[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 14]
[House]
[Pages 19488-19492]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                      SCHOOL READINESS ACT OF 2003

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bass). Pursuant to House Resolution 336 
and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the 
bill, H.R. 2210.
  The Chair designates the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) as 
Chairman of the Committee of the Whole, and requests the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. LaHood) to assume the Chair temporarily.

                              {time}  2025


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 2210) to reauthorize the Head Start Act to improve the school 
readiness of disadvantaged children, and for other purposes, with Mr. 
LaHood (Chairman pro tempore) in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  (Mr. Hoyer asked and was given permission to speak out of order.)


                          Legislative Program

  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I know the Members of the House are concerned 
about the schedule that we have been on and the schedule we are going 
to be on. And in the interest of apprising Members of what they might 
expect for the balance of this evening and tomorrow, I yield to the 
distinguished majority leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay).
  Mr. DeLAY. I appreciate the distinguished whip yielding to me.
  In consultation with the minority, we have come up with what we think 
is a very firm schedule, very fair schedule, and that is we, as most 
Members know, will go to the Head Start bill at the end of this 
conversation. There will be about 2 hours, 2 hours 20 minutes of debate 
before a vote. Then when that bill is disposed of, we will go to the 
drug reimportation bill, hopefully voting on that final passage 
sometime around 1 o'clock. Then we will break and come back tomorrow.
  We have been in discussion with the ranking member of the 
appropriations and the chairman of the appropriations. They want to do 
a supplemental on FEMA and fires first thing in the morning, or in the 
morning, and then go to VA-HUD appropriations. We will not be doing 
D.C. appropriations tomorrow. We anticipate or we hope that Members 
will get us amendments to the VA-HUD bill so that we can make some sort 
of arrangements in time on that debate. And if everything goes well, we 
ought to be able to adjourn sometime around 5 o'clock tomorrow 
afternoon.
  Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, if I might, Mr. Leader, it is my 
understanding that the first thing that will

[[Page 19489]]

be considered tomorrow will be the Solis motion to instruct on the 
Child Tax Credit. We would have an hour of debate on that. Am I 
correct, sir?
  Mr. DeLAY. The gentleman is correct. We will start that at 9 a.m.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. I think Members need to understand if we are to facilitate 
the agreement that has been described and if we are going to get out of 
here at a reasonable time tomorrow, we do need to have all of the 
amendments that are going to be offered to the VA-HUD bill in tonight. 
So my understanding is on our side of the aisle, the leadership is 
sending out a bulletin to all Members that they need to have their 
amendments filed by 10:30 tonight because that is the only way we can 
work overnight to get an agreement on the universe of amendments and 
work out time agreements for all of them; otherwise, we will be here 
until midnight tomorrow.

                              {time}  2030

  Mr. HOYER. I yield to the majority leader.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding.
  I appreciate the ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations 
pointing that out because it will take all night tonight to work on 
those amendments, and during the time of the debate on the motion to 
instruct and the supplemental, we will have to firm up those agreements 
so that the debate on VA-HUD will go smoothly.
  Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, my question did not include it, so you 
did not say it, but just to clarify it for Members, on the motions to 
instruct on the child tax, the vote will be tomorrow, as well, after 
debate, or at least shortly after the debate. It may not be 
immediately, but it will be tomorrow; am I correct?
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, it 
will be tomorrow, but hopefully we can work it where we can roll it 
into other votes.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the leader and I thank the ranking member as well 
as the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations for helping us 
arrive at this schedule which will be defined, and Members can, I 
think, pretty well know when they are going to be voting on issues from 
here on in.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the 
first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) and the 
gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) each will control 30 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner).
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise tonight in support of H.R. 2210, the School 
Readiness Act, legislation that will improve the Federal Head Start 
program by increasing its focus on academics and helping to close the 
readiness gap. We believe that the bill that we have before us will 
close the readiness gap that exists between Head Start graduates and 
their more affluent peers.
  I want to thank the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), the 
chairman of the Subcommittee on Education Reform and the author of this 
bill, for his dedication on behalf of disadvantaged children. We would 
not be here today without his hard work.
  The measure before us reflects a consensus agreement amongst Members 
of this House who believe that disadvantaged children in our country 
are getting the best this Nation can possibly give them. In opposing 
our efforts to strengthen Head Start, my friends on the other side of 
the aisle have repeatedly said, ``If it ain't broke, don't fix it,'' 
but the evidence suggests this is a system that badly needs fixing.
  Too many studies show Head Start children are entering kindergarten 
behind their peers. Improving school readiness standards for Head Start 
grantees in all States will help close this readiness gap.
  Worse, in many parts of the country, Head Start centers are not 
getting the job done. Data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human 
Services shows most Head Start grantees across the country are actually 
falling far short of Federal standards, the very standards that the 
congressional Democrats say would be undermined by the School Readiness 
Act.
  In fiscal year 2002, a total of 559 Head Start grantees were 
reviewed. Only 9 percent were found to be in compliance, 9 percent, 
with our Head Start performance standards. The remaining 509 grantees, 
91 percent, had one or more areas of noncompliance.
  In fiscal year 2001, nearly 600 Head Start grantees were reviewed by 
the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Only 11 percent of 
those grantees were found to be in compliance with all Head Start 
performance standards; 89 percent were out of compliance.
  These statistics are nothing short of shocking, and I would ask my 
friends on both sides of the aisle, do not our children deserve better? 
We think they do.
  The measure before us meets the President's goal to strengthen the 
overall quality of Head Start, especially the academic standards, by 
emphasizing cognitive development and the results of scientifically 
based research. It requires all new Head Start teachers to have at 
least an associate degree by 2005 and half of all Head Start teachers 
nationwide to have a bachelor's degree by 2008. It restores civil 
rights protections to faith-based organizations, removing barriers that 
discourage some of America's most talented and compassionate groups 
from providing services to children in need.
  It gives up to eight States with an existing commitment to early 
childhood education the opportunity to coordinate Head Start with their 
own preschool programs; and we recognize that offering highly qualified 
States the opportunity to coordinate programs will result in better 
outcomes for parents and children than what Head Start serves today.
  The bill guarantees that children in these demonstration States have 
access to pre-kindergarten programs that are at least as strong, if not 
stronger, than what is currently offered by Head Start. States are 
required to have strong standards for school readiness already in place 
to increase their already substantial funding of early childhood 
education and maintain or improve all comprehensive services, including 
health, nutrition and parental involvement.
  The bill ensures that no State or local funds can be supplanted and 
that all Head Start funds must be spent on Head Start uses.
  Additionally, the bill increases authorized funding for Head Start by 
more than $202 million for the upcoming year, as originally proposed, 
while setting specific spending levels for the remaining spending years 
of the bill. It also includes a 5-year hold harmless that guarantees 
funding for all Head Start centers in the pilot States, instead of the 
3 years that were originally proposed.
  I am grateful to everyone who played a part in helping us to reach 
this agreement, and I do believe it has helped pave the way for this 
legislation that could dramatically improve school readiness for 
disadvantaged children.
  In his remarks on Head Start earlier this month, President Bush said, 
Head Start is ``working okay. We want better than 'okay' in America. We 
want excellence.'' The children in Head Start deserve the very best 
that this Nation can give them, nothing less.
  Mr. Chairman, these reforms will not dismantle the Head Start program 
as some of my colleagues have claimed, and I am sure will claim as the 
evening goes on. They will strengthen the Head Start program. This 
debate is about protecting children, not about protecting turf. Instead 
of clinging jealously to the status quo, these lobbyists should join us 
in bringing real improvement to the Head Start system that needs to do 
better for our children.
  I want to urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' tonight on H.R. 2210.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5\1/2\ 
minutes.

[[Page 19490]]

  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the underlying bill. 
While we spent a great deal of time in No Child Left Behind to provide 
for improved student achievement, increased standards and 
accountability to ask more of State schools and students, this 
legislation does exactly the opposite. It decreases the standards and 
decreases the accountability, and it weakens our commitment to quality 
and it asks less of the States.
  We should not be experimenting with this program. I appreciate that 
the gentleman says that 91 percent of these programs were out of 
compliance, but what he does not tell us is that in that same audit 85 
percent of the programs were found to be of high quality. Why were they 
of high quality? Because of the Head Start standards, the Head Start 
performance standards and the quality standards. These are the 
performance and quality standards that Congress after Congress and 
President after President have worked to continuously improve so that 
Head Start now is the premier pre-K program for impoverished children 
in this Nation. There is no State that has a program comparable to Head 
Start for these children.
  When my colleague on the other side suggests that these children do 
not do as well as their peers, he is denying all of the evidence. These 
children are doing better than their peers. They are not doing as well 
as middle-class white children in the suburbs, but he does not know of 
any program that will have these children do as well in the year or two 
as middle-class white children in the suburbs, but among their peers, 
among the children in same community who do not get to participate, 
these children do much better and they accelerate by the end of 
kindergarten.
  Head Start works and it performs, and it performs well for these 
children. But this legislation takes another approach. While the first 
part of this legislation makes many improvements that we agree with and 
we support in this bill, the second provision provides for a block 
grant. It was a wholesale block grant of the entire program that 
politically was unsustainable. It became an eight-State block program, 
and over the last few days apparently some people got promises to vote 
for this bill and they would not block grant their State. There is a 
commitment to block grants.
  But what do they do with these block grants? In the block grants they 
circumvent the standards of performance and quality and education 
standards and health services and comprehensive services because if 
they have a block grant, they do not have to meet those standards. It 
says so in the bill. They will say in their Dear Colleagues, it has to 
meet or exceed Head Start standards, but in the law, it says it must 
generally meet or exceed. ``Generally'' is a very important word here 
because they do not have to comply with the standards.
  The same is true in accountability, and yet we do this. We weaken 
these standards. We create this loophole of the block grant, and we do 
it without any evidence to suggest that that is the answer.
  The concern is about accountability, the concern is about 
performance; and we put the children into a system for which there 
really is no accountability or performance. Nothing requires a showing 
that the system that will be created is better than the current Head 
Start system, that the program running currently in the State is better 
than the Head Start system; and yet, we are talking about creating a 
system where almost as much as 40 percent of the children could be put 
in that system.
  That is really not fair to these children because Head Start is their 
best hope. Head Start is our premier early education program in this 
country, and that is why it must be protected. And ``protected'' is the 
right word because this legislation with the block grant is an all-out 
assault on Head Start as we know it, on Head Start as it performs and 
Head Start as it delivers for these children and these families and 
their educational opportunity.
  Can it be improved? Of course it can be improved, and what every 
President and every Congress on a bipartisan basis, Republican and 
Democratic administrations, year after year, time after time, they have 
continuously improved this program. I have been on this committee for 
29 years, and we have continuously approved this program every 3 to 5 
years. That is why it is the premier program. That is why it gets the 
results it does.
  Now what happens here? For the first time, we essentially see a 
partisan assault on that bipartisan coalition that has led to that 
continuous improvement of this program, that has led to these 
comprehensive services for these children.

                              {time}  2045

  And these services are terribly important. Terribly important. Health 
screening, vision, dental care. What will you get under their block 
grant? You will get a referral to a service. You may not get the 
service. You may get to stand in line. You may get put on a waiting 
list, but you do not necessarily get the service for mental health 
screening and general health screening and nutrition and health 
education, all of which we know in terms of child development of these 
impoverished children is terribly important.
  But, finally, let me say this. There is something else going on in 
this bill that is the first in 35 years. When they capped the 
expenditures in the outyears, when they changed such sums as necessary, 
under which every President and every Congress has expanded the 
participation in the Head Start program, there is not enough money for 
inflation. So in the third year, we find that some 5,000 to 10,000 
children at a minimum are going to have to stop attending Head Start 
because of the capped authorization.
  I appreciate all of the money we have put in Head Start under 
President Clinton's leadership, under this Congress, the Republican 
leadership, that we have done over the last 8 years; but that comes to 
a grinding halt in this legislation. That is why this bill should be 
rejected, and later we will hope that the substitute will be accepted 
by the Congress; and then we can continue the process of continuing to 
improve America's premier education program for pre-K impoverished 
children.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), the author of the bill and the 
chairman of the Subcommittee on Education Reform.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Boehner) for yielding me this time tonight and for all the tremendous 
work he has done in the committee and on this piece of legislation.
  There has been a lot of rhetoric about this legislation, and we are 
going to hear a lot more in the next 2 hours. Frankly, I would love to 
be able to stand and try to repudiate all that we are hearing, but 
perhaps we do not have time for that. So I thought I would take a 
little different tack in the time I have and that is to make sure that 
people who are really willing to listen understand what truly is in 
this title II, which is the State demonstration program of this bill.
  I think we can all agree on the reforms made in title I, or at least 
most of them anyhow. What has been the strongest point of contention is 
title II, which does create the eight-State demonstration program that 
would allow a select number of qualified States to better coordinate 
and to improve their early education programs.
  What title II does not do is seek to dismantle Head Start as we know 
it. It does not create a block grant, nor does it permit States to use 
this money as a bandage for their ailing budgets. Since H.R. 2210 was 
introduced, we have listened to the concerns raised by Members on the 
other side of the aisle as well as Head Start advocates across the 
Nation. What we have before us today is a carefully crafted bill which 
clearly addresses all of these concerns.
  I very strongly believe in the State demonstration project. Title II 
is critical, because today, unlike in 1965 when Head Start was created, 
Governors have a host of initiatives to serve disadvantaged citizens, 
including WIC,

[[Page 19491]]

TANF, Community Services Block Grant, and state-run prekindergarten 
programs. Most of these programs are run through States, making 
coordination easy. In Head Start, however, grantees receive funds 
directly from the Federal Government, despite the fact that it may be 
more beneficial to coordinate with similar State initiatives.
  Those Governors who have demonstrated a commitment to early childhood 
education programs will now have an opportunity to fully coordinate all 
of those programs. By empowering those States that are committed to 
early childhood education to coordinate their existing patchwork of 
child care and preschool programs, we will produce improved results for 
all our children.
  In order for a State to participate in the demonstration program, 
they would have to meet a set of eligibility requirements. The State 
would then submit a plan to the U.S. Department of Health and Human 
Services for approval by the Secretary. In order to be eligible, a 
State would need to show evidence that they are contributing to Head 
Start or State prekindergarten programs an amount in State and local 
dollars that is at least half of what the State receives in Head Start 
funding; existing State school readiness standards and demonstration of 
a willingness to allowing those State standards with K through 12 State 
standards, if they have not already done so; existing professional 
development criteria for early childhood educators; and an established 
means of interagency coordination.
  Once a State has been approved by the Secretary, there are a number 
of requirements and prohibitions attached to the State. For example, a 
State would be prohibited from using Head Start funds to pad their 
State budgets. Explicit in the legislation is a prohibition on 
supplanting, mis-
directing, or misappropriating Federal or State early childhood 
education funds to other purposes. States are also required to continue 
to fund early childhood education at the same level as the 2003 fiscal 
year.
  Under this bill, it is illegal for States to reduce their complements 
to early childhood education. In order to participate in the pilot, 
States must be matching at least 50 percent of the Federal commitment 
with State and local dollars and contribute from any non-Federal 
sources an additional 5 percent of their Federal Head Start allotment. 
This good-faith money ensures that States make a strong commitment to 
early childhood education.
  Participating States must also have state-developed standards that 
generally meet or exceed the standards that ensure the quality and 
effectiveness of programs operated by Head Start agencies. Children in 
a Head Start program in a participating State will be receiving the 
same, if not better, services than if that State remained in the 
current structure. States must have standards that ensure children 
participating in a program demonstrate language skills, prereading 
knowledge, pre-mathematics knowledge, cognitive abilities related to 
academic achievement and social development.
  Finally, today, we require a State in a demonstration program to 
continue to fund all current Head Start grantees for the full 5 years 
of the project.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to look at the details and the 
facts. This is good policy. Examining how State coordination will 
enhance the academic preparedness of pre-K children is something that 
will ultimately help all of the children in our districts.
  The School Readiness Act of 2003 builds upon the reforms of previous 
reauthorizations of Head Start as well as the requirements of the 
landmark No Child Left Behind and the vision of President Bush and 
Secretary Thompson. We all want to do the best for our children. I 
truly believe this bill does this.
  I have looked at the results that have existed in Head Start for a 
number of years, and they just are not what we need. We need to enhance 
the program and do even more. That is what this bill does. That is what 
it is all about. I would ask all of us to support the legislation when 
the time comes for it.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to 
the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), the ranking member of 
the subcommittee dealing with Head Start.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding me 
this time.
  This Head Start bill is outrageous. It turns a program that is a 
proven success at improving the lives and futures of low-income 
children into a Federal experiment. And for the first time in this 
Nation's history, it repeals the law that protects employees against 
religious discrimination.
  Head Start does a better job than any other program to narrow the 
school readiness gap between low-income children and their more 
advantaged peers. These are our Nation's most disadvantaged children, 
Mr. Chairman, children who face multiple barriers to learning. One year 
in Head Start can erase all of these barriers.
  We have absolute proof that children who have been in Head Start 
enter kindergarten ahead of their peers from similar backgrounds but 
without Head Start. These children make substantial gains in specific 
academics during kindergarten. They end up close to all national 
academic norms by the end of the kindergarten year.
  We know that children who complete Head Start are less likely to 
become delinquent and more likely to graduate from high school. Yet not 
only does this bill hand Head Start over to the States to do what they 
would do with it as a block grant, it would also lead to tens of 
thousands of Head Start children losing their beloved teachers for no 
other reason than religious prejudice. The base bill allows faith-based 
Head Start providers to fire thousands of dedicated Head Start teachers 
because of their religious beliefs or practices.
  Today, Members will have the opportunity to vote for the Miller 
amendment, which will stop the dismantling of Head Start, and for my 
amendment against religious discrimination. Voting for these amendments 
will ensure that low-income children can continue to get the head start 
they need to succeed in school and to succeed in life. Without these 
amendments, this bill must be defeated.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon), who is the chairman of the 
Subcommittee on 21st Century Competitiveness of the Committee on 
Education and the Workforce and who does a wonderful job.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2210, the 
School Readiness Act, which will strengthen the Head Start program by 
closing the readiness gap that exists between low- and upper-income 
children.
  I want to thank my good friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Boehner), and the chairman of the Subcommittee on Education Reform, the 
gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), for their hard work on getting 
this important piece of legislation here to the floor. At the outset, I 
want to thank them for their willingness to work with me to include 
language in the committee report on facilities management.
  The Los Angeles County Office of Education, the largest Head Start 
grantee in the country, has been experiencing great difficulty in 
meeting the Department's requirement that it spend facility-related 
funding by the end of the Federal Government's fiscal year. In my State 
of California, with the numerous environmental and permitting reviews 
that are required at the local and State level, it is nearly impossible 
to get approval to spend money in this time frame, much less 2 years. 
Even more daunting is the fact that fiscal years for many grantees do 
not coincide with the Federal Government. I am grateful that we are 
urging the Department to take a look at giving grantees some 
flexibility to meet a longer time period.
  Mr. Chairman, like many of my colleagues, I have been listening to 
the debate, and I have heard criticisms of this bill. Over the last few 
weeks, those on the other side of the aisle and their supporters have 
vilified the School

[[Page 19492]]

Readiness Act all in the name of protecting the status quo and 
resisting the efforts to ensure that disadvantaged children in this 
country are better prepared for school. I think it is important that we 
put down our political talking points and get to the bottom of what 
this bill truly will do.
  Now, there is no question that there is near-unanimous support for 
the Head Start program. Created in 1965, and located in every community 
in the country, the program has been a valuable part of our Nation in 
preparing lower- income children for elementary school. At the same 
time, it is Congress' responsibility to examine every program up for 
reauthorization to see if it is truly meeting our high standards for 
success and if there are any potential reforms that we can perform.
  I would argue that regardless of the political reluctance to enact 
and accept fundamental reforms, every Federal program could do a better 
job of carrying out its mission than it is currently performing. This 
applies to those programs on the elementary and secondary school level, 
it applies to programs governing postsecondary education, it applies to 
workforce development programs, and, yes, it applies to early childhood 
programs like Head Start.
  And so we come here to consider H.R. 2210, which will improve the 
Head Start program and close the readiness gap that exists between Head 
Start children and their more affluent peers. We strongly believe that 
we must strengthen Head Start's academic standards by emphasizing 
cognitive development and the results of scientifically based research 
on topics critical to children's school readiness. I believe that Head 
Start has placed an unbalanced emphasis on providing health and social 
services to children and their families, which have resulted in Head 
Start children not making the gains necessary to begin school with an 
equal opportunity to succeed.
  A critical component of school readiness is the attainment of 
prereading abilities. Head Start programs should provide children from 
low-income families with a high-quality oral language and literature-
rich environment. Through scientific research, much has been learned 
about the way children learn to read and the strong foundation that is 
important before children are given formal reading instruction in 
kindergarten and first grade.
  Consistent with the early reading initiative, launched as part of the 
No Child Left Behind Act, Head Start must play a pivotal role in this 
effort. We have done this and can do this while preserving all current 
health and nutrition services for Head Start children.
  Mr. Chairman, I know there has been a lot of criticism about this 
bill because of the State option, but I think it is important to point 
out this committee has produced a bill which improves the education of 
our Nation's most vulnerable children, and for this reason I urge all 
my colleagues to support this bill.

                              {time}  2100

  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 
seconds just to say to my colleague, we do not know whether this bill 
will improve the education of the children, but we do know that the 
language contained in this bill will weaken the education standards, 
will weaken the comprehensive services available to these children and 
will weaken the accountability of this program.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Kildee), subcommittee ranking member.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and I rise in opposition to this bill.
  This bill literally turns back the clock on decades of efforts to 
improve programs for our youngest children. Head Start has meant so 
much to so many of our most disadvantaged children and their families. 
Rather than strengthen Head Start through bipartisan consensus, this 
bill begins the dismantling of the most successful and popular early 
childhood education program in our Nation's history.
  I must also express my disappointment that the majority has not 
sought to reach bipartisan consensus on this legislation. I have been 
through, Mr. Chairman, a number of Head Start reauthorizations during 
my 27 years here in the Congress, and they were all pleasant and 
productive experiences. This statute has always been reauthorized in a 
bipartisan manner. I strongly believe that we do our best work when we 
pass bipartisan legislation, especially legislation dealing with 
children. Not to do so is a doleful disappointment.
  The Republican Head Start bill creates an unaccountable block grant 
that undermines the comprehensive nature of Head Start. Under this 
legislation, the strength of Head Start's decades of existence would be 
eviscerated through lower-quality State-controlled block grants.
  What makes the bill's block grants even more troubling is that it 
departs from the efforts of this committee over the past decade to 
strengthen accountability and results in Federal programs, the most 
recent example being the No Child Left Behind. On that bill, Democrats 
and Republicans in both the House and the Senate, along with the 
President, all worked to create bipartisan legislation to strengthen 
accountability in our K-12 programs.
  Now we are confronted by a White House and Republican bill to create 
unaccountable block grants in the Head Start program. This does not 
make sense. I urge opposition to this legislation.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Isakson) having assumed the chair, Mr. Duncan, Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2210) to 
reauthorize the Head Start Act to improve the school readiness of 
disadvantaged children, and for other purposes, had come to no 
resolution thereon.

                          ____________________