these young people in the Carolinas and other 
States where we did not see them before, where some of these programs 
are still not in effect, and I have seen recent pictures taken where 
young people are right there, young kids of 2 and 3 and 4 years old, 
next to their parents while they work in the fields. Sometimes young 
children take care of their younger siblings in camps and fields while 
their parents work hard in the fields. Migrant and seasonal farm 
workers in various sectors of our Nation in the agricultural industry, 
from harvesting, to sorting, to processing, to everything in between; 
it is hard work, and it takes special skills.
  But these families earn about $10,000 a year. These are the ones that 
pick the products and pick the food that we eat. These are the ones 
that we take for granted when we sit down to eat each night and not 
recognize that there are people out there doing this kind of work.
  Migrant and seasonal Head Start programs serve nearly 32,000 migrant 
children and nearly 2,500 seasonal children annually. Seasonal and 
migrant Head Start programs operate in 39 States in every region of the 
country. These programs offer positive nutritional child care for 
children ages birth to school entry age. Thirty-five percent of the 
migrant and seasonal Head Start enrollment is comprised of infants and 
toddlers. Getting migrant and seasonal children out of unsafe 
environments is a starting point for migrant and seasonal Head Start 
programs.
  But they do more than that. Migrant and seasonal Head Start programs 
answer basic needs of migrant and seasonal children, and it is 
important that these programs remain within the Department of Health 
and Human Services. Migrant and seasonal Head Start is very different 
from the other programs because it is the nature of farm labor. 
Children need full-day services often from 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. These 
programs have been there. We need additional resources for this area.
  One of the things that I would question is that if they are 
transferred over to States, the fact that they exist in 39 States, the 
fact that they also have to have the flexibility to be able to work 
with these young people that come in on a seasonal basis that might be 
there temporarily, our schools are not geared to be able to address 
that need. The programs that are out there have been meeting that need 
for over 35 years, and they need more resources, but they have been 
there for those kids.
  They know how to reach out to those kids, and this is one of the main 
reasons why this program has to remain with the Department of Health 
and Human Services, and it has to remain with those local communities 
instead of being put into a State grant.
  So tonight I want to take this opportunity to thank the gentleman 
from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) and thank the Congressional Black Caucus, 
in their efforts and just to continue to reaffirm that this President 
and this administration, when he ran for President, he promised to work 
in the area of education. He promised to deliver a program that would 
respond to the needs, and he indicated that education was one of his 
first priorities. But in return, his Leave No Child Behind has $9 
billion of his own bill that he has not funded, and he has left us 
behind. When it comes to Head Start, the promise that he has is to put 
it into a block grant and basically destroy the program that hits us at 
the most vulnerable of this country.
  So his promises have been empty words that have not been met. So I 
want to once again thank the gentleman for allowing me to be here 
tonight, and I want to also express my sincerest appreciation for the 
hard work that he does and the entire Congressional Black Caucus, and I 
look forward to working with him.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, we look forward to it too, and we really 
do thank the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to talk just for a moment about this whole issue 
of Head Start, and I would like to engage the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lee) in a colloquy just very briefly.
  One of the things we have in my district is a high school called 
Veneble High School, and this is for special education children, and 
one of the things that I have noticed is when I go to their 
graduations, so many of these children have speech defects. So many

[[Page 15189]]

of them have problems walking. And the interesting thing that I noticed 
is that when I talked to the principal at one of the graduations, I 
said how did this happen? And she said if they had had the proper 
services when they were little, it would have made a world of 
difference. In other words, if they had had a speech therapist, maybe 
if a child were given braces to wear on his leg, by the time he got to 
be 4 or 5, he would have been able to walk properly. So these children 
then grow up with problems that could have been corrected earlier, and 
I think one of the advantages of the Head Start program is that it is 
comprehensive and they look at all aspects of the child's life and try 
to address them at that early age.
  Has that been the gentlewoman's experience?
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Maryland hit it. That is 
exactly why moving Head Start from the Department of Health and Human 
Services into the Department of Education is not the right move because 
currently, our young people who are in Head Start, our children, 
receive comprehensive services. Their families receive the support. 
They receive not only a quality early childhood education, but they 
also receive those basic kinds of support services that they need to 
move on to lead a quality healthy life. Children from low socioeconomic 
backgrounds do not have the resources for healthcare. We know how much 
healthcare is costing now. Their parents do not have insurance 
coverage. They do not have access to dental clinics.
  So Head Start provides for immunizations and all of those kinds of 
healthcare needs in a total package for young people who, by no fault 
of their own, just do not have any money to receive those types of 
basic services, and that is why moving it to the Department of 
Education is wrong and we have got to defeat this proposal.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. I thank the gentlewoman.
  Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield to the distinguished 
gentleman from the great State of Illinois (Mr. Davis) who has also 
been at the forefront of the fight for Head Start and for prescription 
drugs for our seniors.
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the gentleman 
from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Lee) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez) for the leadership 
that they have shown and displayed.
  I just left the markup in the Committee on Education and the 
Workforce where we have been babbling, I guess one could say, all day 
long. We have been debating Head Start. And there are certain 
principles that we have tried to maintain, and one is that the program 
must be kept comprehensive. It must remain comprehensive and not be 
streamlined and categorized so that young people will get the full 
benefit of the most effective program that we have had coming out of 
the civil rights movement, coming out of the war on poverty. No other 
program has been as successful as this one.
  We also have to make sure that the block granting does not creep in, 
and we have obviously crept up, and they are down to talking about 
eight States now that would be demonstration projects, but we have got 
to watch that because those eight States will still represent one-third 
of all the children in Head Start.
  So if we are talking about eight States with large populations, with 
large populations of Head Start children, then that becomes a 
significant number. We are still opposed to the block granting all the 
way.
  We know that we need additional funding, especially as we now have a 
mandate that 50 percent of the teachers ought to have a college degree 
by 2008. But how does one get a college degree if one is a Head Start 
teacher making $12,000, $15,000, $10,000, $11,000, $14,000 a year 
without some help. So we are proposing stipends and scholarships, 
things that are going to help those individuals.
  And I was pleased to note that I did get an amendment accepted a few 
minutes ago that will call for the creation of a fatherhood initiative, 
and I noticed that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez) mentioned 
that, as a father, we find that many fathers are absent from the lives 
of their children and that one of the things that we can do in Head 
Start is stimulate the growth and development of that.
  So I just, again, want to commend all of my colleagues here, the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) as he leads the Congressional 
Black Caucus, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), and it was 
good to see the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez), chairman of the 
Congressional Hispanic Caucus, and I know that the gentleman from 
Alabama (Mr. Davis) is here, and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Payne) who has been doing an outstanding job in the Committee on 
Education and the Workforce, we have been there together all day. So I 
thank the chairman so much.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
  Let me just say this, Mr. Speaker. The Congressional Black Caucus is 
very concerned about this issue along with the Congressional Hispanic 
Caucus, and sometimes I think what happens is so often people will hear 
the words Congressional Black Caucus or hear the words Congressional 
Hispanic Caucus and think that we are only addressing issues that 
affect African American and Hispanic people. That is simply not true. 
The issues that we address go to the very center of people's lives, and 
I can think of nothing greater that allows a person to be all that they 
can be than health issues, making sure they have prescriptions that 
they need and making sure that our children have the education that 
they need so that they can get to their destiny.
  I have often said that our children are the living messages we send 
to a future we will never see, and the question is what kind of message 
do we send if we deny a child who was born into poverty? That child did 
not ask to be born into poverty, but he is born into poverty or she, 
and so that child has a struggle from the very, very beginning. And I 
think that if we can help a child at 3 years old and give that child a 
proper foundation so that they could then go forward in life and have 
what I call consistent appointments with success, then that child grows 
up, and that child possibly could be the person who finds a cure to 
pancreatic cancer or could become the President of the United States.
  But when they are denied that opportunity at an early age, then so 
often they go off the road as a straight and narrow path, and the next 
thing we know, we see them as I see them in my district, so many of 
them dropping out of school, so many of young ladies having babies as 
teenagers, and we see the problems that they are confronted with. And 
Head Start is a program, Mr. Speaker, that has effectively addressed 
those problems, and again with regard to the prescription drugs, we 
have to stand up for our seniors.

                          ____________________