[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 13]
[House]
[Page 18176]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                            SAVE HEAD START

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Watson) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. WATSON. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the distinguished 
gentleman from Maryland and the distinguished gentleman from California 
and the Chair of our Black Caucus who will be coming up in a minute for 
organizing this important discussion on the future of Head Start.
  Later in the week, the House of Representatives will consider H.R. 
2210, a bill that radically alters the Head Start program. H.R. 2210 is 
ill-conceived and ill-devised. It sacrifices accountability and 
oversight in favor of standardized testing of 4-year-olds. It teaches 
our children a wrong lesson on discrimination by repealing current 
civil rights protections and allowing programs to discriminate in their 
hiring practices based on religion. It gambles with our children's 
future by diverting already limited resources into experimental block 
grants that can be diverted to other Federal programs.
  H.R. 2210 is a classic bait and switch bill. The major changes in and 
new requirements under title I are not contained in title II of the 
bill, which creates an experimental block grants program for Head Start 
in eight States. This overhaul reverses the precedent in achievement 
that was created by the No Child Left Behind Act.

                              {time}  2100

  NCLB seeks to close the achievement gap through strong standards and 
stronger Federal oversight. H.R. 2210 will only damage the integrity 
and efficiency of the program by redirecting resources to a block grant 
system and neglecting Federal standards and oversight.
  Indeed, changing the funding formula to block grants under Title II 
creates a daunting scenario for Head Start. The four eligibility 
requirements under Title II do not address quality or expertise. The 
legislation requires the bare minimum of the eight participating 
States. All that a State has to do is to have an existing preschool 
system, a basic standard for school readiness and basic requirements 
for the allocation of Head Start funding.
  All 50 States meet these minimum requirements, but too few provide 
quality service. For example, only three States currently 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 pre-K programs. At present, there is 
simply no clear body of research demonstrating the effectiveness of 
State pre-kindergarten programs.
  Let me also elaborate on other shortcomings of the proposal to change 
Head Start into a block grant program. Title II of H.R. 2210 does not 
specify minimum thresholds on class size, class-staff ratios or 
curriculum content. It calls on each State to create its own school 
readiness standards and own criteria for measuring achievement. With 
State preschool programs varying greatly in content and quality, how 
can we ensure that low-income children from across the Nation will 
receive a quality education?
  H.R. 2210 also does not contain adequate evaluation and oversight 
requirements. Instead of annual reports and on-site evaluation by the 
HHS every 3 years, States under the block grant program will not be 
held to any minimum threshold requirements on quality or 
appropriateness of their State plans. This is a giant step backwards 
for the Head Start program.
  Finally, the bill allows the 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. My home State of 
California receives over $800 million in Federal moneys for Head Start. 
California is now suffering from a budget deficit in excess of $38 
billion. With the block grant proposal, my State could divert TANF and 
Title I preschool funds to offset the State's budget deficit, then use 
the Head Start block grant to fund TANF and Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act. This loophole allows States to reduce Head Start funding 
legally, which severely shortchanges our low-income children.
  Mr. Speaker, this is the wrong way to go.

                          ____________________