[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 13]
[House]
[Pages 18177-18184]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                          FUTURE OF HEAD START

  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.


                             General Leave

  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their 
remarks on the subject of this special order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Maryland?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, the Congressional Black Caucus and the 
Congressional Hispanic Caucus have come together tonight to address 
issues that confront our children, and when I say our children, I mean 
all children who unfortunately may not have the funds to get off to a 
good start before they start school officially in the kindergarten.
  I will have a lot to say about this subject as we go through this 
hour, Mr. Speaker, but I want to yield first of all to the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Scott), who has been at the forefront of addressing 
issues with regard to Head Start and faith-based issues and 
constitutional issues that confront us and has made it his business and 
has vigilantly stood guard with regard to making sure that programs 
that are put forth are ones that do not discriminate against people 
with our own tax dollars.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to my colleague from the great State of Virginia 
(Mr. Scott).
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Maryland for yielding.
  The gentleman from Maryland is an outspoken advocate for education 
and knows the value of the Head Start program, so I rise in support of 
the Head Start program but in opposition to the Republican Head Start 
bill.
  In 2002, the Head Start program served nearly 1 million children, 
over 62,000 infants and toddlers in early Head Start. Unfortunately, 
however, Mr. Speaker, only 60 percent of the qualified 3- and 4-year-
olds are currently enrolled in Head Start, and early Head Start is only 
funded to serve 3 percent of the eligible infants.
  We need to make a commitment to fully fund the Head Start program, 
and this is because money spent on Head Start is money well spent. For 
every dollar we spend on Head Start, $4 to $7 are saved in future 
expenses because children who participate in Head Start need fewer 
services in elementary and high school, and they are less likely to go 
to prison or end up on welfare.
  During the Clinton administration, Head Start funding grew from $2.8 
billion in 1993 to $6.2 billion in 2001. That is an average of 
approximately $425 million per year. Over the past 2 years, the 
President's administration has proposed only a total increase of $300 
million, about $150 million per year. That is about one-third of the 
average annual increase over the prior 8 years.
  There are a lot of problems with the Republican Head Start bill, but 
as the gentleman from Maryland indicated, one of the most glaring is 
the fact that it permits programs run by faith-based organizations to 
discriminate in their hiring practices with the Federal money; that is, 
it permits employment discrimination with Federal money, not the church 
money, but with Federal money.
  Sixty-two years ago, on June 25, 1941, President Roosevelt signed an 
executive order that banned discrimination by defense contractors based 
on race, creed, color or national origin. Executive order 8802 was the 
first law prohibiting employment discrimination and marked the 
beginning of fair employment practices in the United States.
  These protections against employment discrimination were expanded by 
subsequent Presidents. For example,

[[Page 18178]]

Executive Order 11246, signed by President Johnson in 1965, expanded 
the prohibitions against employment discrimination to all government 
contractors, not just defense contractors.
  Every President of the United States since 1965 has enforced these 
executive orders. Over time, various civil rights laws were passed that 
contained similar prohibitions against discrimination and employment 
based on race, creed, color, national origin or sex.
  However, on December 12, 2002, President Bush issued an executive 
order that for the first time since 1941 actually rolled back the 
prohibitions against employment discrimination.

                              {time}  2115

  Under his executive order 13-279, religious organizations which 
received Federal funds would be permitted to discriminate in employment 
based on religion unless there is a specific prohibition.
  Now, when the President says that we should remove barriers to faith-
based organizations serving as sponsors of federally funded programs, 
he does not explain what the barriers are. Even without new laws, many 
faith-based organizations have sponsored federally funded programs for 
decades, and they administer these programs just like any other 
sponsor, including compliance with fair employment practices, and that 
is with positions paid with Federal funds.
  Now, in fact, any program which can be funded under this 
administration's faith-based initiative can be funded without that 
initiative, without new legislation, and without executive orders if 
the sponsoring organization agrees not to discriminate in hiring with 
the Federal money. Not the church money, the Federal money. And today, 
in fact, 8 percent of the Head Start programs are sponsored by faith-
based organizations. If the sponsor insists on discriminating on 
employment, a barrier exists and the faith-based initiative removes 
that barrier and allows the sponsor to administer the program and 
select employees paid with Federal money based on religion.
  Now, there was a time in America when people of certain religions 
were routinely denied jobs solely because of their religious beliefs, 
but we passed laws to end that invidious discrimination. So when this 
administration talks about restoring publicly funded religious 
discrimination, let us remember the old adage that you can put lipstick 
on a pig, but you cannot pass it off as a beauty queen. Likewise, you 
can use poll-tested semantics and euphemisms, but you cannot pass this 
off as anything but ugly discrimination.
  And let us take a look at the Head Start program. If the Republican 
Head Start bill passes, thousands of today's Head Start teachers could 
lose their jobs if they fail their employer's religious tests. Tens of 
thousands of already at-risk 3- and 4-year-old children could lose 
their Head Start teachers if the teachers happen to be of the wrong 
religion or do not contribute enough to their church. Tens of thousands 
of parent volunteers could lose their privilege of serving as volunteer 
teacher aides in their own children's Head Start classrooms based on 
their religious beliefs. These parent volunteers would be blocked from 
the opportunity to become trained and paid Head Start teachers solely 
because they do not share the federally funded employer's religious 
beliefs. And 29 percent of today's Head Start teachers started off as 
volunteers.
  Now, exactly what kind of head start will children be getting when 
they see their parents denied the opportunity to become a teacher 
solely because of their religion? And because 11 a.m. Sunday morning is 
still the most segregated hour of the week, religious discrimination in 
Head Start programs will often mean that teachers of the wrong race 
will not be hired, thereby threatening 33 percent of the Head Start 
teachers who are African American and nearly 23 percent of the Head 
Start teachers who are Hispanic.
  The result of the Head Start bill sponsored by the Republicans will 
be that in many federally funded Head Start centers all of the teachers 
may end up being of one religion and one race and one ethnicity. This 
is a return to the old days of segregation. If this bill passes, it 
will be done with Federal money.
  I urge my colleagues to strongly consider just what they are voting 
for when the Head Start bill comes to the floor later this week. We 
should preserve decades of fair employment practices and reject 
Republican attempts to allow the most qualified employees to be 
rejected solely because they fail a religious test.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for his 
statement, and certainly I think we could summarize it by saying that 
the Congressional Black Caucus and the Congressional Hispanic Caucus do 
not want the government to use our tax dollars to discriminate. It is 
as simple as that. So I thank the gentleman for being so vigilant on 
that issue consistently.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield now to my colleague, the gentlewoman from the 
Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen).
  Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, later this week, the House is poised to reauthorize one 
of this country's most significant programs. For over 3 decades, this 
program, Head Start, has given more than 20 million children a chance 
to succeed in school by providing quality comprehensive services and 
early education to our Nation's poorest children and families.
  Like Medicare and Social Security, as well as other safety net 
programs that help people overcome poverty and become more productive 
members of society, the Head Start program is now under attack from 
Republicans. This is nothing less than an attack on our children, on 
their chance to realize their potential, and on our communities' 
futures. Like any mother who will fiercely defend our children against 
any attack, and also as the representative of the Virgin Islands 
community, which has not only relied on Head Start but also utilized 
this program efficiently and to maximum effect, I join my colleagues of 
the Congressional Black Caucus and the Hispanic Caucus, as well as the 
Children's Defense Fund and the National Head Start Association, and 
others, to fight tooth and nail for the best start for our children.
  The changes to the Head Start program, if passed, would especially 
have a detrimental effect on minority populations. In fiscal year 2002, 
32.6 percent of children served in Head Start were African American and 
29.8 percent were Hispanics. Though touted as a bill to improve school 
readiness of disadvantaged children, it is another one of those good-
sounding bills that hides a bad intent. H.R. 2210 would harm the very 
individuals it says it proposes to help.
  Head Start is a unique program because of its comprehensive nature. 
It provides academic, nutritional, social, and medical services that 
foster the overall well-being of the child. It helps uncover treatable 
medical conditions that might otherwise go unnoticed and provides 
important support to the families of its enrollees.
  Head Start currently operates under the direction of Federal 
performance standards that ensure quality comprehensive services for 
children and prepares them for school. None of this would be guaranteed 
under the administration's proposal, and standards are essentially 
undefined and undermined in the proposed block-grant approach.
  Giving Head Start to the States without performance standards and 
without additional funding, as proposed by the administration, would 
encourage States which are facing budget deficits to divert Head Start 
dollars to fill gaps in other programs, and thus spread the dollars 
more thinly, not adequately serving the needs of the children.
  I am glad that thus far those of us who have been committed to Head 
Start have been able to rid the bill of one of their more terrible 
ideas, which was to move Head Start from the Department of Health and 
Human Services into the Department of Education. This would have 
restricted Head Start to a narrow classroom approach without the broad 
set of social services which are so important.

[[Page 18179]]

  This raises another concern, the proposed Head Start Reporting System 
in Child Outcomes. Such required testing of 4- year-olds is 
developmentally inappropriate. Further, Head Start programs are very 
culturally diverse, thus making it next to impossible to develop one 
test that adequately addresses all cultures. Such testing being added 
to the current child outcomes requirement would also overburden 
classroom staff with new and unwise assessment requirements.
  Dismantling a program that already works is not the way to improve 
the Head Start program. Improvements to Head Start can be done under 
the existing structure. H.R. 2210 is meant to lead to the demise of 
Head Start. We cannot and must not let that happen.
  We in the Congressional Black Caucus and the Congressional Hispanic 
Caucus know firsthand the value of Head Start, and we are committed to 
that best start for all of this country's children. We ask the people 
of this country to voice their opposition to their congressional 
representatives, and we call on our colleagues to join us and to keep 
this proven and valuable program intact for yet another generation of 
children.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentlewoman for 
her statement. In considering some of the things that she said, Mr. 
Speaker, I cannot help but just look at and quote a portion of the 
National Head Start Association's Report entitled, ``Dismantling Head 
Start, The Case for Saving America's Most Successful Early Childhood 
Development Program,'' which is dated April 16, 2003.
  What they say in that report, the National Head Start Association, 
is, and I quote: ``A hodgepodge of inconsistent and untested State 
government programs that either will serve fewer children than Head 
Start does now or will provide less comprehensive services to those 
children served will be the outcome if this legislation is passed.''
  The interesting thing is, as I listened to the gentlewoman from the 
Virgin Islands, I could not help but think about a school where for the 
last 12 years I have spoken as the graduation speaker, which is 
basically a high school for children who are in special education. Two 
or three years ago I noticed, and I was mentioning to the principal of 
the school that many of the children who came to participate in the 
program and who were graduating, many of them had speech defects, some 
of them seemed to be a bit slow in their reading abilities, and many of 
them suffered from all kinds of what appeared to be crippling ailments. 
The thing that the principal pointed out to me is that if, when these 
children were little, these things had been corrected, they would not 
have to go a lifetime having to suffer with certain ailments.
  Head Start has always been about a comprehensive program providing 
nutrition, making sure that our children got dental examinations, 
making sure that they have mental health referrals, and making sure 
that those things that could be corrected at an early age and be 
corrected quite easily and at a reasonable price, Head Start has been 
about the business of doing that. And with this effort to shift Head 
Start to a block grant-type program and take away standards, it 
certainly goes against our children.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to yield to the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the distinguished 
gentleman from Maryland for his leadership, as well as the members of 
the Congressional Black Caucus for their leadership on this issue.
  Mr. Speaker, we will be debating this question over the next 2 days. 
I hope as we are presenting our concerns tonight that my colleagues and 
the constituents of my colleagues, frankly, will be made aware of that 
such that the gallery during the time of the debate will be standing 
room only. Because this is a spear being thrown in the hearts of 
Americans who have come to understand and love the value of the Head 
Start program.
  The one thing I like about the Head Start program is that it is not a 
respecter of race or religion, it is an opportunity for children who 
are in need with respect to their economic status to be able to do 
better in life. It is a well-proven program. It is a program that is 
grounded in the fixing of the health condition of young children, the 
nutrition condition of young children, the psychological condition of 
young children, and the intellectual aspect of young children.

                              {time}  2130

  It is a holistic program which deals with the embracing of the family 
member, the parent, who gains self-esteem and understands how to be an 
advocate for their children. It has love intertwined amongst its values 
so that the children who come know there is love both in the place of 
learning, but as well from an adult to a child.
  This legislation which will go on the floor of the House will 
literally end Head Start as we know it. This block grant program is 
risky. My State has just gotten rid of, and I like to use that 
terminology because it is true, 170,000 children off the SCHIP's 
program. Right now, parents are receiving letters that there is no room 
at the inn, there is no opportunity for your children to have good 
health care.
  States across the Nation are finding themselves in bad economic 
times. Because of that, they will be looking for the dollar anywhere 
they can find it. When we start sending block grant dollars to these 
States, clearly we will find that the State's special interests will 
have the upper hand and the children will be standing outside the door 
with a sign on the door: No room at the inn.
  This bill we will be debating is a classic bait and switch. The GOP 
claims credit for improving the academic content of Head Start in title 
I of the bill, but it excludes all but one of those improvements to be 
implemented by block grants in title II. What we have is a shell game 
and a shell of a bill, and I am disappointed and disgusted that we find 
ourselves getting rid of a program that has proven itself well.
  But, more importantly, the national head of Head Start has begged the 
leadership of this Congress, working with the chairpersons of the 
committee and the author of the bill, to listen to us and sit down and 
work through this process, and yet we have failed in getting the other 
side of the aisle to see the light.
  Head Start works because children arrive more prepared and they do 
better in school than low-income children who do not receive Head 
Start. In addition, Head Start narrows the readiness gap between Head 
Start kids and their more affluent peers. Experts say that to expect 
Head Start to eliminate that gap is totally unrealistic. Poverty is 
devastating to children, development and success, but it has worked. 
Head Start has helped children arrive and to be more ready.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe that the process that we are using now will 
clearly take a process that has been successful, and I do not know what 
more to say, throw the spear in the heart or rip it to shreds. I am 
confused and absolutely outraged that we have a system that does not 
listen to the people who are using the system.
  Did we have large numbers of parents who are in this system now come 
and argue for a block grant process, or was it the States who were on 
their knees as it relates to a budget because we give them a lot of 
unfunded mandates, including Leave No Child Behind because we have a 
$550 billion tax cut, and so monies coming from the Federal Government 
are diminishing and going down and down. That is one of the reasons 
that States have cut children off the Children's Health Insurance 
Program. Now we come through the back door to be able to dismantle a 
program which has made education holistic.
  One of the very valuable points of the Head Start program is how they 
embrace the parents. I have heard parents say Head Start is as good for 
me as it is for my child. It gives me the opportunity to have input in 
my child's education. The counselors listen to me if there are problems 
at home.
  I know there are some who are well-endowed, who are financially able 
and laughing and thinking this is a funny issue, but it is not. It is a 
serious issue.

[[Page 18180]]

It is a serious issue because our children are going to be hurt. It is 
a serious issue because children went to Head Start and had an 
opportunity to get a meal when they could not get a meal at home, had 
an opportunity to be immunized, had the opportunity to develop their 
own self-esteem and self-confidence, had the opportunity that if there 
were counseling needs that they could secure counseling needs in order 
to prepare themselves to go to school.
  Yes, those teachers that the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) 
spoke of that could be hired without the wall put up or litmus test: 
What is your religion? What are your beliefs? We now have a program 
riddled with problems, constitutional violations and separation of 
church and State and riddled with problems in terms of taking away from 
the program the very infrastructure that made it right and made it 
real.
  I hope, Mr. Speaker, that we will have a vigorous debate. I have 
offered amendments that would ensure that the proposal that is going 
forward does not take the new Federal funds and diminish the funds that 
are already being used. I hope that is not the case. I hope we will 
have the kind of debate that will cause my colleagues on the other side 
of the aisle to vote down this legislation and leave Head Start as it 
is in order to ensure that we will continue a plan that will be 
effective for our children. We should be fighting for the betterment of 
our children.
  I am pleased to join the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) and 
the Congressional Black Caucus to speak for those who cannot speak. I 
hope that the Chamber is full of Members who are debating this issue, 
and I hope that the gallery will be filled with parents and children 
who realize that any vote against the Head Start program that we know 
and love will be a vote to undermine the futures of our children, 
today, tomorrow and into the very far future.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I wish to express my outrage 
and my disgust at the Majority party's effort to destroy the Head Start 
Program. The Republican's plan is a sword through the heart of this 
effective educational program and an insult to America's children.
  The Majority party's plan shreds the Head Start Program. The 
Republicans plan to establish a block grant that will amount to the 
demise of head start. Specifically, Title II of this bill will end Head 
Start as we know it. The block grant provisions in the Republican bill 
are a risky experiment that turns a successful program over to states 
with unproven expertise and without the federal program quality 
standard requirements and oversight that are demonstrated to increase 
school readiness. This bill is a classic ``bait and switch.'' The GOP 
claims credit for improving the academic content of Head Start in Title 
I of the bill but excludes all but one of those improvements to be 
implemented by block grant states in Title II.
  The Republican's demolition of Head Start is deplorable because the 
Head Start program works. Children in the Head Start program arrive at 
school more prepared and perform better academically than low-income 
children who are not enrolled in the Head Start program. In addition, 
although experts say that to expect Head Start to eliminate that gap is 
``totally unrealistic,'' the Head Start program narrows significantly 
the readiness gap between children in Head Start and their more 
affluent peers.
  Head Start helps children arrive at school more ready to learn. 
However, to expect Head Start to be a cure for the devastating impact 
of poverty is unrealistic. The idea that the block grant is the 
solution to closing the school readiness gap if flawed and illogical. 
State preschool programs are untested and unproven. Not only is there 
no research showing that state preschool programs produce better 
results than Head Start, there is no research demonstrating the 
effectiveness of state preschool programs at all.
  The ``No Child Left Behind'' program was developed because the 
solution to the achievement gap in students between kindergarten and 
the 12th grade was the establishment of stronger standards and more 
federal oversight. Why, then, is the Republican's solution to the same 
achievement gap in young children to eliminate standards and oversight 
in Head Start?
  The Block Grant Program in the Republican proposal is also damaging 
to the Head Start Program because it slashes quality comprehensive 
services. The block grant requires states to provide an array of 
services but doesn't require the same nature, extent or quality of 
those services. Under the block grant program, none of the thirteen 
areas of Head Start performance standards (e.g., ``education and early 
child development,'' ``health and safety'') that lay out the 
comprehensive services and high level of quality that have made Head 
Start successful are required.
  In fact, the block grant emphasizes comprehensive services being met 
through referral of families to outside services for assistance, 
essentially encouraging states to provide a lower level of services.
  The Republican's Head Start bill is also damaging to our children 
because it weakens educational performance standards. The block grant 
specifies no minimum threshold on school readiness standards, child-
staff ratios or curriculum content. It calls on each state to derive 
their own school readiness standards and their own ways of measuring 
progress against those standards. But those standards are undefined in 
the block grant and vary greatly among the states. Head Start education 
standards are thorough and strongly based on education performance 
research.
  Having States develop their own performance standards with no 
direction and no requirements will weaken educational standards 
overall. Block grants diminish educational oversight and evaluation. 
States meeting the eligibility criteria for participation in the Block 
Grant program have their applications approved by the Secretary by 
default. This means there is no oversight or evaluation of the quality 
or appropriateness of the state plan. Additionally, there is no minimum 
threshold requirement of States' internal evaluations of their 
programs. Meaning a school may define their own success regardless of 
their actual performance. Under the Head Start program, on the other 
hand, schools must report annually on their progress, and each school 
is subjected to a thorough on-site evaluation every three years under 
the direction of the Department of Health and Human Services. This is 
meaningful evaluation that provides a better education for our 
children.
  Perhaps the most tragic impact of the Republican's Head Start 
proposal is that it reduces the role of parents in their children's 
academic success. Parent are children's most important teachers. 
Studies have shown that teaching parenting strategies and involving 
parents in their children's education is strongly related to children's 
achievement in school. That's why a cornerstone of the Head Start 
program has been the involvement of parents in their child's 
development and education, health, nutrition, mental health, community 
advocacy, and transition activities from preschool to kindergarten.
  Family partnership agreements have been critical in getting families 
to recognize what it takes to promote their child's positive 
development and early education. But the block grant proposal developed 
by the Republicans requires minimal parental involvement. No reference 
is made whatsoever to parent policy councils, or similar provisions, 
which makes Head Start a local program addressing local needs. Parents 
have been, in essence, eliminated from the bill.
  Finally, the Republicans' Head Start proposals allow decreases in 
Early Education Services across the State. The block grant 
supplantation restrictions permit a decrease in the total expenditures 
in the State on early education. The block grant bars States from 
supplanting ``non-Federal funds that would otherwise be used,'' a 
restriction the Government Accounting Office concluded is almost 
impossible to enforce because of the difficulty in proving what would 
have otherwise been used. The block grant also permits supplanting 
federal funds (for example ESEA Title I preschool funds or surplus TANF 
funds). So nothing bars States from diverting ESEA or TANF funds to 
other purposes and using the block grant funds to fill in the holes. 
This would allow an overall decrease in early education spending within 
the State.
  Mr. Speaker, our Head Start program is under attack, and therefore 
America's children are under attack. The Republican's Head Start bill 
is the equivalent of taking an axe to valuable and effective education 
programs. I implore all Americans and all members of the House of 
Representatives to speak out against this attack on our children. We 
must protect our children and we must save the Head Start program.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, the Head Start program, if we did not have 
one, we would have to invent it, because it has been so effective in 
preventing so many problems that children quite often develop after 
they get a little older.
  The question has often been asked, why is the Congressional Black 
Caucus and the Hispanic Caucus so concerned about a Head Start program? 
And I

[[Page 18181]]

think it is coming out very clearly as Members have spent a lot of time 
all day working and now they come here tonight, and the reason the 
Members are here is because they want to make sure that every child is 
allowed to grow up to be all that God meant for them to be.
  The other day I was visiting Sheltonham Juvenile Detention Center in 
Maryland; and in speaking to the young boys there, most of them between 
12-17, I told them when I was 7 years old I could remember young 
children going off to that detention center. I told them that the march 
continues even today, and I am 52 years old. I told them that we wanted 
to make sure that no more of our young men and young women would march 
off to that institution with shackles around their feet. We want them 
to be the Dr. Ben Carsons of the world, the teachers, the doctors, the 
educators, the people who make a difference in our society.
  That is why the Congressional Black Caucus takes this time tonight, 
and we have done it over and over again, to make sure that we do 
everything in our power during our watch not to allow a very 
significant and very effective program that helps our children to be 
dismantled.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Cummings) for holding this Special Order on Head Start and for the 
gentleman's leadership to ensure that we continue to raise the level of 
awareness in terms of making sure that our country knows what is going 
on here in Washington, D.C. I thank the gentleman for remaining 
consistent and ensuring that we do have this opportunity to speak out 
and to wake up America.
  Tonight of course this Special Order, this discussion is with regard 
to Head Start, a program whose obituary is but a few days away if the 
administration has its way. If the administration has its way, this 
would be the beginning of the end for Head Start. Later this week, we 
will see the Republicans overhaul or at least try to overhaul the Head 
Start system, a program which has fundamentally provided children with 
an opportunity to succeed. Since its inception in 1965, it has reached 
over 20 million people. It is a program that still continues to touch 
and improve this country's low-income children by providing them 
opportunities to succeed. It really is the best example of Leave No 
Child Behind.
  In my hometown of Oakland, California, over 1,600 children are part 
of our area Head Start programs; and across the country last year, Head 
Start and Early Head Start programs worked with more than 900,000 
children in over 2,500 local programs. But the Bush administration has 
indicated that, like so many other beneficial policies and programs 
that they are dismantling, Head Start must also be dismantled. They are 
saying that it must be undone, it must be gutted. How are they doing 
this? They are doing this in several crucial ways.
  First, they want to block grant Head Start, but block granting Head 
Start would be very dangerous. Block granting Head Start would mean 
creating 50 potential new bureaucracies in each State. Not only would 
that be expensive, depriving these programs of money to use for the 
real goal of providing early childhood development and education for 
children, but it would weaken the oversight and evaluation of these 
programs.
  And, of course, block granting Head Start is especially disturbing at 
this point in our Nation's history in the economic downturn and jobs 
depression that we are, unfortunately, experiencing. At a time when 
State budgets are in such crisis and with the States able to determine 
exactly how they are going to spend their money, the possibility of 
using this money for things other than Head Start I think would be too 
tempting. I would hate to see our children caught up in State budget 
battles. It is too risky, and they do not deserve that.
  Perhaps worst of all, Republicans want to turn Head Start into a 
program that relies on an exclusively academic program rather than what 
has been proven to be successful, and that is a comprehensive program 
for low-income children. What they want now is for children as early as 
age 4 to take a literacy test. Can Members imagine giving a 4-year-old 
a literacy test by which they would be evaluated? Gone would be the 
program components of nutrition and immunization programs, as well as 
counseling and other very important program components that provide for 
the support not only of the child but of the family. This focus on test 
scores for young children really is unbelievable.
  At this particular time we should be doing more to improve and to 
increase the program, not reduce it. The truth is, we are still not 
reaching enough children. As I said earlier, over 1,600 Oakland 
students are in our Head Start programs. On any particular day in my 
hometown, 300-400 children are on waiting lists for Head Start centers. 
Head Start officials tell me all 30 centers have children on waiting 
lists, meaning all of the areas in my city are being affected.
  Several months ago when families of Head Start heard about this very 
backwards initiative and proposal, 300-400 rallied immediately at city 
hall and they said in no uncertain terms if it is not broke, why fix 
it. They said that they wanted more children included in Head Start and 
that it was working in the way that we know it has always worked and to 
not tamper with it.
  In fact, several of them told me we needed to focus on the fact that 
300-400 children in Oakland are far too many to begin school already 
behind. They insisted, as we are insisting tonight, that Head Start 
remain intact. We must not stand by and allow the Bush administration 
to dismantle a successful, proven program like Head Start.
  The President wants to kill one of the country's most successful 
programs, and I do not understand it. I encourage all of my colleagues 
to join with the Congressional Black Caucus and the Congressional 
Hispanic Caucus to resist this administration's very wrong and backward 
policies. I encourage our colleagues to do everything possible to avoid 
having one of the greatest early childhood education efforts become an 
obituary, a tombstone on which is written ``Head Start was a great 
program.''
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her statement, 
and I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), a former 
Head Start teacher and someone who has spoken out consistently on this 
issue with a tremendous amount of passion.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the chairman of the 
Congressional Black Caucus for this and many of the other Special 
Orders he has organized in order to make sure that everyone in this 
Chamber and throughout the country understands the grave changes the 
President and the Republican Party are trying to make to the Head Start 
program.

                              {time}  2145

  Mr. Speaker, 38 years ago, I had the great fortune to help organize 
one of the first Head Start programs in this country under the War on 
Poverty. My involvement with Head Start has been one of the most 
defining experiences of my life. Not only did I help to organize one of 
the first Head Start programs in the country working with the 
community, I went to work for Head Start as an assistant teacher and I 
was inspired to go back to school and to get my degree. Not only was I 
inspired, I saw the inspiration that Head Start did for many parents, 
many folks in the community.
  Today I sat in the Committee on Rules where I went to try and offer 
some amendments to strengthen the Head Start program and to not allow 
the Head Start program to be block-granted to the States. I literally 
sat there and listened to the chairman of the Committee on Education 
and the Workforce and others talking about Head Start without really 
knowing or understanding what Head Start is. I did not recognize the 
program that they were talking about. And it dawned on me that they did 
not know this program. It dawned on me that many of them had never 
spent any time in a

[[Page 18182]]

Head Start classroom. I heard descriptions of what the Republicans 
would like to do with the Head Start program, talking about somehow 
making it a program where children would be involved with literacy and 
trying to prepare them for the public schools and education in new and 
different ways.
  Mr. Speaker, they did not know that in the beginning of Head Start, a 
lot of work was done to determine what would be the best way to provide 
an early childhood education experience for children who came from 
disadvantaged homes and disadvantaged communities. We tested everything 
from Montessori to other approaches to dealing with children. Finally 
it was concluded, after all of the study and all of the work, that the 
way to deal with the children from disadvantaged communities was to 
focus on the whole child, the entire child, and bring the family in to 
helping to determine the educational destiny of their children. In 
doing so, we felt that all of the children needed to have a physical 
examination to determine their health. We also thought that it was 
important to have a strong parent involvement component in this 
program. We also knew that it was important to have nutrition involved 
in the program.
  And we were right. And we also determined that we had to reduce the 
ratio of children to teachers, because at that time single-teacher 
classrooms headed by one teacher was trying to manage 35 and 40 kids in 
the public schools. So we reduced those ratios to 1 to 5. For a 
classroom of 15, one adult to every five students in the Head Start 
class. And it worked. Because we had physical examinations, we 
discovered learning disabilities, dyslexia, other kinds of problems, 
sight problems, hearing problems, all kinds of problems that would have 
caused children to fail, to be placed in special education classes and 
not to be able to succeed; and we dealt with that, with this new model 
that was created.
  And now we have people talking about they want a program to teach 
literacy. They do not understand that when you build self-esteem, when 
you introduce children to books for the first time, when you teach them 
to love books and to care for books, that is the best way to get 
children reading. When you teach the parents through the parent 
involvement program to read to the children, you are developing 
children who not only will love reading and love books but will become 
great readers and will be very, very literate and be able to succeed in 
the public schools and in the schools that they will go to.
  I listened to those who were describing how they wanted to change the 
program. They really do not have any good reasons for changing this 
program. The only thing that they are doing is carrying out a 
conservative Republican philosophy that gets government out of 
providing a real safety net for the least of these. They are not only 
following the line, the philosophy of the Republican Party in divesting 
itself from programs that invest in people. We see it every day. It is 
not only Head Start. It is the section 8 program where they are trying 
to get out of the business of helping to provide safe and secure 
housing for people who cannot afford it with a subsidy; and so they are 
marching down this conservative road, of divesting government from 
being involved in programs that were created under the Great Society, 
programs of Johnson and Kennedy and getting rid of government 
responsibility.
  Unfortunately, we are in the minority around here and we may not be 
able to stop them. They were so arrogant that they are going to have a 
closed rule where we will not be able to offer any amendments. They are 
going to have a closed rule so that there will not be any discussion 
and any real debate about how we ought to be strengthening Head Start. 
And the arrogance goes further than that. They are going to debate this 
on a Friday when people are rushing off to catch airplanes so that they 
can limit the debate and shut it down and literally roll out of here 
having block-granted Head Start and eight of our programs. This is 
sinful and it is shameful. They are destroying one of the most 
successful programs that we have ever had in this country, a program 
that has been commended and supported by every President since the 
inception of Head Start.
  There is no reason for this. Some of the amendments that I tried to 
offer, one was an amendment that would allow parents to count the hours 
they volunteer in a Head Start classroom against welfare work 
requirements. Another would establish a parent service awards program. 
The amendment would authorize a $1,000 voucher to up to 5,000 
individuals to be used for the cost of any education or job training 
program approved by any State or the Secretary of Health and Human 
Services. Eligible recipients of the award are parents who volunteer in 
the classroom at least 5 hours a week for the entire Head Start year.
  A third would require each Head Start program to establish and 
maintain a waiting list of all children who are eligible for and apply 
for enrollment in a Head Start program, but are unable to participate 
because of lack of funding. If there is funding remaining after the 
initial disbursement of funds, this amendment authorizes the Secretary 
of Health and Human Services to distribute the remaining funds. And the 
last would remove title II of the bill and thereby ensure that Head 
Start can function as designed with strong educational standards, low 
child-to-staff ratios, and high-quality social services. In addition, 
the amendment ensures that funds designated for Head Start will go 
directly to local Head Start programs and the States will not have the 
opportunity to divert Head Start funds to close gaps in their budget or 
for other priorities.
  I was not the only Member of Congress up there. In fact, I would 
guess there were 15 or 20 Members who were present, all interested in 
offering an amendment or two in an attempt to minimize the damage that 
the Republicans are doing to the Head Start program. Many of these 
amendments were well thought out and would improve the program. Yet the 
chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), has requested a closed rule with no amendments 
to be permitted except maybe a manager's amendment and a Democratic 
substitute.
  Let me just close, Mr. Speaker, by saying, if, in fact, this Congress 
allows the block-granting of Head Start, it will be one of the worst 
public policy decisions that has been made in the history of the 
Congress of the United States of America. Any time you have public 
policymakers who are willing to take a successful program that has been 
lauded and commended by everybody and there is nobody supporting the 
block-granting of the program, nobody asking that some changes like 
this be made to the program and undermine the ability of poor children 
and low-income, working families to have an experience of preschool 
that would help to make children more successful, then we ought to be 
called to task for it, and we ought to be challenged in our elections 
for it. We do not need to do this. I would ask the Republicans to 
rethink this wrongheaded policy. They may not do it, but we will all 
pay a price in the long run for it.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman for her 
statement.
  Mr. Speaker, tonight it is a very sad time when we consider a 
program, as the gentlewoman from California said, that has been so 
successful; and it is a sad time when a program that has touched so 
many lives and built so many lives so successfully is being attacked. 
We do consider it to be just that. One of the things that the 
gentlewoman from California talked about was she went to the Committee 
on Rules and she asked a question, why is it that the Republican 
leadership is so afraid of amendments to this bill to make it a better 
bill and to make the Head Start program better? She went on to say that 
there is a question as to whether or not they really understand what 
Head Start is all about. Martin Luther King, Jr. said, ``You cannot 
lead where you do not go and you cannot teach what you don't know.'' 
The fact is that there are so many children

[[Page 18183]]

like the 4-year-old that I saw just a month ago graduating from our 
Head Start program at the Union Baptist Church in my district reading 
on the level of a third or fourth grader. That is what Head Start is 
all about.
  And so it gives me great pleasure to yield to the distinguished 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis), who has consistently been at the 
forefront of lifting people up and trying to make a difference in their 
lives. I know that the gentleman from Illinois believes very strongly 
in the statement that I make quite often and that is that our children 
are the living messages we send to a future we will never see.
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. I want to thank the gentleman from Maryland 
for yielding. I also want to commend him for his outstanding leadership 
on not only this but a myriad of issues confronting America as he 
continues in his role as chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus. I 
also want to commend my good friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Rodriguez), for his outstanding leadership as chairman of the Hispanic 
Caucus as we come together to work on issues that are mutually 
important to both groups, but are really important to all of America.
  For about the last almost hour, we have heard many of my colleagues 
extol the virtues of Head Start. Since 1965, the Head Start program has 
helped over 21 million of America's neediest children gain the 
academic, social, emotional, and behavioral skills necessary for 
success in life. However, the positive effects of Head Start extend far 
beyond the individual child in the classroom. As a matter of fact, as 
we have heard, it helps the entire family. One of the most important 
aspects of Head Start is the involvement of parents. Through their 
involvement in the program, Head Start parents gain invaluable skills 
that have a positive and lasting effect on all of their children. 
Research has shown that Head Start parents demonstrate improved 
parenting skills, are more likely to begin preparing for employment, 
and gain the skills necessary to effectively advocate for their 
children. Head Start parents learn the importance of being involved and 
caring role models for their children. They are encouraged to 
participate in a wide range of activities, such as home visits, 
literacy classes, volunteering in the classroom, and taking part in the 
governing of the program. As a matter of fact, we just heard one of the 
most outstanding members of this body, the gentlewoman from California, 
talk about how she was inspired and motivated as a parent.
  In the 2001-2002 program year, more than 876,000 parents volunteered 
at their local Head Start program. After participating in the program, 
Head Start parents typically continue to take a strong interest in the 
education of their children and are likely to continue their 
involvement with the program.

                              {time}  2200

  In fact, 23 percent of Head Start staff members in Illinois and in 
many other sites across the Nation are current or former Head Start 
parents.
  The original bill sought to block grant the entire program. 
Fortunately, as a result of the hue and cry of Head Start activists, 
program directors, Democrats and Members of this body and other bodies 
and others have forced some back-peddling, and now the Head Start 
reauthorization bill seeks to implement an experimental program in 
eight States, providing block grants to integrate Head Start in 
preexisting State preschool programs.
  These block grants, as we know, will undermine the comprehensive 
family-based intent of the program. They will allow States to determine 
their own standards, guidelines, and qualifications. These States could 
then decide to implement Head Start as a pre-kindergarten program, 
cutting out nutrition, vaccinations, dental care, medical care, and 
other important services currently guaranteed to children in the 
program. With the current State budget crisis, these services will 
almost certainly be eliminated, leaving the low-income children served 
by Head Start with no way to receive these extremely important 
services.
  Unlike Head Start, typical pre-kindergarten programs are half-day 
programs that do not fully address parents' child care needs. These 
programs also focus primarily on building a foundation for academic 
skills, overlooking the importance of developing the social, emotional, 
and behavior skills vital to classroom survival.
  Finally, these programs typically do not teach parents to actively 
advocate for their children. Low-income children deserve safe, caring 
environments. They deserve to have their parents involved in their 
lives. Low-income parents need to learn how to provide for the needs of 
their children. It is clear that if Head Start reauthorization is 
passed as written, it will be a tragedy for our Nation's low-income 
families and will not provide the comprehensive approach to readiness 
that our children so greatly need.
  So, Mr. Speaker, once again, I want to reinforce what has already 
been said. That is, ``If it ain't broke, don't fix it.'' If it does not 
need change, do not change it. If it is working, then let it work in 
such a way that it seriously benefits all of the children.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) 
for his outstanding leadership.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his statement.
  Mr. Speaker, tonight the Congressional Hispanic Caucus and the 
Congressional Black Caucus have come together to address the Head Start 
program; and, as I said a little bit earlier, our concerns go very 
deep.
  Every time I come into this Chamber, I cannot help but think about 
the day that I was sworn in. My father, who only had a first grade 
education, sat up in the balcony. After the swearing-in ceremony, he 
came down with tears in his eyes, and I asked him the question, I said, 
Dad, why are you crying?
  And I understood, first of all, about his history. He was a man who 
was born in Manning, South Carolina, and his people who owned the land 
where he was a sharecropper denied him the opportunity to get a decent 
education. He had gone some 70 years deprived of the kind of education 
that he deserved. So here he was in April of 1996, looking down on his 
son who had gotten the education. And I said, Dad, are you upset? I 
mean, are you happy, so happy that you have tears in your eyes about 
your son being elevated to a Congressman and being a lawyer and a phi 
beta kappa? He said, no, that is not what it is about. He said, I am 
crying out of pain. I am crying over the fact that I have gone a 
lifetime and finally I see what I could have been.
  And what this is all about, this entire discussion here tonight, is 
about little children who have been born into a world and born into an 
environment where the income level of their parents may not be all that 
it is for others, and all they are doing is trying to be all that God 
has meant for them to be.
  One great sculptor said that not long ago at one time he was 
sculpturing and his sculptures were selling for about $20. He went back 
to his grandfather and he said, grandfather, your sculptures sold for 
more. I mean, what is it? How did that happen? And the grandfather 
said, you have to look into the wood; it is already there. And so he 
began to look into the wood and see the sculpture, and he began to cut 
away and finally came up with what he knew was already there.
  The fact is that these children who, again, are trying to simply be 
all that God meant for them to be, it is already there. The question is 
whether we, as adults, will do all that we can to bring it out of them.
  We are convinced in the Congressional Hispanic Caucus and in the 
Congressional Black Caucus that we should be doing more, not less. We 
should not be merely raising the Head Start budget from $6.8 billion to 
$6.9 billion. That is not enough, because there is still, even with 
that slight increase, there are still 40 percent of all of the children 
who deserve a head start and who deserve to be in the program unable to 
do it because we have not put the money forward.
  We are concerned about the fact that we are now saying let us 
experiment

[[Page 18184]]

with these eight States and give them the block grant funds to pass on 
to the Head Start programs. We are worried that that money may get 
diverted somewhere else, and the kids that really need that money they 
will not get it. Because budgets throughout our Nation, almost every 
single governor is struggling with a deficit, and we are very clear 
that when they are struggling with deficits it is probably quite likely 
that the money, all of the money that is destined for those Head Start 
programs will not get there.
  So we do not want to be in a situation where 30 years from now, 20 
years from now, 40 years from now, children who are then grown up are 
looking at their children and saying what my father said to me: Now I 
know what I could have been, what I could have been. The fact is that 
we have an opportunity here today, this week, to make sure that all of 
our children, all of our children, every one of them, has an 
opportunity to get off to a good head start.
  Finally let me say this: So often I hear my colleagues talk about 
what they want for our children. But I ask the question, if their 
children, if they were talking about their own children, the children 
that have their blood running through their veins and who came from 
their womb, would they want an improved Head Start program if their 
child had to be a subject of the Head Start program? I would submit 
that they would want a better program, that they would not want funds 
diverted.
  So this evening, Mr. Speaker, I thank all of the Members of the 
Congressional Black Caucus, all of the Members of the Congressional 
Hispanic Caucus who have come forward to lift up our children so that 
they can be all the best that they can be.
  Mr. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I raise in support of Hard Start as 
we know it. Rather than dismantling Head Start, I call on the 
leadership of both parties to make Head Start bipartisan as it has been 
for 38 years, to keep the current Federal-to-local structure of Head 
Start intact rather than supporting any measures to shift oversight to 
any number of states, to maintain and improve upon current Federal 
performance standards and oversight--to ensure high quality and the 
array of comprehensive services offered by Head Start, to provide for 
further improvements including higher teacher qualifications, matched 
with provisions for funding teacher training and higher salaries, and 
to move towards fully funding Head Start, beginning with at least a $1 
billion increase for FY 2004.
  All the Head Start programs in Ohio say that if the States inherit 
control of the program, it is likely the current comprehensive focus 
for Head Start will be lost. This change could eliminate critical 
services, such as promoting children's social and emotional well-being 
in addition to their academic skills, health and dental screenings and 
treatment, mental health services, parent-education programs and social 
services.
  They say that: families who are currently receiving help but have 
income above 150 percent of poverty will lose their assistance the next 
time their eligibility is predetermined. The changes also include an 
increase in parent fees, which will increase the amount families pay by 
an average of $50.
  They say that the rates for family childcare providers will be 
lowered from the 75th percentile of the market rate to the 60th 
percentile, making it difficult for those providers to serve families 
receiving assistance.
  The shame of it all is that the most eligible children are denied 
childcare assistance. Nationally, only 1 out of 7 children eligible for 
childcare assistance under Federal law receives help. States have long 
waiting lists for children help. (At the end of 2002, one-third of the 
states continued to put low-income working families on waiting lists.)
  In Ohio 38,081 children are enrolled in the Federal program and 
18,173 in the State program.
  Ohio has 837 centers. This does not count home-based services; these 
are actual centers. Of these, 229 are only federally funded, 109 are 
only State funded, and the other 499 are mixed--both State and Federal 
funds.
  Cuts in Ohio will mean that 18,500 children will lose their child 
care assistance by September to help the State save $268 million. On 
April 1, the State will decrease income eligibility from 185 percent of 
the Federal poverty level ($27,787 for a family of three) to 150 
percent ($22,530 for a family of three).
  Support Head Start as we know it. Fully fund this successful program!
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________