[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 5]
[House]
[Pages 6456-6457]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                  THE PRESIDENT'S HEAD START PROPOSAL

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Aderholt). Pursuant to the order of the 
House of January 7, 2003, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez) is 
recognized during morning hour debates for 5 minutes.

[[Page 6457]]


  Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk briefly about the 
President's budget for 2004. One of the specific areas is the area of 
Head Start.
  The President's budget introduced this new Head Start initiative and 
wages a war on the poor. The Head Start has been working great, despite 
the fact that we only have funds to represent and only give to about 40 
percent of Americans that are out there that are in need. Yet he is 
choosing to take these resources and decided to put it on the block 
grant, when right now, on the local control basis, it has been working 
in a way, and all the studies indicate that the Head Start has been 
doing a great job.
  The administration claims that his proposal will sharpen the focus on 
school readiness, improve teacher training and mandate a system to 
assess the success of Head Start programs in preparing children for 
school. The reality is it is already doing that. Why mess with it? It 
is a great program.
  The intent is to send the money to the States. The reason we started 
the Head Start program is because the States have been negligent in 
providing early childhood education. The States have not been 
responsive in putting in the resources, and I will give my colleagues 
an example.
  Texas, to this day, only funds half-day kindergartens. The rest of 
the local school districts have to come up with the local property tax 
in order to provide full-day kindergartens. So when we look at Head 
Start that has early childhood preparation, this is where the resources 
need to be. They need to stay there. They have been doing a great job. 
Let us not mess with it.
  In order to address what the administration suggests is uncoordinated 
efforts, he wants to give this to the Department of Health and Human 
Services, or take it away from that Department and give it to the 
Department of Education. The reason it has been with the Department of 
Health and Human Services is because Head Start is not only an 
educational program, but it has been there to reach out to the families 
of these youngsters and also work with them when it comes to the issue 
of health and providing that early education that is needed to help 
those parents also address those needs.
  When we send that money to the Department of Education, I can already 
see they are going to be earmarking it to the existing programs that 
they have and not addressing the specific programs that this program 
was intended to do.
  Under the President's plan, the transition would begin in 2004, and 
the Department of Education would assume full responsibilities for Head 
Start, and instead of having the local community do it, we would have 
50 State agencies throughout this country with each State having the 
bureaucracy, and, of course, they would need 16 to 20 percent off the 
top in order to make that happen. Then they would be looking at 
providing those resources.
  So we must ensure that Head Start continues to provide our children 
with comprehensive services and that it is strong for parental 
involvement and parental participation.
  One of the key things that this program has resulted in is the 
studies show that those kids that show up at Head Start do a great deal 
better than the average youngster in the same category that is not 
under Head Start, and not only that, but they also found that they are 
less likely to drop out.
  One of the realities is that youngsters who drop out, one of the 
characteristics is that they fail twice before they reach junior high, 
and one of the realities is that Head Start has helped them not to fall 
into that category of failing twice, and being able to get that, as the 
name implies, a head start in education.
  One of the things that we do need to do is provide additional moneys 
for Head Start, because right now we are only providing 40 percent of 
those that are eligible to participate for this program, and there is a 
need for us to provide additional resources.
  Besides trying to dismantle the Head Start program, the President 
also announced in his 2004 budget an increase of only $148 million for 
Head Start. At the same time that he has identified education as one of 
his priorities, this is not sufficient money to be able to make this 
happen. Not only would this tiny increase not cover inflation and reach 
those kids that are needed in Head Start, but it would also have to 
turn away over 1,200 children from the existing programs.
  Questions must be asked as to the rationale for the initiative and 
for the transfer. Our concern is that we are transferring a program 
that has been working well under the Department of Health to another 
Department that has chosen not to address this problem, and who has 
chosen not to deal with early childhood education.
  The President's 2004 budget proposal also includes legislative 
proposals to introduce an option available to all States to participate 
in alternative financing systems and in terms of grants, and so this 
initiative in terms of these grants are basically to take away from the 
existing program.
  So I want to encourage the Members to really look closely at Head 
Start because it is a program that has been working. It is a program 
that has been there for us, and we need to keep that up.

                          ____________________