[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 15]
[House]
[Pages 21074-21123]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                      SCHOOL READINESS ACT OF 2005

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Pursuant to House Resolution 
455 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. 2123.

                              {time}  1202


                     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. 2123) to reauthorize the Head Start Act to improve the school 
readiness of disadvantaged children, and for other purposes, with Mr. 
Latham in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having 
been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) and the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) 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 today in support of this bill to reform and 
reauthorize the Head Start early childhood program.
  I want to commend the chairman of the Subcommittee on Education 
Reform, the author of this bill and my good friend, the gentleman from 
Delaware (Mr. Castle). I also want to recognize the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Woolsey) and the gentleman from California (Mr. George 
Miller) for their work to strengthen the Head Start program.
  The School Readiness Act will introduce greater competition into the 
Head Start program and use that competition to leverage reforms that 
will result in a better program for the children Head Start was created 
to serve.
  This bill will strengthen school readiness and increase the role of 
all 50 States and local communities in Head Start. It will protect 
children and taxpayers against the abuse and mismanagement of Head 
Start funds, and

[[Page 21075]]

it will make Head Start more transparent and more accountable to 
parents and taxpayers.
  I am pleased at the approach that this bill takes to solve the school 
readiness gap between Head Start children and their peers when they 
reach kindergarten.
  There is no question that most Head Start children are better off in 
the program than they would have been without it. That is not in 
dispute here. But there is evidence that some Head Start centers could 
be doing an even better job of providing preschoolers with the academic 
foundation they need in order to succeed in school.
  This bill will strengthen Head Start's academic standards by 
emphasizing cognitive development and the results of scientifically 
based research and topics critical to children's school readiness. It 
will also improve teacher quality by ensuring a greater number of Head 
Start teachers have degrees and are adequately trained in early 
childhood development, particularly in teaching the fundamentals.
  I am particularly pleased about how the bill will improve 
coordination between Head Start and State and local early childhood 
education programs. We are going to improve program integration in all 
50 States by encouraging cooperation and program coordination from the 
ground up.
  The bill also addresses weaknesses in the Head Start financial 
oversight structure that have allowed the mismanagement and outright 
abuse of Federal funds meant for disadvantaged children. Local media 
outlets across the Nation have documented more than a dozen instances 
of financial mismanagement involving millions of dollars and thousands 
of children. This lack of program integrity and financial 
accountability is unacceptable. The Federal Government is investing 
nearly $7 billion per year in Head Start, and every dime should be 
going to support disadvantaged children.
  The GAO, the Government Accountability Office, in a report that we 
requested, found that the financial management weaknesses in Head Start 
are resulting in diminished services for children. Unfortunately, there 
is currently no system in place to assure parents and taxpayers that 
these types of abuses will be prevented. This is unfair to parents and 
children. It is unfair to taxpayers. And it is unfair to the many high-
quality, hard-working, law abiding people who operate Head Start 
centers across the country who should not be associated with the deeds 
of these bad actors.
  Head Start is an important program entrusted with a vitally important 
mission. The vast majority of those in Head Start are honest 
individuals dedicated to making sure the poorest of our Nation's 
children have a chance to succeed.
  The School Readiness Act takes critical steps to support quality Head 
Start programs and the children they serve by encouraging quality 
through competition, strengthening transparency and disclosure, and 
improving the financial oversight structure to protect children and 
taxpayers.
  I would like to address one more issue that is the subject of great 
debate today. In numerous Federal programs across the country, faith-
based institutions that want to lend a helping hand and providing 
critical social services are allowed to do so without changing the 
fundamental character of their organization. Former President Bill 
Clinton, for example, signed four bills into law that explicitly 
protected the hiring rights for faith-based organizations when 
participating in Federal programs.
  The Head Start program unfortunately provides no such protections to 
these organizations. To the contrary, faith-based organizations are 
forced to relinquish their protected right to hire individuals who 
share their beliefs or they are not allowed to participate in the 
program at all. For many faith-based organizations, it is their very 
nature to offer help and support the neediest among us. Their efforts 
in response to Hurricane Katrina serve as just one more example.
  Their mission defined by their faith is to serve their community. 
Yet, when they seek to participate in federally funded programs for 
this purpose, they must forfeit the identity that drives them to serve.
  Today I urge Members to support an amendment that I will be offering 
on behalf of the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany) to restore the 
hiring protections in the Head Start program so that faith-based 
institutions can participate fully without giving up their mission and 
character that make them such an effective partner for programs like 
Head Start that serve those in need.
  Once again, I would like to thank the author of the bill, the 
gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), for his hard work on behalf of 
the nearly one million children served each year by the Head Start 
program. We have got a strong bill that will help give disadvantaged 
children the head start they need to succeed in school and in life. I 
urge my colleagues to support the bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this debate reminds me of the old saying, I have got 
good news and I have got bad news.
  The good news is that our committee worked in a bipartisan way to 
report out a bill by a vote of 48 to zero. And I want to thank our 
ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller); our 
chairman, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner); and the subcommittee 
chair, the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), for making that 
possible, as well as all the members of the committee.
  This bill is a great step forward from where we were last Congress. 
First and foremost, the bill protects the high quality of Head Start 
programs by protecting local control of those programs. In other words, 
there is no State block granting. The bill also increases funding to 
migrant and seasonal and Indian Head Start programs, strengthens 
teacher qualification requirements, and limits uses of the 
administration's ill-conceived national testing system.
  But there is also bad news. First, even though fewer than half of 
eligible children receive Head Start services, and even though the 
number of children served has been going down under the Bush 
administration, this bill does nothing to increase the number of 
children who will receive these critical services.
  Second, this bill does not increase resources to help Head Start 
programs hire the better qualified teachers that the bill requires. It 
is unusual for me to be the one explaining to my Republican colleagues 
how market forces work, but in this case it is pretty clear they do not 
get it. More highly qualified teachers will cost more money, and we are 
demanding more qualified teachers without providing the necessary 
financial support. That is the good news and the bad news.
  Now, here is the worst news, which is actually a poison pill for this 
bill. The majority has decided to choose religious discrimination over 
what could have been a rare bipartisan achievement. That probably 
sounds hard to believe, but it is true.
  Under current law, religious organizations can and do receive Head 
Start funding. They also can only hire members of their faith when they 
use their own funds. So I ask you, what is the problem? Apparently, the 
problem is that religious organizations want to discriminate in hiring 
when they are using public funds, your tax dollars. Well, actually, 
religious organizations have never asked any of us to waive their 
discriminatory rights and privileges that they are asking for over on 
the other side of the aisle.
  Under the Boustany amendment, a prospective Head Start teacher could 
face a religious test before being hired. This amendment is 
unnecessary. It is wrong. I will not support a final bill that includes 
it.
  Head Start kids are enough at risk as it is, without their teachers 
being chosen because of their religion, rather than because they are 
actually the best qualified.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the

[[Page 21076]]

gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam) for purposes of a colloquy.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman for yielding me 
time.
  I thank the chairman for agreeing to this colloquy in order to shine 
a light on an unfortunate recurring situation in some Head Start 
agencies.
  Stories of corrupt agencies have been surfacing recently all over the 
Nation, complete with allegations of administrators' misconduct with 
Federal funds and financial conflicts of interest between board members 
and vendors.
  Accountability is a critical component of this reauthorization, and I 
thank the chairman for his commitment for addressing it.
  On February 10 of this year, I introduced H.R. 778, the Head Start 
Accountability Act of 2005, to address the misuse and abuse of Federal 
funds occurring in an agency in my district as well as others. The Polk 
County Opportunity Council has had a decade-long history in fundamental 
flaws in both operations and management. PCOC has displayed an obvious 
lack of internal controls and, worse, a blatant disregard for its 
fiduciary responsibilities associated with proper stewardship of 
Federal grant funds.
  There is documented evidence that this organization has misused 
Federal dollars and made several excessive and unnecessary 
expenditures, including the approval of $150,000 for repairs to a 
parking lot, repairs that had a quoted cost of just $20,000.

                              {time}  1215

  They also obtained $90,000 in Federal funds to repair some Head Start 
facilities reportedly damaged in last summer's hurricanes that tore 
through Florida. However, their insurance inspection determined that 
the facilities had no damage. I could go on and on listing examples of 
financial mismanagement at this agency.
  I introduced the Head Start Accountability Act to immediately address 
the seemingly unending pattern that was developing in that agency and 
similar organizations. H.R. 778's major provisions would address the 
most glaring improprieties. Among the provisions in H.R. 778, the bill 
calls for automatic recompetition of all Federal Head Start Federal 
grants every 5 years, establishes new board requirements, adds tighter 
fiscal control requirements at the local level.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for recognizing the importance of 
these provisions and including the key principles in this 
reauthorization. Under his leadership, we are finally moving toward 
financial accountability. I look forward to working with my colleague 
in the future toward further refinement of these accountability 
measures.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PUTNAM. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Putnam), my friend and colleague, for his efforts. His 
contributions and commitment to Head Start and the financial 
accountability that needs to exist within the program are so important.
  Many of the accountability principles that were outlined in the 
gentleman's bill, H.R. 778, have been included in the School Readiness 
Act, and these reforms I think are critical if we are going to ensure 
grantees are effectively managing taxpayer dollars and also to ensure 
that funding is targeted most effectively for purposes that support the 
program's goal of preparing kids for school.
  So, with that, I want to thank the gentleman for his contributions.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for his dedication to 
improving the Head Start program.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Kildee), a member of the Committee on Education and the 
Workforce.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me 
time.
  I would also like to thank the committee leadership on both sides of 
the aisle for ensuring that all interested parties had a seat at the 
table during our second try at reauthorizing the Head Start program.
  We also owe our thanks to the staff who have worked tirelessly to 
help get us to where we are today.
  I want to specifically thank Ruth Friedman for her years of work on 
behalf of the Head Start children.
  While this bill is not perfect, it is a remarkable improvement from 
last Congress and is a good example for the progress that can be made 
through bipartisan cooperation.
  All of us know Head Start is a critically important program that 
provides much-needed services to some of our most disadvantaged 
children and their families.
  I would like to thank the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva), the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers), and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Hinojosa) for their advocacy for migrants and Native Americans.
  Currently, Indian Head Start is funded at approximately 2.9 percent 
of the Head Start budget. H.R. 2123 would establish a 3.5 set-aside for 
Indian Head Start, allowing programs to benefit from approximately $45 
million in additional resources, and I want to thank particularly the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) for putting that in his chairman's 
mark.
  This bill is a significant departure from our efforts last Congress 
to reauthorize Head Start. All committee members should be proud of the 
bipartisan work on this legislation. I strongly support the bill as it 
was passed out of the committee.
  However, I would be remiss, Mr. Chairman, if I did not express my 
concern over the amendment allowing religious discrimination that will 
be considered today.
  This bill represents a genuine bipartisan compromise. Again, I would 
like to thank all parties that worked together in crafting this bill.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 6 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 chairman for yielding me time, 
and I also thank him for his tremendous work in bringing this bill 
together. It is not always that easy. He has done a superb job working 
with the other side.
  I do rise today to ask everybody here to support the legislation 
which will reauthorize the Head Start program. I, like I think most of 
us, if not all of us, believe very strongly in the Head Start program, 
and I believe that this act emphasizes every child, regardless of his 
or her economic status, should have the best chance possible to 
succeed.
  In 1965, Head Start was created to give economically disadvantaged 
children access to the same educational, health, nutritional, social, 
and other services that were enjoyed by their more affluent peers. The 
goal of the program was, as it remains today, to provide children a 
solid foundation that will prepare them for success in school and later 
in life.
  As the centerpiece of the Federal Government's efforts to support 
quality early childhood education for our Nation's most disadvantaged 
youth, Head Start has served nearly 20 million low-income children and 
their families. Currently, Head Start serves over 900,000 children 
every day and has nearly 1,600 grantees across the United States. In my 
home State of Delaware, Head Start programs serve over 1,500 children, 
with almost 500 additional 4-year-olds receiving assistance through 
State government funding.
  We all can agree on the need for Head Start and its successes. We 
must also recognize Head Start can produce even greater results for 
children. Children who attend Head Start programs start school more 
prepared than those with similar backgrounds that do not attend Head 
Start. However, Head Start students continue to enter kindergarten well 
below national norms in school readiness. By moving to close the school 
readiness gap, this bill will improve results for almost 1 million Head 
Start students across the Nation.
  Towards the goal of closing the readiness gap, the School Readiness 
Act

[[Page 21077]]

strengthens Head Start's academic focus while maintaining its 
comprehensive nature that is imperative to its success. The bill 
improves the academic focus of the program by establishing new quality 
standards that ensure enrolled children develop and demonstrate 
language skills; pre-reading knowledge; including an interest in and 
appreciation of books; reading and writing; pre-math knowledge such as 
recognition of numbers and counting; cognitive abilities related to 
academic achievement; and social development important for environments 
constructive for child development, early learning, and school success.
  Research clearly and consistently demonstrates a link between the 
learning potential of children and the level of education and training 
of classroom teachers. For that reason, we improve the quality of 
teachers in Head Start classrooms by requiring that, in time, 50 
percent of all Head Start teachers nationwide must have a baccalaureate 
degree.
  I am sure some of my colleagues were pleased to learn that this bill 
does not include a block grant or a State demonstration project. I 
believe strongly, however, in the policy goals of coordination and 
integration that were at the heart of the demonstration project 
incorporated in the legislation I introduced last Congress. We continue 
to believe it is essential to remove barriers and prevent collaboration 
between Head Start and successful State and local early childhood 
initiatives, and I believe the proposal we are offering will, in fact, 
go further to foster integration among quality early childhood 
programs.
  About 40 States, including Delaware, have established some form of 
early childhood education, because States recognize that these services 
can make a real difference in preparing children for a successful 
future. Various local initiatives have been launched, and today, 
disadvantaged children and families have access to programs and 
services from a wide range of sources. Some of these programs rival or 
exceed the quality of Head Start, while others fall short. Head Start 
is no longer the only option for early childhood education. We must 
ensure that all children are receiving the same quality education. In 
this new era, Head Start should be working towards integrating services 
with other school readiness programs, not competing against them.
  Where we previously would have allowed no more than eight States to 
improve Head Start coordination with State and local efforts, this bill 
will ensure programs in all 50 States are able to increase 
collaboration. We are encouraging Head Start grantees to align their 
academics with State-developed K-through-12 content standards, as well 
as to have a more active partnership with local school districts that 
serve the same communities. This will help to facilitate a smooth 
transition to kindergarten for their students. Finally, we are asking 
early childhood providers in a State, including Head Start, preschool 
and child care, to come together to identify ways to integrate school 
readiness initiatives across the State.
  As I have said, I believe in the program, particularly because of how 
the program helps children later in their academic lives. Despite these 
stories, we have also heard many stories of programs in which funds 
were being diverted away from this purpose. The GAO recently released a 
report that warned the financial control system in the Federal Head 
Start early childhood program is flawed and failing to prevent 
multimillion-dollar financial abuses that cheat poor children, 
taxpayers, and law-abiding Head Start operators.
  The GAO made a couple of recommendations on how we can strengthen the 
oversight structure to prevent abuses and protect good grantees. It 
recommended that increased competition in the program could help weed 
out poorly performing grantees and ensure high-quality services are 
available to children and families. In response to the GAO's 
recommendations, we are increasing the competitive nature of current 
program. The competition requirements in the School Readiness Act will 
help to alleviate these programs, but more importantly, will drive 
program improvement across the board, program improvements that will 
ultimately help thousands of children nationwide, which should always 
be our goal.
  This is an important and a very popular program. The importance of 
early childhood education services cannot be overstated, and I believe 
strongly in the reforms which are here.
  I would say finally, although we may have some disagreement about 
some of the amendments on this legislation, that ultimately getting all 
these children up to the starting line equal in school, and 
particularly those who are at 100 percent of poverty or less, is in the 
best interests of all of us in Congress and all the kids out there in 
the United States of America.
  I hope we can go forward with good legislation to make a very good 
program even better than it is.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney).
  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, years ago it was enough to have an 
education from kindergarten through 12 years, and now it is not enough. 
People know that you have to have a couple or 3 years before 
kindergarten and 2 to 4 years afterwards. It is now essential. It is a 
priority to have early childhood education. It is a difference between 
a child's future development and learning advantages, especially for 
those students that are disadvantaged like the ones that are served by 
the Head Start program. It makes them prepared for school.
  A national review of 36 studies on the long-term impact of early 
childhood education programs found that low-income children who 
participated in such programs were less likely to be held back, less 
likely to be placed in special education classes, more likely to 
succeed in school, more likely to graduate, and more likely to be rated 
as behaving well in class and better adjusted in school.
  Researchers have also concluded that there is a greater chance of 
these positive outcomes when young children are taught by teachers with 
bachelor's degrees in early childhood education. One of the largest 
national studies in this early education field was conducted by the 
National Institute for Child Health and Human Development. It showed 
that caregiver education and training were among the strongest 
predictors of quality in programs for preschoolers.
  That is why it is a good thing that this bill has in it a provision 
that half of the Head Start teachers have to hold bachelor's degrees 
within a few years. That is an admirable goal.
  We talked in committee about the fact that it is necessary for us to 
try to help that population of teachers be able to afford that. In 
Massachusetts, my State, they make less than half the salaries of 
kindergarten teachers. The national average is almost as bad.
  I congratulate the chairman for working with us on the Higher 
Education Act to make sure there is a loan forgiveness program, $5,000 
for 5 years commitment to teach early childhood education, that will 
help with this particular issue.
  Significant improvements have been made to this Head Start bill. That 
is why it was unanimous approval essentially in committee. I am afraid 
some of the recommendations that are being put forward in the 
amendments here today are spectacular efforts to drive a wedge between 
the parties on this, to make it a less-than-unanimous bill. It is 
unnecessary, it is unfortunate, and I hope there is no discrimination 
in hiring practices. We can do better than that and pass a bill that is 
worthy of this Congress and helpful to the United States people.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  There has been a great deal of effort been put into this bill on a 
bipartisan basis, and it has been pointed out it came out of committee 
48-0.
  One of the reasons that there is some concern is that Members on both 
sides of a question over the role of faith-based organizations, there 
are meaningful differences on both sides, but we have nothing to fear 
in allowing the House to work its will.

[[Page 21078]]

  I respect those views of others who do not believe that if a faith-
based organization takes a dollar of Federal money, they should give up 
their rights protected by the 1964 Civil Rights Act, but there is no 
reason to fear allowing the House to make that decision.
  So, later today, we will have an amendment that I will offer on 
behalf of the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany) to allow those 
organizations to have their rights protected under the 1964 Civil 
Rights Act and still provide these necessary services.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).
  Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me the 
time.
  I rise in strong support of H.R. 2123, the School Readiness Act of 
2005.
  As a former Head Start volunteer, I know firsthand the tremendous 
benefits this program has delivered for children, but never did I think 
that summer, the first year of Head Start's existence, that I would one 
day be a part of the Congress in reauthorizing Head Start.
  During the full committee markup for this legislation, I was pleased 
to join with my colleagues, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Platts) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen), in offering 
an amendment that will provide some commonsense flexibility for Head 
Start centers to use the open slots for the early Head Start program.

                              {time}  1230

  Mr. Chairman, the Committee on Education and the Workforce learned 
that more Head Start-eligible children ages 3 to 5 are participating in 
State prekindergarten programs because there are more of them, leaving 
some of the Head Start programs with unused slots. But because of the 
high need for infant child care, Early Head Start programs, the early 
ones, serving children from birth through age 3, maintain long waiting 
lists. This amendment will allow those Head Start centers that have 
vacant slots to use the funding to serve eligible infants and toddlers 
through the Early Head Start programs.
  As a mother and grandmother, I can tell you firsthand that the first 
years of a child's life are crucial to his or her development. Research 
has shown time and time again that infants who receive the high-quality 
child care and early education programs do better in school, have more 
developed social skills, and display fewer behavior problems. The 
amendment allows a commonsense way to expand these services to those 
who certainly can benefit from them.
  I would like to thank the chairman of the committee, the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Boehner); the chairman of the subcommittee, the 
gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle); and the members of the committee 
for supporting this amendment in the full committee markup. I am 
pleased it was incorporated into the bill we are considering today, and 
I urge my colleagues to support the Head Start bill.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
to respond to the chairman of the committee.
  The rights for faith-based organizations are already protected when 
they use their own funds. We are talking about using Federal funds, 
taxpayers' dollars, or they are talking about it, in order to enhance 
religious discrimination. That is what we oppose.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Menendez), the Chair of the Democratic Caucus.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentlewoman yielding me 
this time.
  At a time when our country is grasping with how to deal with ongoing 
gaps in wealth, poverty, and education, we must recognize that Head 
Start is a critical component to helping those children at a 
disadvantage get on a more equal ground. As we know all too well, the 
achievement gap that continues to plague our country has early roots, 
and the sooner we can help young people gain valuable skills, get good 
nutrition, and provide them with a comprehensive early education, the 
better chance we have of improving their future.
  While this bill does strengthen the program for the over-900 children 
served, there are still far too many children starting kindergarten at 
great disadvantage. In my State alone, nearly 20,000 students benefit 
from Head Start; but we know that over half a million children in New 
Jersey are eligible and never get a chance to get on that equal 
footing. It is those children we must think of as we seek to improve 
this bill.
  I am relieved we are debating a bill that does not produce 
devastating effects on this program, but instead keeps it intact and 
provides a number of improvements. But I hope the end product will 
reflect those efforts and will not end up poisoning the bill by 
repealing civil rights and discrimination protections. If for over 30 
years religious institutions have not had a problem providing Head 
Start services, why would the Congress of the United States now 
sanction and permit discrimination and violate civil liberties? It is 
simply not in the national interest, and it is the wrong action and the 
wrong lesson to teach our children.
  In this bill we are asking more from our early childhood educators, 
yet we are not providing them with more. We must be realistic about the 
challenges this creates. The estimated cost for half of all Head Start 
teachers to earn a bachelor's degree by 2008, as the bill calls for, is 
an estimated $2 billion over 5 years. We need to work to attract 
talented individuals to continue to enter the field, not make it harder 
for them to stay in it.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price).
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding 
me this time and allowing me to participate in this discussion.
  We know that children who begin kindergarten and first grade prepared 
both socially and mentally to learn have a much greater opportunity of 
success, not just in school but in life. Improving the quality of Head 
Start should be a priority for all of us.
  One of the greatest challenges of any Federal program is to ensure 
that hard-earned taxpayer money is used only for the purpose intended, 
and the current Head Start program does not live up to that principle. 
The need for safeguards and accountability are needed now more than 
ever.
  The School Readiness Act addresses financial management weaknesses 
found in the current Head Start system and publicly documented in 
various news accounts. There is disturbing evidence that a sizable 
share of Head Start funding never reaches its target: disadvantaged 
children. Instead, the money is being lost to waste, financial abuse, 
and mismanagement; and there are collective media accounts that suggest 
that the problem is not isolated.
  The director of a Head Start program in Gardenville, Maryland, was 
indicted on charges that she stole more than $350,000 from the 
organization over a 4-year period. Imagine if this money were spent on 
students rather than stolen from Head Start.
  A former director of a Head Start program in Charleston, West 
Virginia, was sentenced up to 5 months in Federal prison after 
admitting he used an agency credit card for a personal trip to the 
Kentucky Derby and preparing a false invoice for computer repairs. 
Rather than investing money in student nutrition, this director took 
this money from school cafeterias and went to the horse races.
  The executive director of the Kansas City, Missouri, Head Start 
operation earned a salary in excess of $300,000 annually and drove a 
luxury SUV, leased in part with Federal Head Start funds. The gentleman 
has since resigned. Head Start was never intended to provide for six-
figure salaries and luxury cars.
  The Department of Justice gained a guilty plea from an executive 
director of a Lubbock, Texas, Head Start program after he embezzled 
more than $800,000 over 2 years and diverted part of the money to a 
local restaurant.
  Mr. Chairman, it is a priority of this Republican Congress to ensure 
that the

[[Page 21079]]

necessary financial controls are in place to safeguard against these 
abuses and to protect the public's confidence in this important school 
readiness program. Safeguards against financial abuse in this bill 
include an independent financial audit annually, an annual report 
detailing how their money is spent and the sources of their funding, 
oversight by a local governance board, and a requirement that 
administrative costs may not exceed more than 15 percent of the total 
program cost.
  Congress must not ignore the evidence that much money invested in the 
Head Start program currently never reaches the disadvantaged children 
it is intended to serve. I commend the chairman for his leadership and 
the leadership of the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from 
Delaware (Mr. Castle), for this bill; and I urge all Members of the 
House to support H.R. 2123.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Kind), a member of our subcommittee.
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, the evidence of financial mismanagement is 
real, and I believe the committee has taken steps in this bill to try 
to address that, and this authorization bill goes a long way to do 
that. But as a member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, 
I have had the chance to visit all of my Head Start centers in western 
Wisconsin. You cannot help but walk away from that with an overwhelming 
feeling of pride and sense of security that those kids are receiving 
very professional, caring treatment in those Head Start centers.
  Head Start has been one of the most successful anti-poverty programs 
ever created. It is also the most poked, prodded, picked, analyzed, and 
surveyed program in the Federal Government; and for the last 40 years 
it has withstood the test of time. It consistently ranks at the top of 
participant satisfaction surveys compared to any other Federal program.
  I commend the leadership of the committee, the chairman, the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner); and the subcommittee chairman, the 
gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle); and the ranking members, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) and the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Woolsey), for putting together a good bipartisan bill 
that we were able to report out 48 to zero in committee, because there 
is a right and a wrong way to reauthorize this important program.
  The right way is to enhance integrated services, increase 
accountability, tighten up the financial oversight, and require highly 
qualified teachers. A wrong way is to continue to leave behind over 
400,000 students who currently qualify, but cannot go to Head Start 
because of inadequate resources. A wrong way is to allow the legal 
discrimination against an individual based on religion.
  Later this afternoon, I will be offering my own amendment that would 
allow the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences 
to establish proper standards and assessments so we can properly 
measure the progress of these kids. The current national reporting 
system is not working well, and we need to make sure that we get the 
measurements and the testing of these children done correctly at this 
very early age so we do not do any harm. I will ask my colleagues to 
support my amendment when it comes up later.
  Mr. Chairman, I join educators, parents, and Head Start staff from 
Wisconsin as well as many of my colleagues here today in support. of 
reauthorizing Head Start. This program has helped millions of high-risk 
children from impoverished families achieve academic success.
  Since the creation of Head Start 40 years ago, there has always been 
bipartisan consensus to continue this program that serves more than 
13,000 children in Wisconsin and 2,000 in the Third Congressional 
District. As a member of the House Education and Workforce Committee, I 
am pleased to have had the opportunity to work with my colleagues on 
both sides of the aisle to produce the best possible bill. I would like 
to thank Chairman Boehner, Representative Castle, Ranking Member 
Miller, and Representative Woolsey for their leadership and commitment 
to our children in crafting this legislation.
  I also would like to thank those people in western Wisconsin who have 
advised me throughout reauthorization. They include: Lori Dilley, 
director of Southwest Wisconsin Head Start; Dan Stickler, director of 
Western Dairyland, Paula Wainscott, director of Head Start in Eau 
Claire Area School District; Tim Hathaway, director of Renewal Unlited, 
Sue Schultz, and Barbara Wehman at CESA 11; and James Vermeul, director 
of Child & Family Development Centers.
  Since the reauthorization process began in the spring of 2003, we 
have made tremendous progress to reach consensus on the bill before us. 
However, I remain concerned with the implementation of the National 
Reporting System for Head Start children. The NRS is an assessment 
instrument developed under HHS's guidance in 2003 and used to test half 
a million children in Head Start twice yearly.
  Unfortunately, HHS implemented NRS--at the cost of $25 million so 
far--despite protests by early child education experts who question the 
validity, reliability, and appropriateness of the assessment. While we 
support ongoing assessments of Head Start children to help ensure their 
school readiness, these specific tests were developed behind closed 
doors and with very little input from child development experts, 
Congress, or Head Start centers.
  The GAG validates many of these concerns. In May, they released a 
report stating: ``If the test is to be used as a measure of program 
performance or to assess changes in child outcomes, it is important to 
ensure that it is sensitive to the range of development typically 
demonstrated in Head Start. Based on our analysis and that of the 
Technical Working Group and independent experts, we continue to believe 
that further study is necessary to ensure that the NRS results are 
reliable and valid and the results are appropriate for the intended 
purposes.''
  I authored language in H.R. 2123 to commission a study by the 
National Academy of Sciences to report on appropriate standards and 
benchmarks for school readiness and valid measures of assessment. 
Today, I will offer an amendment to suspend the National Reporting 
System until the National Academy of Sciences completes its review, and 
I urge all my colleagues to support my amendment.
  Reauthorization provides Congress with an opportunity to evaluate 
appropriate standards and benchmarks for school readiness, as well as 
valid measures of assessments for Head Start students. Until child 
development and early education experts can agree about the 
appropriateness of the NRS, we should not be spending millions of 
dollars on its implementation and subjecting 500,000 children to it 
every year.
  In addition to promoting development of the mind, I also believe that 
we must promote good physical development for all children. I am 
pleased that an amendment I offered in committee to promote physical 
development, including outdoor activity to support children's motor 
development and overall health and nutrition, was accepted.
  The requirement for physical activity and nutrition for pre-schoolers 
is increasingly important as childhood obesity rates have doubled for 
young children in the past 20 years. Studies show that healthy eating 
habits help to prevent childhood obesity and other nutrition-related 
diseases. Given the epidemic rate of child obesity, dramatic changes 
need to take place in school nutrition environment.
  The Society for Nutrition Education, SNE, reports that child 
nutrition programs present opportunities for positive role modeling of 
healthy and nutritious meals, from the formative years of early 
childhood through the teen years. Additionally, implementation of 
educational programs that guide and motivate parents and children to 
improve the nutritional quality of their dietary choices and to 
increase their physical activity levels is extremely important. 
Physical activity, particularly for youth, help to improve school 
performance, establish positive health habits, and possibly prevent the 
onset of adult diseases.
  Mr. Chairman, again, I am pleased to have worked on this bipartisan 
bill to reauthorize the Head Start Act. The consensus we have reached 
on H.R. 2123 reflects positively on how well Head Start is working. 
Numerous studies indicate that every dollar spent on Head Start saves 
taxpayers $4 to $7 in the future due to savings in education and 
welfare expenses. Therefore, it is my belief that the bill before us 
today will continue to provide the best Head Start program for all of 
our children.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Platts).
  Mr. PLATTS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the School 
Readiness

[[Page 21080]]

Act of 2005. I would like to pay particular attention and highlight a 
provision of the bill granting greater flexibility to Head Start 
programs wanting to provide Early Head Start to children ages birth to 
3.
  A priority goal of the Head Start program is to reach out and assist 
as many of our Nation's at-risk children as possible in the most 
effective and responsible manner possible. In continuing with this 
tradition, I was proud to join with my distinguished colleagues, the 
gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert) and the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen), in offering a bipartisan amendment during 
committee consideration of this measure meant to reach out and serve 
at-risk children at an age when brain development is occurring rapidly 
and is perhaps in its most critical phase.
  The Biggert-Van Hollen-Platts amendment, which was adopted 
unanimously in committee, gives grantees providing services under Head 
Start ages 3 to 5, and Early Head Start, birth to age 3, the 
flexibility to use existing unfilled Head Start slots for infants and 
toddlers who are eligible for Early Head Start.
  In the earliest years, infants and toddlers are developing a 
foundation not only with respect to language and cognition, but also 
with respect to emotion, mental health, and social behavior upon which 
all subsequent learning is built. As many as 75 percent of children 
enter the Head Start program with vocabulary skills below the average 
range, and 82 percent of these children start out with early writing 
skills below the average range.
  These numbers tell us that we need to start reaching out to at-risk 
children at an even younger age, before they have already fallen behind 
their peers. Yet early Head Start currently serves less than 5 percent 
of eligible infants and toddlers.
  A major study of the Early Head Start program by Mathematica Policy 
Research and Columbia University found that 3-year-old Head Start 
children performed significantly better on a range of measures of 
cognitive, language, and social and emotional development than a 
control group. In addition, the parents of these children scored 
significantly higher than control group parents on many aspects of 
parenting and the home environment.
  Early education programs are clearly important to the future of our 
Nation and our Nation's children. They have the ability to influence 
the course of young children's lives in a positive way. I hope my 
colleagues in this Chamber will join me in supporting final passage of 
H.R. 2123.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Kucinich), a member of the Subcommittee on Education Reform.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, injecting religious discrimination into 
Head Start is a nonstarter. It is a rollback of established civil 
rights laws. It is wrong. And I believe it sets the stage for 
unconstitutional activity. I ask my colleagues to withdraw that 
amendment and let this bill, which we do agree on, to go forward to 
serve the children of our Nation who are waiting for opportunities to 
ensure that no child in America is trapped within poverty's grasp, to 
enable every child in America to live up to his or her highest 
potential.
  Faith-based organizations, as we all know, are free to use their own 
money to make employment decisions using religious criteria for 
programs. There is no discrimination against faith-based organizations 
that run federally funded social services. If they want to hire people 
of only a certain faith, they can do that with their own money. But 
when it comes to the use of taxpayers' dollars, no citizen in this 
country with the protection of the first amendment should have to pass 
a religious test to qualify.
  Our Founders understood the importance of separation of church and 
State. I also believe they did not intend to have America exclude the 
celebration of spiritual values. It is important that we remember the 
Founders' directives to bring spiritual values of truth, honesty, love 
of country, but to never break down that wall which separates church 
and State. Preserve our Constitution.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, when our forefathers in the 1960s wrote the 1964 Civil 
Rights Act landmark legislation, they provided a specific exemption in 
hiring for religious organizations, understanding that religious 
organizations would probably want to hire someone of their own faith. 
Now, if you disagree with that, go to the Committee on the Judiciary 
and rewrite the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
  Nowhere in this exemption does it say that, well, you have the 
exemption if you use your own money, but if you participate in Federal 
programs, you lose the exemption. It does not say that anywhere in the 
1964 Civil Rights Act.

                              {time}  1245

  The fact is, that I understand there are deeply held beliefs here, 
but I do not think a religious organization should have to give up 
their rights under the 1964 Civil Rights Act just to participate in 
providing services to poor children who desperately need them.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, in response to the chairman, we are 
talking about taxpayers' money to support religious discrimination. 
That is what we cannot forget.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Van Hollen), a member of the committee.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I strongly supported this bill as it 
came out of the committee. I was proud of the product the committee 
passed out. I was pleased to join with many of my colleagues on the 
other side in offering amendments that were supported on a bipartisan 
basis that I think strengthen the Head Start program.
  I am very sorry that that bipartisan consensus may be shattered, and 
it will be shattered if we later adopt the Boustany amendment because, 
make no mistake about it, the Boustany amendment is, in fact, an attack 
on religious liberty in this country. It takes us down a very dangerous 
road of taxpayer-financed religious bigotry.
  It is important to understand what the Boustany amendment does and 
does not do. This is not a debate about whether or not faith-based 
institutions play a valuable role. Of course they do. We have seen it 
in response to Hurricane Katrina. We have seen it elsewhere. Nor is it 
about whether faith-based Head Start programs should receive Federal 
funds. They are receiving those today.
  The issue is very simple. The question is whether we should eliminate 
the protections in current law against discrimination based upon 
religion or whether we should preserve those protections. The Boustany 
amendment would give a green light to religious discrimination.
  Just imagine if you are a highly qualified early education teacher, 
who is applying for a Head Start program that is expanding to take care 
of children who are victims of Hurricane Katrina. You go down and they 
say, I am sorry, you are the wrong religion. Only Catholics need apply, 
only Jews need apply, only Baptists need apply. That is a terrible 
message to be sending to our children. And does it not violate 
someone's religious liberty to take someone's tax dollars, give them to 
an organization and then say to that person, you cannot have a job with 
this organization?
  In all of the hearings that we have held in our committee on this 
issue, no faith-based organization has ever come up and said, gee, we 
could do a better job of teaching children if only we were allowed to 
discriminate in hiring teachers.
  I must say, one of the puzzling things, they concede that you cannot 
proselytize, yet they say you can discriminate.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  If what is being proposed under the Boustany amendment is so awful, 
why would President Bill Clinton, during his 8 years in office, have 
signed the following bills into law: the 1996 welfare reform law; the 
1998 Community

[[Page 21081]]

Services Block Grant reauthorization, the 2000 Community Renewal Tax 
Relief Act; the 2000 Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services 
Administration Act.
  Why would President Bill Clinton have signed all of these bills into 
law if, in fact, this was such a bad idea? Because all of these acts, 
signed into law by President Clinton, have the same identical language 
that is going to be offered later today.
  The second point I would make is that what do we have to fear from 
allowing the House to work its will and letting the majority rule? Let 
us have the debate. Let us have the vote. Unfortunately, my colleagues 
know that we are likely to win, because we have won on this case time 
and time again as this debate has occurred in this House.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez).
  Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in 
support of the Head Start program and the great opportunities that it 
provides to children, parents, and families in America.
  I am a Head Start kid. I experienced firsthand the valuable and 
comprehensive education program that Head Start provides for low-income 
families. Head Start opened up a new world, not only for me, but also 
for the rest of my family.
  As I received an education and health services, my mother learned 
valuable lessons on how to become a more active and involved parent in 
America's public school system. I am glad to see that H.R. 2123 
preserves the valuable Federal-to-local design that gives parents and 
local communities the right and the responsibility to be active in 
their Head Start program. For this is really the key to the Head Start 
program, the fact that parents and families are also involved with 
their children.
  To maintain the integrity of Head Start, I would urge my colleagues 
to pay special attention to two key votes. My colleague from Indiana 
(Mr. Souder) will be offering an amendment to restore the joint 
governance structure of Head Start and to allow policy councils made up 
of parents and community members to approve or disapprove program plans 
and operation activities, along with the board of directors. I urge my 
colleagues to support that important amendment.
  On the other hand, I urge the House to oppose the amendment that 
would allow faith-based Head Start programs to use Federal tax dollars 
to discriminate against teachers and employees solely on the basis of 
their religion. We need to keep Head Start strong and to open it up for 
everyone so that it can remain the great program that it was for me and 
so that it can continue to be so for so many Americans.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Cuellar).
  Mr. CUELLAR. Mr. Chairman, I want to focus on the extra provisions 
dealing with the Migrant and Seasonal Head Start programs. These 
programs are among the most essential, providing comprehensive 
education, health care, child care services to the families who often 
have literally nowhere else to go. I am familiar with this, working 
with the Texas Migrant Council in my district, Laredo, Texas.
  This year we are breaking new ground by mandating at least 5 percent 
of the Head Start budget to go to migrant and seasonal programs. I want 
to thank the chairman and the members of the committee for this. This 
increase even by 1 percent means a lot, going from 4 to 5 percent. It 
would permit Migrant and Seasonal Head Start to serve as many as 10,000 
additional children. This is a case where a small increase in funding 
can make a big difference to a lot of children, changing the path they 
are on.
  I want to emphasize that this program is extremely important. I know 
that for the migrant farm worker population facing a unique set of 
challenges, working on a seasonal basis, migrant families often have to 
move from State to State during the year, making it extremely difficult 
for the children to get in and remain in high-quality educational 
programs. When they are in the fields, parents often work 12 hours a 
day or more, making it very difficult for child care. This is why this 
provision is extremely important.
  This program is important, and I know because I am also the son of 
migrant workers. I want to thank the chairman and the ranking member 
(Ms. Woolsey) for the work, and the committee members for this new 
additional funding for the seasonal migrant workers.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Waters).
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, today I am a Member of Congress. Prior to 
ever being elected to office and serving in the State legislature or 
Congress, I worked 6 years for Head Start. I started as assistant 
teacher, and I went on to be the supervisor of Parent Involvement and 
Volunteer Services. I love Head Start, and I have a great appreciation 
for what my government has done in creating this program to give poor 
kids and the kids of working families an opportunity to get a head 
start, to get prepared for kindergarten and to get prepared for 
success. That is what Head Start has been doing.
  Not only does Head Start build self-esteem, it prepares children to 
read and get ready for the educational experience. It teaches parents 
to appreciate their children's work. It teaches parents that they can 
have involvement in their children's educational destiny. This is a 
wonderful program.
  I think the committee did a good job in working through some of the 
problems. I do not agree with everything, but I would support this 
bill.
  But I am absolutely shocked and surprised that my colleague that I 
came into this Congress with would lead an effort to kill Head Start. 
The gentleman knows he is killing Head Start by putting this amendment 
on the floor to put religious involvement in the program. A faith-based 
initiative has no place in Head Start. Head Start teaches children to 
respect each other, to enjoy each other, to respect all cultures.
  On Sunday morning in America, religion is the most segregated sector 
of our society. Whites go to white churches, blacks go to black 
churches, Greeks go to Greek churches, Muslims are in their mosque, 
Jews are in their synagogue; and that is all right. We have religious 
freedom. People go to whatever church they want. But do not bring that 
to Head Start. Allow Head Start to be what it should be for all 
Americans. Do not say to people because you are a different faith, you 
cannot work in this Head Start program.
  We do not want to give that kind of example to our children. Do not 
start the resegregation of America, it is wrong. And do not do this to 
Head Start.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Nebraska (Mr. Terry).
  Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bill.
  What we have to remember is this is about the children, children 
whose families are trapped in poverty trying to get a head start on 
education, which is the surest way out of poverty. It is disappointing 
to me there are some in here, because we provide some level of 
flexibility, and perhaps in some community it is a faith-based 
operation that can deliver the services best to a poor child in need of 
these services, that there are some willing to kill Head Start because 
of that level of flexibility.
  In my hometown, thankfully, it is the public school systems that have 
taken over the Head Start program because we suffered through the 
difficulties of financial problems. The previous Head Start 
organization managed the program so poorly that they could not pay the 
teachers and continue Head Start. It had to be taken over by the 
Federal Government through an entity. Fortunately, Omaha Public Schools 
have taken over Head Start in Omaha,

[[Page 21082]]

Nebraska, providing over a thousand children an opportunity to have a 
coordinated Head Start educational program, a better education program, 
with assurances to the parents that it is going to be there next year. 
In fact, they have even got a very progressive system for Head Start 
children based on EduCare, an outstanding private preschool program 
that involves a holistic approach of the entire family.
  I want to end by thanking the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) 
because he also recognizes there was a glitch, a glitch that eliminated 
some of the lower-level rank-and-file service men and women from having 
their children in Head Start programs because of privatization of 
military housing. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) recognized that 
problem, corrected that problem, and I want to thank him for standing 
up for our service men and women with children that would be eligible 
for Head Start.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, kill Head Start? Supporting religious discrimination 
which was added by the majority to this otherwise very good bill is 
exactly what would kill Head Start. Shame on the gentleman for thinking 
that it is any other way.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Holt), a member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, today on the floor we have what is 
increasingly rare these days, a bipartisan bill, a bill that would help 
thousands of Head Start children and their families. Head Start has 
worked well for 40 years. It has changed lives for the better. It is 
one of the great successes of our government. That is documented.

                              {time}  1300

  Now, this bill is not perfect, but it makes some positive changes. I 
am pleased that the bill avoids the proposed use of State block grants. 
It improves the academic content and requirements. It requires 
coordination between Head Start and State-run kindergarten programs. It 
improves the prospect for children of migrant and seasonal workers, of 
service men and women, of Native Americans. The legislation strengthens 
accountability.
  We still have a long way to go to give all eligible children the 
benefits of Head Start, but basically this is a good bill. It is a good 
bipartisan bill that is about to be destroyed by an insidious 
amendment. It is an amendment that would allow American tax dollars, 
tax dollars of ordinary Americans, all Americans, to be used for 
religious discrimination. We cannot allow that. The nondiscrimination 
provision of Head Start has been reauthorized in 1984, 1986, 1990, 
1994, and 1998. No changes were proposed or made in the civil rights 
provision during those reauthorizations, but now the nondiscrimination 
provision would be thrown out.
  Let us remember why we have this nondiscrimination provision. It is 
to protect freedom of religion, of religious belief and practice. It is 
to protect religious belief and practice. That is why it is so 
important not to mix that up in here.
  It is a good bill. We would like to keep this as a bipartisan bill. 
We do not want to go back to the days where one would say Catholics 
need not apply, Jews need not apply. If Members do not want to go back 
to those days, vote ``no'' on the amendment.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Cunningham).
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I did not run a program in Head Start 
like the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), but I visited one, 
and then I visited another one because when I first came to Congress, 
and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) was here, I did not support 
Head Start or WIC. I thought they were a waste of time.
  But I will tell the Members that Head Start and WIC and school lunch 
and those programs are only as good as the local district will let them 
be and work. They can make a difference. If a program that is working, 
if Members go down to those districts and see those children, they will 
tell them, Help us to help other kids that do not have a chance.
  Support this bill.
  I would say that a friend of mine said that when we are talking about 
the religious aspect of this, he said, When you come to Congress and 
somebody will say, You wear the Lord on your shoulder, he said, You 
tell them that is wrong; you wear them on your whole body.
  I have never seen anybody turned away any religion, whether in an 
emergency or health or WIC. So vote for Head Start.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the minority whip.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this 
time.
  I am pleased that we have a bipartisan bill here. I want to 
congratulate the chairman, congratulate the ranking member, and 
congratulate the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) for coming 
out with a bipartisan bill.
  Unlike the bill considered by the House in 2003, this legislation 
does not attempt to block grant Head Start programs, which was 
controversial. I think that is good for the passage of this bill. 
Furthermore, it strengthens academic content, improves teacher quality, 
promotes better coordination between Head Start and other early 
childhood programs, and it strengthens accountability.
  My wife supervised Head Start in our jurisdiction for many years. 
There are 24 Judy Centers around the State of Maryland right now, many 
of which include Head Start.
  This bill was reported out of committee almost unanimously, if not 
unanimously. Unanimously. While the underlying bill contains long-
standing nondiscriminatory provisions, and I congratulate the committee 
for that, there is an amendment lurking that will undermine that 
bipartisanship and, not only that, undermine an extraordinarily 
fundamental principle in our country: we do not discriminate. We do not 
countenance discrimination.
  The previous gentleman indicated he does not know of any instance 
where there has been discrimination. I agree with that. I have never 
had anybody contact me ever, and this is my 37th year in public office. 
Never, from 1967 to today, have I had somebody come to me and say this 
is a problem. The committee has seen fit to report out a bill which 
does not allow discrimination. Why? Because there is no problem here. 
Frankly, the gentleman from Louisiana is trying to create a problem 
where there is none. We ought to reject that amendment.
  If we do not reject that amendment, the overwhelming majority of us 
on this side of the aisle are going to vote against this bill. That is 
unfortunate because we are all for Head Start. It is a program that 
works. It is a program that is important. It is a program that we ought 
to reauthorize. And I urge us to support this bill, but reject a 
crippling amendment to be offered by the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Souder).
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me this 
time.
  I have an amendment, the second amendment, coming up that I believe 
is very critical. It goes to the heart and soul of the Head Start 
program, and that is whether parents have voting rights or whether they 
are just going to get a pat on the head and told we like their 
opinions. I believe it is critical to Head Start that we put this back 
in.
  But two points: first off, I thank the chairman and the Committee on 
Rules for allowing an amendment in order that they do not support, and 
I appreciate that and I want to thank them for that.
  Secondly, I gave my word and I believe it is important that we move 
this Head Start bill whether my amendment is agreed to or not. I 
believe the Senate will never allow an amendment that strips parents, 
and I believe the administration will not sign a bill that

[[Page 21083]]

strips parents, and I believe it is important that we have that debate, 
but it is also important we move ahead.
  A number of Members have told me that if the amendment is not agreed 
to, they would vote against the bill. I urge them to move the bill 
forward regardless of what happens to the parents amendment. We need to 
address it in conference if we do not today, but it is the number one 
empowerment program in America. We do not need to go backwards and give 
more power to the government and boards that are not responsible to 
parents. We need to keep it at the parents level.
  But I want to, again, thank the chairman for his leadership in trying 
to clean up the financial problems. It was not the parents. This bill 
does that, and I support this bill.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Mrs. Davis), who is a member of the Education Reform 
Subcommittee.
  Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
Delaware (Chairman Castle), who worked so diligently with the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), ranking member, and the 
subcommittee members to create a bipartisan bill. This is the spirit in 
which I believe Congress ought to work and find compromises and avoid 
extremes.
  But, regrettably, I am going to have to oppose the Boustany amendment 
to strike the language which prohibits religious discrimination in 
hiring. This issue was vigorously debated in our subcommittee and 
committee and was not included in the bill.
  When our taxes are used to hire people, should the decision be based 
on whether that person is a Baptist, a Roman Catholic, a Mormon, a 
Muslim, a Hindu, or a Jew? Supreme Court decisions have clearly stated 
that religious institutions have a legitimate interest in choosing 
employees by their religion. But these cases are about jobs that are 
privately funded.
  Head Start, as we know, is publicly funded. Employers in government-
funded programs should not be able to do what government employers may 
not do. Religious education programs run by a mosque, a church, or 
synagogue are pervasively religious, and discrimination in hiring is 
appropriate to carry out the religious content.
  But a program in the same building which is a contract for a Head 
Start program is not about religion, and discrimination in hiring for 
jobs paid with Federal tax dollars is wrong.
  One of the strengths of Head Start has been encouraging parents to 
volunteer; and tens of thousands of parents, as we know, have gone on 
to develop skills to become a paid aide or teacher.
  One of my colleagues mentioned that he is very supportive of the 
bill, which helps and supports military families, and I fully agree 
with that. But then imagine that a child whose parent is fired from 
working at her school because their religion is different from the 
contractor's, perhaps a military family is fired because they are Roman 
Catholic, not Baptist, Muslim, or a Methodist. What would that teach 
these children about our country's commitment to freedom, the very 
freedom that their parents fight for? That religious discrimination is 
okay. That I cannot support, Mr. Chairman, and I hope Members will 
oppose that kind of discrimination.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Scott), a member of the subcommittee.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to remind the 
House that faith-based organizations can and do sponsor federally 
funded Head Start programs. Any sponsor who will agree not to 
discriminate in employment, if they can sponsor a program with the 
discrimination amendment, they can sponsor the program without that 
amendment if they would agree not to discriminate.
  What we are talking about is discrimination. Some people want to 
discriminate against Catholics, Jews, Muslims, African Americans. We 
had this discussion in the 1960s, and the consensus back then was that 
discrimination in employment was so offensive that we made it illegal. 
The victim needs to be protected and the weight of the Federal 
Government will fall down on the side of the victim.
  The vote was not unanimous. Some people did not like it then; they do 
not like it now. And we are discussing where should the weight of the 
government be, with the victim or with somebody trying to discriminate. 
This is Head Start. We should not give students of Head Start the idea 
that their parents were denied a federally funded job solely because of 
their religion.
  We have heard of the Supreme Court. All of the Supreme Court 
decisions have said it is okay for a church to discriminate in 
employment with church money. None have supported discrimination with 
direct Federal funding. We have heard of our forefathers in 1964. We 
know that since 1965 it has been illegal, at least until this 
administration, to discriminate with Federal money. Head Start has been 
reauthorized for over 40 years with the civil rights protections.
  President Clinton's name has been invoked. What is left out is his 
signing statement where he said that his analysis was that they could 
not discriminate with the Federal money under his analysis. This 
administration has changed that analysis, but we need to make sure that 
President Clinton's whole signing statement is included.
  Mr. Chairman, I submit for printing in the Record letters from 
numerous organizations including the National Head Start Association 
which oppose the discrimination amendment and ask us to vote ``no'' on 
the underlying bill if they sabotage civil rights protections.
                                               September 22, 2005.
       Dear Member of Congress: I have become aware that an 
     amendment has been offered by Rep. Boustany (R-LA) to the 
     Head Start bill on the House floor today that would give 
     faith-based organizations providing Head Start services the 
     right to discriminate with federal funds against employees 
     who are of different faiths. As the State President of the 
     Louisiana Head Start Association, I strongly oppose such an 
     amendment.
       It is a sad day when Members of Congress try to manipulate 
     compassion evoked by the national tragedy in my state of 
     Louisiana caused by Katrina to pass a civil rights repeal in 
     Head Start or jeopardize the passage of this law so important 
     to the children of my state and our nation.
       I know, firsthand, that Head Start is a model for 
     demonstrating that a strong prohibition on religious 
     employment discrimination with federal funds is fully 
     compatible with federal assistance to faith-based charities. 
     Faith-based organizations, like the ones I oversee, can and 
     do fully participate in federally funded programs without 
     discriminating in hiring with those same federal funds. I see 
     no reason to change the law to allow them to use federal 
     funds to discriminate against our employees. My state's 
     religiously affiliated providers are more than capable and 
     willing to honor the civil rights requirements of the Head 
     Start program.
       I am greatly concerned that the provision to remove civil 
     rights protections for employees could have a negative impact 
     on the children and families who participate in these 
     programs. Tens of thousands of at-risk 3- and 4-year-old 
     children currently in Head Start could lose their teachers--
     who often are the most important adults to whom they have 
     bonded, other than their parents--not because those teachers 
     are doing a bad job, but because they are the ``wrong'' 
     religion.
       As the State President of the Louisiana Head Start 
     Association, I urge you to reject the Boustany amendment to 
     allow discrimination in Head Start. Such a provision is 
     incompatible with the mission of this program.
           Sincerely,
     Barbara Pickney,
       St. Landry Parish Head Start Program, State President of 
     the Louisiana Head Start Association.
                                  ____



                              National Head Start Association,

                               Alexandria, VA, September 19, 2005.
     Hon. John A. Boehner,
     Chairman, Committee on Education and the Workforce, 
         Washington, DC.
     Hon. George Miller,
     Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Education and the 
         Workforce, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Boehner and Ranking Member Miller: On behalf 
     of the more than 2.5 million children and families, program 
     staff and volunteers that comprise the Head Start and Early 
     Head Start community, we are writing to you today to address 
     certain issues regarding the reauthorization of the Head 
     Start Act.
       We appreciate the bi-partisan spirit that has occurred 
     throughout this crafting of the

[[Page 21084]]

     reauthorization bill. H.R. 2123 does not contain the 
     controversial block grant proposal of the 108th Congress and 
     maintains the crucial comprehensive services of the Head 
     Start program performance standards. We applaud a number of 
     measures and improvements incorporated into this bill, such 
     as enhanced homeless outreach; greater set asides for migrant 
     and seasonal workers and Native Americans, as well as Early 
     Head Start programs; and the addition of a ``seamless 
     service'' provision that allows programs to convert Head 
     Start slots to Early Head Start slots under certain 
     circumstances.
       While the recompetition provision is not perfect, we 
     appreciate that its intent is not to recompete all programs, 
     but to recompete only failing programs. We also acknowledge 
     that the teacher requirements are based on national goals and 
     that training and technical assistance is funded at two 
     percent, with 50 percent of that amount going directly to 
     programs.
       While we generally are pleased with the overall intent and 
     direction of H.R. 2123, we do have continuing concerns about 
     certain specific provisions that we hope that can be resolved 
     before the bill is enacted into law. These concerns are 
     discussed in greater detail below.


                     Requirements for Recompetition

       Recompetition procedures, which are laid out in detail in 
     Section 641 (c)(1)-(19) include several areas that are 
     problematic. While we strongly agree that programs that are 
     not providing high quality services should have to recompete 
     for Head Start funds, we are concerned that the language in 
     this section may force more programs--regardless of quality--
     to undergo recompetition. We believe that there should be a 
     strong message that all programs must be high performing. 
     Yet, we also believe that programs that are providing high 
     quality services should not be put in the position of 
     recompeting every five years, as this instability makes it 
     difficult for them to recruit and retain the best teachers, 
     to invest in facilities, and to create lasting partnerships 
     with other community agencies.
       While we appreciate the efforts to make the recompetition 
     process fair, there remains a very long list of tests that 
     must be met to determine the priority status of programs. We 
     continue to have concerns that some of these tests could be 
     evaluated in an arbitrary manner, throwing programs into a 
     recompete status, regardless of their performance.
       The Head Start community does not want to see failing 
     programs continue, but we would like reassurances that the 
     recompetition process will be unbiased and consistent in its 
     application by the Bureau. To achieve this, we would prefer 
     that there be more limited parameters to determine the need 
     to recompete a grantee, such as programs that have unresolved 
     areas of noncompliance.


                          Teacher Credentials

       The entire Head Start community is committed to raising the 
     bar when it comes to improving quality and enhancing teacher 
     and staff credentials.
       Additionally, educational levels among Head Start teachers 
     have increased appreciably since the 1998 Congressional 
     mandate to increase the proportion of Head Start teachers 
     with an A.A. degree. Fifty-seven percent of Head Start 
     teachers had at least an A.A. degree in 2003, exceeding a 
     Congressional mandate that 50 percent of Head Start teachers 
     in center-based classrooms attain an A.A. degree or higher by 
     September 2003.
       Most Head Start teachers without degrees were working 
     toward them. Fifty-eight percent of Head Start teachers 
     without a degree or credential were enrolled in an early 
     childhood education or related degree program, and 18 percent 
     were in Child Development Associate (CDA) or equivalent 
     training.
       A key to Head Start's success in meeting the 1998 mandate 
     was that Congress also increased funding, which provided 
     scholarships, release time and qualified substitutes, teacher 
     salary increases, and other quality enhancement supports. The 
     1998 law required that, when funding for the program 
     increased, a certain percentage of new dollars would be 
     dedicated to quality. In the following years, funding for the 
     Head Start program grew and, as a result, funds available for 
     quality activities increased. However, Head Start funding has 
     not kept pace with inflation in recent years, so programs no 
     longer have a growing source of funds to help teachers attain 
     degrees. Additional funding will be needed to meet a mandate 
     to move from two- to four-year degrees, because costs of 
     attending a four-year public college or university are on 
     average more than twice the cost of a two-year program, and 
     because there are significant additional salary costs in 
     order to retain teachers with four-year degrees.
       Programs must have the resources to help teachers gain 
     their credentials and to pay salaries at a high enough level 
     to recruit and retain teachers with the required degree.
       Without new money for teacher salaries, increased 
     credentialing for teachers should not be mandatory.


                   Head Start Parent Policy Councils

       While we appreciate the modifications made in Committee 
     markup to the provisions regarding the Head Start Parent 
     Policy Councils, we strongly believe in the integral and 
     shared responsibilities of board members and parents in Head 
     Start governing bodies. The high degree of parental 
     involvement in the Head Start program has provided a role 
     model for early childhood education for 40 years.
       The Head Start community is fully committed to restoration 
     of the current level of authority to Parent Policy Councils.


                       National Reporting System

       The NRS, a pre- and post-test for Head Start children, is 
     not a valid measurement of program impact and should not be 
     used in this manner. Because Head Start serves children with 
     very high level needs, using this kind of measure to evaluate 
     programs may well penalize those programs serving the 
     children with the greatest needs. Further, as pointed out in 
     a May 2005 General Accountability Office report, the NRS was 
     found to be invalid and unreliable. The GAO also confirmed 
     that the NRS is not an appropriate evaluation vehicle for 
     children who are English Language Learners, especially those 
     who speak neither English nor Spanish.
       Additionally, we know that the Head Start Bureau is 
     spending more than $21 million annually on the NRS, an 
     expenditure that does not even begin to take into 
     consideration the costs of preparing for and administering 
     the test at the program level.
       We ask the House of Representatives to suspend further use 
     of and expenditures for the NRS until the National Academy of 
     Sciences can make the test scientifically valid.


                        Unscheduled Site Visits

       H.R. 2123 contains a provision that the Head Start 
     community believes is punitive and unreasonable to all Head 
     Start programs. The process and planning that is required of 
     program administrators for a full PRISM review cannot be 
     performed overnight. The Head Start community has no 
     objection to unannounced site visits when they concern health 
     and safety issues or are following up on prior compliance 
     matters.
       NHSA believes that a minimum of 30 days notice should be 
     required of the Head Start Bureau before full PRISM reviews.


                          training exceptions

       High quality training is critically important to improving 
     and sustaining Head Start quality and childhood outcomes. 
     H.R. 2123 limits the ability of parents and staff to travel 
     in order to receive specialized training and career 
     development at national conferences.
       This is an unnecessary provision that will cause confusion 
     for program administrators since the existing grant 
     application process requires justification of all training.


                     collaboration with the states

       While the Head Start community strives for sound 
     collaboration with their respective state officials, it is 
     critically important that state officials reciprocate in 
     these collaborative efforts. H.R. 2123 does not require input 
     as it should, and as is now required, from state Head Start 
     officials in the process of selecting staff who will have 
     coordination responsibilities.
       The Head Start community believes that state Head Start 
     Associations should have sign-off on candidates for state 
     collaboration officers, as well as continuing involvement in 
     the planning and implementation of state plans. Furthermore, 
     there should be clarification regarding states that have 
     existing state advisory councils, namely that they are 
     permitted to modify them to meet the requirements in the 
     bill.


                      charitable choice amendment

       The Head Start community, including a number of programs 
     administered by religious organizations, strongly opposes any 
     effort by this Administration to encourage religious 
     discrimination in hiring practices for Head Start or any 
     federally-funded program. Freedom of Religion, a cornerstone 
     of this great nation, should be sacrosanct to all of us. It 
     is incomprehensible that the U.S. Congress would tamper with 
     the ability of its citizens to practice their faith by using 
     the threat of employment discrimination.
       In spite of its positive provisions, if H.R. 2123 contains 
     a religious discrimination amendment, we must reluctantly 
     oppose the bill.
       In closing, we commend the Education and Workforce 
     Committee for their bi-partisan efforts in this Head Start 
     reauthorization bill and we hope that modifications will be 
     made that will result in improvements to the program.
           Sincerely,
     Sarah M. Greene.
                                  ____

                                                  African American


                                          Ministers in Action,

                               Washington, DC, September 16, 2005.
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Member of Congress: As pastors and leaders of 
     predominately African American congregations across the 
     country, we urge you to stand up for the civil rights and 
     religious freedom of all Americans, and to maintain the 
     bipartisan direction of the School Readiness Act (H.R. 2123) 
     by opposing any attempt to repeal longstanding critical civil 
     rights protections on the House floor. This bill maintains 
     provisions designed to protect

[[Page 21085]]

     over 198,000 Head Start teachers and staff and over 1,450,000 
     parent volunteers from employment discrimination based on 
     religion in federally-funded Head Start programs. We have 
     continually supported these provisions because this is 
     consistent with our commitment to protecting the religious 
     freedom of all citizens. Further, because we are acutely 
     aware that religious discrimination is often a proxy for 
     racial discrimination, among others, we cannot support the 
     allowance of such an unprincipled initiative by any Member on 
     either side of the aisle.
       As religious figures we provide leadership grounded by 
     theological interpretations of scripture, and focus on issues 
     of concern to our parishioners and our community. We agree 
     that religious organizations participating in the Head Start 
     program make an invaluable contribution to the education of 
     thousands of students in minority communities in particular, 
     but do not agree that discriminating against persons based 
     upon their religion is necessary or desirable in order to 
     provide these much needed services.
       We are optimistic that this bill can gain broad support 
     among religious, civil rights, labor, education, health, and 
     advocacy organizations, but this broad support will end if 
     there is any threat to remove the longstanding critical civil 
     rights protections in Head Start. In particular, we are 
     seriously concerned about a statement released by the 
     Committee on Education and the Workforce on May 5, 2005, in 
     which Chairman Boehner stated that he foresees an amendment 
     on the House floor to rollback longstanding critical civil 
     rights protections. In light of this statement, we are asking 
     Members to oppose this amendment and not support the Head 
     Start bill if the anti-discrimination provisions are removed.
       As leaders of our respective congregations we are committed 
     to providing much needed services in our communities and have 
     done so by respecting the rights of all individuals. 
     Therefore, we find it particularly insulting to suggest that 
     it is necessary to remove civil rights protections from Head 
     Start programs in order for this outreach to continue. 
     Furthermore, we can not compromise our principles by 
     supporting a program that allows organizations, including 
     religiously-affiliated organizations, to discriminate with 
     federal taxpayers' dollars.
       We urge you to maintain the bipartisan direction of the 
     School Readiness Act (H.R. 2123) and to not support any 
     agreement that allows for an assault on civil rights 
     protections in federally-funded programs, especially a 
     program as critical as Head Start. This could destroy the 
     mutually supported nature of the Head Start program in which 
     the education of young children--especially minority 
     children--is so dependent upon parental participation and on 
     ongoing, close relationships with Head Start teachers. 
     Uplifting our surrounding community does not require the 
     concurrent advancement of government funded discrimination.
           Sincerely,
                                        Reverend Timothy McDonald,
     Chair, African American Ministers In Action.
                                  ____



                                       Anti-Defamation League,

                                 New York, NY, September 16, 2005.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of the Anti-Defamation 
     League, we write to urge you to maintain the civil rights 
     protections currently included in the House Education and the 
     Workforce-approved version of the School Readiness Act (H.R. 
     2123)--and to oppose any efforts to repeal these important 
     provisions. Allowing religious-based employment 
     discrimination in federally-funded programs is wrong--and to 
     do it on the historic Head Start anti-poverty education 
     program is deeply offensive.
       Since 1972, agencies that receive government funding for 
     Head Start--including religious organizations and houses of 
     worship that host Head Start programs--have been prohibited 
     from discriminating on the basis of religion when hiring or 
     firing staff within the federally-funded program. These 
     existing non-discrimination requirements have a history of 
     bipartisan support, and were originally signed into law by 
     President Richard Nixon. The current anti-discrimination 
     language was included in the 1981 Head Start reauthorization 
     bill, signed into law by President Ronald Reagan, and has 
     been included in every Head Start reauthorization since 
     then--in 1984, 1986, 1990, 1994, and 1998. For 33 years, 
     these fundamental non-discrimination protections have worked 
     well, allowing thousands of Head Start programs in 
     communities throughout the country to flourish while 
     maintaining constitutional and civil rights safeguards 
     against religious tests for employment in federally-funded 
     programs.
       We have great appreciation for the vital role religious 
     institutions have historically played in addressing many of 
     our nation's most pressing social needs, as a critical 
     complement to government-funded programs. For decades, 
     government-funded partnerships with religiously-affiliated 
     organizations--such as Catholic Charities, Jewish Community 
     Federations, and Lutheran Social Services--have helped to 
     combat poverty and provided housing, education, and health 
     care services for those in need. These successful 
     partnerships have provided excellent service to communities, 
     largely unburdened by concerns over bureaucratic 
     entanglements between government and religion. Indeed, at the 
     same time that safeguards have protected beneficiaries from 
     unwanted and unconstitutional proselytizing during the 
     receipt of government-funded services, they have also 
     protected the integrity and sanctity of America's religious 
     institutions--whose traditional independence from government 
     has contributed to the flourishing of religion in our 
     country.
       The House has never voted to repeal existing civil rights 
     protections in a floor amendment. To do so on Head Start, an 
     historic anti-poverty program universally acclaimed and 
     present in so many communities across the country, is odious. 
     We urge you to oppose any attempt to remove civil rights 
     protections from Head Start.
           Sincerely,
     Michael Lieberman,
       Washington Counsel.
     Jess N. Hordes,
       Washington Director.
                                  ____

         American Federation of State, County and Municipal 
           Employees, AFL-CIO,
                               Washington, DC, September 20, 2005.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of the 1.4 million members 
     of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal 
     Employees (AFSCME), I am writing with respect to certain 
     provisions of H.R. 2123 which would reauthorize the Head 
     Start program. We want to express our sincere appreciation 
     for the bi-partisan and inclusive process that resulted in 
     unanimous approval of the legislation at the committee level. 
     Significantly, H.R. 2123 does not include the controversial 
     block grant proposal that derailed efforts to reauthorize 
     Head Start in the last Congress. Rather, H.R. 2123 respects 
     and maintains the crucial comprehensive services of the 
     program performance standards that long have marked Head 
     Start as a program of distinction. We believe that H.R. 2123, 
     with some changes, has the very real potential to build upon 
     the success of Head Start for future generations.
       However, we are concerned that this bill does not address 
     the low pay offered to Head Start teachers and staff and the 
     lack of financial assistance in meeting new and more rigorous 
     educational requirements. We support H.R. 2123's focus on 
     raising standards for Head Start teachers, including the 
     provision calling for 50 percent of all current Head Start 
     teachers to have a bachelor's degree within five years and 
     all new Head Start teachers to have an associate's degree. 
     However, the estimated cost of the additional education for 
     half of all Head Start teachers to earn bachelor's degrees by 
     2008 is approximately $2 billion over five years. If we want 
     quality education for Head Start children, we must be willing 
     to help teachers achieve this important goal.
       AFSCME members have worked in Head Start programs for 
     decades. We know that the qualifications of early childhood 
     educators matter because high quality early education 
     improves outcomes for children and delivers benefits to the 
     community that far outweigh the costs.
       We are also deeply concerned that Chairman Boehner intends 
     to offer a controversial amendment on the floor to repeal 
     longstanding civil rights protections from the Head Start 
     program. Allowing federally-funded discrimination in any 
     program is immoral. But it is especially egregious given that 
     the civil rights protections in Head Start are an integral 
     part of its mission to provide families a ladder out of 
     poverty by encouraging parents to become volunteers and then 
     teachers. Denying a parent economic opportunity because of 
     the religion he/she practices violates the principles upon 
     which our country was founded. We strongly urge you to oppose 
     the amendment. If the amendment is adopted, AFSCME urges you 
     to oppose the bill on final passage.
           Sincerely,
                                              Charles M. Loveless,
     Director of Legislation.
                                  ____

                                             Leadership Conference


                                              on Civil Rights,

                               Washington, DC, September 16, 2005.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of the Leadership Conference 
     on Civil Rights (LCCR), the nation's oldest, largest, and 
     most diverse civil and human rights coalition, with more than 
     190 member organizations, we urge you to oppose the Boehner 
     amendment or any amendment to the School Readiness Act (H.R. 
     2123) that would repeal longstanding civil rights protections 
     in the Head Start Program that have been in place since 
     President Nixon signed the law in 1972. We strongly oppose 
     any language that would allow federally-funded employment 
     discrimination. If language repealing civil rights 
     protections is added to the bill during consideration on the 
     House floor, we urge you to oppose final passage of H.R. 
     2123.
       LCCR opposes allowing government-funded employment 
     discrimination. Religious organizations have always served as 
     key partners in providing government services through the 
     Head Start program and current law has not been a hindrance 
     to their vigorous participation. There also is no controversy 
     over the exemption under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 
     1964 that allows religious organizations to have a preference 
     of hiring co-

[[Page 21086]]

     religionists when they are using private funds, but federal 
     funds may not be used to discriminate. Such a drastic change 
     to the current Head Start program would be inconsistent with 
     the long held notion that federal dollars must not be used to 
     discriminate.
       The Boehner amendment would allow government-funded 
     employment discrimination, Although the U.S. Supreme Court 
     affirmed the Title VII exemption for privately-funded 
     religious employers, it did not authorize federally-funded 
     employment discrimination. See Corporation of Presiding 
     Bishop of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints v. 
     Amos, 483 U.S. 327 (1987). We believe, based on analysis of 
     Amos, that if federal funds are used by religious 
     organizations to hire only persons of their own faith, then 
     the federal government is affirmatively acting to advance 
     employment discrimination.
       In the 60 years since Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the 
     first executive order prohibiting discrimination in federally 
     funded activity, our nation has made significant progress in 
     the struggle to end employment discrimination and advance 
     equality. Any attempt to allow organizations to discriminate 
     on the basis of religion with federal funds would drastically 
     impede that progress and erode a longstanding principle of 
     our nation's civil rights policy: that federal civil rights 
     obligations follow federal dollars, regardless of who 
     receives them.
       The courts have affirmed the principle that federal funds 
     cannot be used to discriminate. The leading case on the 
     question of government-aided discrimination is Norwood v. 
     Harrison, 413 U.S. 455 (1973). In a unanimous decision, the 
     U.S. Supreme Court held that ``the Constitution does not 
     permit the state to aid discrimination.'' Id. 465-66. The 
     principles set out in Norwood were affirmed in Justice 
     O'Connor's opinion in City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co. 488 
     U.S. 469, 492 (1989), which stated, ``It is beyond dispute 
     that any public entity, state or federal, has a compelling 
     interest in assuring that public dollars, drawn from the tax 
     contributions of all citizens, do not serve to finance the 
     evil of private prejudice.'' Her opinion quoted Norwood with 
     approval for the proposition that ``[i]t is . . . axiomatic 
     that a state may not induce, encourage or promote private 
     persons to accomplish what it is constitutionally forbidden 
     to accomplish.'' Id. at 492-93 (quoting Norwood, 413 U.S. at 
     465).
       LCCR urges you to oppose Rep. Boehner's amendment because 
     current law must not be changed to allow recipients of Head 
     Start funds to have an explicit statutory right to engage in 
     employment discrimination. If this amendment passes, or other 
     language is added during floor consideration that repeals 
     current law, LCCR urges you to oppose final passage of H.R. 
     2123. If you have any questions, please contact Nancy Zirkin, 
     LCCR deputy director, or Andrea Martin, senior counsel and 
     policy analyst regarding this or any issue important to LCCR.
           Sincerely,
     Wade Henderson,
       Executive Director.
     Nancy Zirkin,
       Deputy Director.
                                  ____
                                  
         Washington Bureau, National Association for the 
           Advancement of Colored People,
                               Washington, DC, September 19, 2005.
     Re fundamental civil rights protections in H.R. 2123, the 
         school readiness act must be preserved.

     Members,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Member: On behalf of the National Association for the 
     Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), our nation's oldest, 
     largest and most widely recognized grassroots civil rights 
     organization, I am writing today to urge you to do all you 
     can to ensure that the longstanding, critical civil rights 
     protections that are contained in the current version of H.R. 
     2123, the School Readiness Act, are retained during 
     consideration by the full House of Representatives. 
     Specifically, I urge you to reject and work against the 
     anticipated Boehner Amendment, which will repeal existing, 
     long-standing Head Start provisions that prohibit religious 
     organizations and churches from discriminating on the basis 
     of religion when hiring or firing staff from positions within 
     this federally-funded program.
       H.R. 2132, as approved by the Committee on Education and 
     Labor, maintains provisions designed to protect the more than 
     198,000 Head Start teachers, staff and over 1,450,000 parent 
     volunteers from employment discrimination based on religion 
     in federally-funded Head Start programs. The NAACP again 
     urges you to do all you can to maintain these vital 
     protections throughout the legislative process, and that you 
     do not support this legislation if, at any point they are 
     stripped.
       The critical longstanding nondiscrimination provisions have 
     been included in Head Start legislation since 1981. This is a 
     fundamental civil rights protection against employment 
     discrimination for Head Start teachers and volunteers. The 
     legislation has always received strong bipartisan support 
     from both the House and Senate since its enactment in the 
     97th Congress when President Ronald Reagan signed the 
     legislation into law. The twenty-four year old civil rights 
     provision has worked well since the inception of this 
     program, allowing religious organizations to participate in 
     programs while maintaining Constitutional and civil rights 
     standards.
       The NAACP both recognizes and celebrates that religious 
     organizations participating in the Head Start program have 
     made and continue to make an invaluable contribution to the 
     education of thousands of students. These religious 
     organizations have complied with Head Start's existing civil 
     rights requirements. However, if the repeal of the existing 
     civil rights protections were to become law, teachers or 
     parent volunteers working in any Head Start program run by a 
     religious organization could immediately lose their jobs 
     because of their religion. Students participating in Head 
     Start therefore could lose not only their teachers, but also 
     the close programmatic connection with their own parents 
     volunteering in the program. The NAACP strongly believes that 
     allowing discrimination based on religion would significantly 
     impede the important goals of Head Start, harm the Head Start 
     students' education by separating them from their own 
     teachers and parent volunteers, and send a damaging message 
     to the students, their parents, guardians and loved ones, as 
     well as people throughout our nation.
       Thus, I urge you again, in the strongest terms possible, to 
     support the continued inclusion of these longstanding and 
     critical civil rights protections. The Head Start program is 
     too critical to our children and our nation's future to allow 
     support for it to be divided by this issue. Should you have 
     any questions about the NAACP position or if there is any way 
     in which I can be of help to you as you move this 
     reauthorization through the legislative process, I hope that 
     you will feel free to contact me. Thank you very much for you 
     attention to the views of the NAACP.
           Sincerely,
                                                Hilary O. Shelton,
                                                         Director.
                                  ____
                                  


                                The American Jewish Committee,

                               Washington, DC, September 19, 2005.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of the American Jewish 
     Committee, the Nation's oldest human relations organization, 
     with 33 chapters nationwide representing over 150,000 members 
     and supporters, I urge you to oppose any amendments to the 
     School Readiness Act, H.R. 2123, that roll back crucial civil 
     rights safeguards. Further, if such an amendment is adopted, 
     I urge you to oppose passage of H.R. 2123; repealing this 
     longstanding essential element of Head Start could subject 
     teachers in these federally-funded programs to religious 
     discrimination.
       As passed out of the House Education and the Workforce 
     Committee, the bill maintains three-decade-old provisions 
     that prohibit various forms of employment discrimination in 
     Head Start. Both religious and secular organizations have 
     operated effectively under this system since it passed as 
     part of bipartisan legislation passed during the 9th 
     Congress. Ever since President Richard Nixon signed the 
     legislation into law in 1972, religion-based and other forms 
     of discrimination are prohibited in Head Start programs, 
     thereby ensuring that taxpayer dollars do not underwrite 
     positions for which religion is a factor in hiring decisions. 
     At the same time, the existing provisions do not intrude on 
     the autonomy of religious organizations with respect to 
     hiring decisions made in purely private programs.
       The efforts of the House Education and the Workforce 
     Committee to produce a bipartisan package are to be 
     commended. The bill that reaches the House floor has the 
     potential to receive broad support among religious, civil 
     rights, labor, education, and health organizations. However, 
     the bill risks losing critical segments of this support if, 
     at any point, this initiative is amended to roll back Head 
     Start's longstanding civil rights protections by exempting 
     religious organizations from the prohibition on religious 
     discrimination in employment decisions.
       If so amended, H.R. 2123 would compromise an extremely 
     successful program that provides essential services to nearly 
     one million at-risk children nationwide. While many of the 
     religious organizations that deliver the program would, no 
     doubt, continue to hire employees for Head Start programs 
     without regard to religion, H.R. 2123 could jeopardize the 
     jobs of many thousands of current and potential teachers, 
     staff, and parent volunteers for belonging to the ``wrong'' 
     religion, as well as jeopardize children for whom a stable 
     and trusting relationship between teacher and child is so 
     important.
       For these reasons, we strongly urge you to oppose any 
     attempts to roll back the vital civil rights protections of 
     H.R. 2123, the

[[Page 21087]]

     School Readiness Act. Thank you for considering our views on 
     this important matter.
           Respectfully,
                                                Richard T. Foltin,
     Legislative Director and Counsel.
                                  ____

                                   Americans United for Separation


                                          of Church and State,

                               Washington, DC, September 19, 2005.
       Dear Representative: Americans United for Separation of 
     Church and State urges you to oppose any amendment to repeal 
     longstanding, critical civil rights protections contained in 
     the School Readiness Act (H.R. 2123) and to vote ``no'' on 
     final passage of the bill if such an amendment is adopted. 
     Americans United represents more than 75,000 individual 
     members throughout the fifty States, 9500 clergy nationwide, 
     as well as cooperating houses of worship and other religious 
     bodies committed to the preservation of religious liberty.
       H.R. 2123 unanimously passed out of the Committee on 
     Education and the Workforce on May 18, 2005, maintaining a 
     longstanding civil rights provision designed to protect over 
     198,000 Head Start teachers and staff and over 1,450,000 
     parent volunteers from employment discrimination based on 
     religion in federally-funded Head Start programs. We are 
     pleased with this bipartisan legislation thus far, but are 
     deeply concerned about stated threats to repeal longstanding 
     civil rights protections against religious discrimination in 
     our Nation's Head Start programs on the House floor. 
     Specifically, Chairman Boehner, after championing the 
     Committee-passed bill, stated that an amendment may be 
     offered on the House floor that would repeal these 
     protections. We urge you to reject attempts to sabotage a 
     bipartisan effort to reauthorize the America's Head Start 
     programs with such a divisive anti-civil rights amendment.
       We recognize that religious organizations participating in 
     the Head Start program make an invaluable contribution to the 
     education of thousands of children. These organizations have 
     complied with Head Start's existing civil rights requirements 
     without controversy. However, if the repeal of the existing 
     civil rights protection were to become law, teachers or 
     parent volunteers working in any Head Start program run by a 
     religious organization could immediately lose their jobs 
     simply because of their religion or religious beliefs. This 
     would directly work against the stated goals of Head Start 
     and could change the fundamental character of this 
     tremendously successful program.
       According to the latest study from the National Head Start 
     Association, the program currently enjoys a soaring 96 
     percent parental satisfaction rate. The Administration for 
     Children & Family (``ACF'') has repeatedly noted that respect 
     and sensitivity to cultural diversity are paramount to Head 
     Start's success. The ACF and the National Head Start 
     Association both agree that in order to best serve the needs 
     of Head Start children, it is crucial that a Head Start 
     center's staff be comprised of individuals from diverse 
     backgrounds who reflect the diversity of the community it 
     serves. Without the existing religious nondiscrimination 
     provisions, children participating in Head Start could lose 
     their teachers as well as vital interactions with their own 
     parents who, in the past, have been strongly encouraged to 
     volunteer for Head Start. Further, allowing discrimination 
     based on religion would send a damaging message to Head Start 
     children whose families do not subscribe to a particular 
     religious organization's beliefs. It also would harm 
     community members who rely on Head Start for jobs and deprive 
     poor families and underprivileged children of the civil 
     rights protections applicable to public schools.
       Parents and communities that rely on Head Start programs 
     should not have to choose between the renewal of the Head 
     Start program and longstanding civil rights protections that 
     are a cornerstone of this invaluable program. We hope that 
     the House will continue the bipartisan goal of reauthorizing 
     our Nation's Head Start programs and reject any attempts to 
     roll back the civil rights protections long afforded to Head 
     Start teachers and staff.
       If you have any questions about H.R. 2123 or would like 
     further information on any other issue of importance to 
     Americans United, please contact Aaron D. Schuham, 
     Legislative Director.
       Sincerely,
                                               Rev. Barry W. Lynn,
     Executive Director.
                                  ____

                                           Baptist Joint Committee


                                        for Religious Liberty,

                               Washington, DC, September 16, 2005.
       Dear Representative, The School Readiness Act of 2005 (H.R. 
     2123) will soon be considered in the House. We write to urge 
     you to oppose any effort to amend this bipartisan bill in a 
     manner that would repeal current protections against 
     religious discrimination. The current bill, passed out of 
     committee with unanimous approval, maintains these important 
     protections. Unfortunately, repeated public statements have 
     assured plans for a floor amendment that would allow 
     religious discrimination in federally funded positions. We 
     ask you to oppose any such amendment and to oppose final 
     passage of the bill if the amendment were to pass.
       A recent hearing in the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, 
     Drug Policy and Human Resources examining the faith-based 
     initiative demonstrated once again that employment 
     discrimination with Federal dollars is one of the 
     initiative's most controversial and divisive elements. 
     Testimony indicated that the continued pursuit of such a rule 
     change is often more about politics than good policy. Head 
     Start should not be hijacked to promote such an unnecessary 
     and unwise policy.
       Religious organizations and the government have long worked 
     in partnership to perform important social services. Such 
     partnerships are common for Head Start programs. We support 
     these efforts and recognize the importance of government and 
     religious cooperation generally. Such cooperation has 
     occurred for many years without the danger of government 
     sponsored religious discrimination that is present in the 
     proposed amendment.
       It would be extremely unwise to allow such a dramatic 
     change in policy to threaten the reauthorization of Head 
     Start.
       We appreciate your attention to this issue and urge you to 
     oppose any proposal that would allow religious employment 
     discrimination in government funded programs.
           Sincerely,
                                                K. Hollyn Hollman,
     General Counsel.
                                  ____



                               American Civil Liberties Union,

                               Washington, DC, September 19, 2005.
     Re Proposed Amendment to Head Start Reauthorization (``School 
         Readiness Act''--H.R. 2123) Would Create an 
         Unconstitutional Loophole Allowing Federally-Funded 
         Religious Discrimination in Head Start Classrooms.

       Dear Representative: The American Civil Liberties Union 
     strongly urges you to oppose any amendment to repeal 
     longstanding critical civil rights protections contained in 
     the School Readiness Act (H.R. 2123) and vote ``NO'' on final 
     passage if such an amendment is adopted when the bill comes 
     to the floor later this week. As unanimously passed out of 
     the Committee on Education and the Workforce, H.R. 2123 
     maintains longstanding provisions designed to protect over 
     198,000 Head Start teachers and staff and over 1,450,000 
     parent volunteers from employment discrimination based on 
     religion in federally-funded positions in Head Start 
     programs. The civil rights protections afforded to Head Start 
     teachers and staff are essential and should not be repealed.


Proposed Amendment to H.R. 2123 Would Repeal Longstanding Civil Rights 
                    Law That Was Never Controversial

       We are pleased that the Committee-passed Head Start 
     legislation maintains longstanding critical civil rights 
     protections. However, we are troubled by the threat of 
     repealing these protections on the House floor. In a 
     statement released by the Committee on Education and the 
     Workforce on May 5, 2005, the day H.R. 2123 was introduced, 
     Chairman Boehner stated that he foresaw an amendment on the 
     House floor to roll back longstanding critical civil rights 
     protections. Current law prohibits participants in Head Start 
     programs from discriminating based on race, creed [religion], 
     color, national origin, sex, political affiliation or 
     beliefs, or disability. 42 U.S.C. 9849. If amended, H.R. 2123 
     would allow taxpayer dollars to fund religious organizations 
     that discriminate against Head Start teachers and parent 
     volunteers in federally-funded Head Start classrooms.
       The civil rights provision barring federally-funded 
     religious discrimination has never been controversial. In 
     fact, the provision was first included in Head Start 
     legislation that was signed by President Richard Nixon and 
     subsequently by President Ronald Reagan. Throughout its 33-
     year history, the civil rights provision has not been an 
     obstacle to the participation of religiously-affiliated 
     organizations in Head Start programs. In fact, many 
     religiously-affiliated organizations participate in Head 
     Start and comply with the same civil rights provision that 
     applies to everyone else.


the proposed amendment to h.r. 2123 would reverse the government's long 
             fight against federally-funded discrimination

       Repealing critical civil rights protections in Head Start 
     attacks the very core of civil rights protections 
     historically supported by the federal government. More than 
     60 years ago, the first success of the modern civil rights 
     movement was a decision by President Franklin Roosevelt to 
     bar federal contractors from discriminating based on race, 
     religion, or national origin. From that first presidential 
     decision through the Supreme Court's decision allowing the 
     federal government to deny special tax advantages to Bob 
     Jones University, which claimed a religious right to retain 
     the tax benefits while pursuing racist practices, the federal 
     government has made the eradication of federally-

[[Page 21088]]

     funded discrimination among its highest priorities.
       If amended, H.R. 2123 would allow a religious organization, 
     such as Bob Jones University, that discriminates based on 
     religion, to participate in Federal Head Start. In a 
     disturbing result, Bob Jones University could be denied tax 
     benefits because of its racist policies toward its students, 
     but could receive Federal Head Start money under H.R. 2123 to 
     discriminate against teachers and parent volunteers working 
     in Head Start classrooms--simply because the employees do not 
     meet Bob Jones University's religious tests. Moreover, in the 
     many religious organizations in which the adherents are all 
     of a single race, the result of federally-funded religious 
     discrimination will effectively be Federal funds going to the 
     employment of persons of a single race.
       The Federal Government clearly has a compelling interest in 
     applying the Head Start Act's civil rights provision to 
     everyone receiving Federal funds--including religious 
     organizations seeking to discriminate on the basis of 
     religion in hiring persons to work in Head Start. Repealing 
     critical civil rights protections prohibiting discrimination 
     in employment would be inconsistent with the leading Supreme 
     Court case on the use of Federal funds by religious 
     organizations that discriminate.
       In Bob Jones Univ. v. United States, 461 U.S. 574 (1983), 
     the Supreme Court held that Federal Government could deny a 
     religiously-run university tax benefits because the 
     university imposed a racially discriminatory 
     antimiscegenation policy. Id. at 605. The Court decided that 
     the Federal Government's compelling interest in eradicating 
     racial discrimination in education superceded any burden on 
     the university's religious exercise of enforcing a 
     religiously-motivated ban on students interracial dating. Id. 
     at 604.
       There is no meaningful difference between the government 
     prohibiting tax benefits to organizations that discriminate 
     based on race and the Head Start Act's statutory prohibition 
     on discrimination based on religion in Head Start classrooms. 
     In fact, the United States itself--during the current 
     Administration--squarely rejected the proposition that 
     intentional religious discrimination gets less protection 
     under the Equal Protection Clause than race. In its October 
     26, 2001 brief defending the religion prong of Title VII from 
     an Eleventh Amendment attack, the United States stated that 
     ``[c]ontrary to Defendant's contention that the Supreme Court 
     has `distinguished claims involving differential treatment on 
     the basis of race and speech from those involving religion,' 
     there can be no doubt that the Equal Protection Clause 
     subjects State governments engaging in intentional 
     discrimination on the basis of religion to strict scrutiny.'' 
     Brief of Intervenor United States in Endres v. Indiana State 
     Police (N.D. Ind. Oct. 26, 2001) (brief is available on 
     www.usdoj.gov). Congress should not now take the position 
     that it cannot or will not enforce a civil rights ban on 
     Federal funds going to an organization claiming a right to 
     discriminate based on religion when the Supreme Court 
     specifically authorized the United States to enforce a civil 
     rights ban on Federal tax benefits going to an organization 
     making a directly analogous religious exercise claim to 
     discriminate based on race. Thus, the sponsors' statement 
     that the Congress has no duty to fully enforce the 
     nondiscrimination statute is contrary to law--and abandons 
     one of the seminal decisions in civil rights, namely Bob 
     Jones Univ.


 if critical civil rights protections are repealed, h.r. 2123 would be 
                            unconstitutional

       H.R. 2123, if amended, would abet unconstitutional 
     employment discrimination based on religion. The proposed 
     amendment's exemption of religious organizations from the 
     prohibition on religious discrimination in the program is 
     contrary to constitutional law, and will open the door to 
     government-funded discrimination.
       Proponents of allowing religious organizations to use 
     Federal funds to discriminate against their employees argue 
     that their position is consistent with a provision in Title 
     VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that generally permits 
     religious organizations to prefer members of their own 
     religion when making employment decisions. However, that 
     provision does not consider whether federally-funded 
     religious groups can discriminate with Federal taxpayer 
     dollars. Moreover, although the Supreme Court upheld the 
     constitutionality of the religious organization exemption in 
     Title VII, Corporation of Presiding Bishop v. Amos, 483 U.S. 
     327, 336-39 (1987), the Court has never considered whether it 
     is unconstitutional for a religious organization to 
     discriminate based on religion when making employment 
     decisions in programs that the government finances to provide 
     governmental services.
       Several courts have considered whether a religious 
     organization can retain its Title VII exemption after receipt 
     of indirect Federal funds, e.g., Siegel v. Truett-McConnell 
     College, Inc., 13 F. Supp.2d 1335, 1344 (N.D. Ga. 1994) 
     (clarifying that its decision permitting a religious 
     university to invoke the Title VII exemption is because the 
     government aid is directed to the students rather than the 
     employer), but only one Federal court has decided the 
     constitutionality of retaining the Title VII exemption after 
     receipt of direct Federal funds, Dodge v. Salvation Army, 
     1989 WL 53857 (S.D. Miss. 1989). In that decision, the court 
     held that the religious employer's claim of its Title VII 
     exemption for a position ``substantially, if not 
     exclusively'' funded with government money was 
     unconstitutional because it had ``a primary effect of 
     advancing religion and creating excessive government 
     entanglement.'' Id. The analysis applied by the court in 
     Dodge should apply with equal force to the Head Start Act 
     programs that would provide direct Federal funds to religious 
     organizations.
       In addition to causing the Establishment Clause violation 
     cited by the court in Dodge, H.R. 2210 would also subject the 
     government and any religious employer invoking the right to 
     discriminate with Federal dollars to liability for violation 
     of constitutional rights under the Free Exercise Clause and 
     the Equal Protection Clause. Although mere receipt of 
     government funds is insufficient to trigger constitutional 
     obligations on private persons, a close nexus between the 
     government and the private person's activity can result in 
     the courts treating the private person as a state actor. 
     Rendell-Baker v. Kohn, 457 U.S. 830 (1982).
       It is beyond question that the government itself cannot 
     prefer members of a particular religion to work in a 
     federally-funded program. The Equal Protection Clause 
     subjects governments engaging in intentional discrimination 
     on the basis of religion to strict scrutiny. E.g., United 
     States v. Batchelder, 442 U.S. 114, 125 n.9 (1979); City of 
     New Orleans v. Dukes, 427 U.S. 297, 303 (1976). No government 
     could itself engage in the religious discrimination in 
     employment accommodated and encouraged by the proposed rule's 
     employment provision. Thus, the government would be in 
     violation of the Free Exercise Clause and the Equal 
     Protection Clause for knowingly funding religious 
     discrimination.
       Of course, a private organization is not subject to the 
     requirements of the Free Exercise Clause and the Equal 
     Protection Clause unless the organization is considered a 
     state actor for a specific purpose. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 
     42, 52 (1988). The Supreme Court recently explained when 
     there is a sufficient nexus between the government and the 
     private person to find that the private person is a state 
     actor for purposes of compliance with constitutional 
     requirements on certain decisions made by participants in the 
     government program:
       [S]tate action may be found if, though only if, there is 
     such a `close nexus between the State and the challenged 
     action' that seemingly private behavior `may be fairly 
     treated as that of the State itself.' . . . We have, for 
     example, held that a challenged activity may be state action 
     when it results from the State's exercise of `coercive 
     power,' when the state provides `significant encouragement, 
     either overt or covert,' or when a private actor operates as 
     a `willful participant in joint activity with the State or 
     its agents'. . . .

     Brentwood Academy v. Tennessee Secondary School Athletic 
     Association, 121 S. Ct. 924, (2001) (citations omitted).
       The extraordinary role that the current Administration--and 
     the amendment sponsors--have taken in accommodating, 
     fostering, and encouraging religious organizations to 
     discriminate based on religion when hiring for federally-
     funded programs creates the nexus for constitutional duties 
     to be imposed on the provider, in addition to the 
     requirements already placed on government itself. The clear 
     intent of this amendment to repeal the civil rights provision 
     in the Head Start Act is to encourage certain providers 
     receiving Federal funds to discriminate based on religion.
       The proposed amendment to H.R. 2123 provision allowing 
     federally-funded religious discrimination is part of a 
     growing pattern of congressional, presidential, and 
     regulatory actions taken specifically for the purpose of 
     accommodating, fostering, and encouraging federally-funded 
     private organizations to discriminate in ways that would 
     unquestionably be unconstitutional if engaged in by the 
     Federal Government itself. For example, in December of 2002, 
     President Bush signed Executive Order 13279, which amended an 
     earlier executive order, which had provided more than 60 
     years of protection against discrimination based on religion 
     by Federal contractors. The Bush order provides an exemption 
     for religious organizations contracting with the government 
     to discriminate in employment based on religion. In addition, 
     the Federal Government is simultaneously proposing 
     regulations to allow religious organizations to discriminate 
     based on religion in employment for Federal programs 
     involving substance abuse counseling, welfare reform, 
     housing, and veterans benefits.
       Although religious employers have the right under Title VII 
     to apply religious tests to employees, the Constitution 
     requires that direct receipt and administration of Federal 
     funds removes that exemption. In addition, the Federal 
     Government itself has constitutional obligations to refrain 
     from religious discrimination or from establishing a 
     religion. H.R. 2123, if amended, would fail to meet any of 
     those constitutional mandates.
       For these reasons, the ACLU strongly urges you to vote 
     ``NO'' on any proposed

[[Page 21089]]

     amendment to the Head Start Reauthorization (``School 
     Readiness Act''--H.R. 2123) that would create an 
     unconstitutional loophole allowing federally-funded religious 
     discrimination and to vote ``NO'' on final passage if an 
     amendment is adopted. Thank you for your attention to this 
     matter, and please do not hesitate to call Terri Schroeder at 
     202-675-2324 if you have any questions regarding this issue.
           Very truly yours,
     Caroline Fredrickson,
       Director.
     Terri Schroeder,
       Senior Lobbyist.
                                  ____



                                    National League of Cities,

                               Washington, DC, September 21, 2005.
     Education and Workforce Committee,
     Rayburn House Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Committee Member: On behalf of the 18,000 cities 
     represented by the National League of Cities (NLC), I want to 
     commend Members of the Education and Workforce Committee on 
     the passage of bipartisan Head Start legislation, H.R. 2123, 
     the ``School Readiness Act of 2005.'' Head Start is critical 
     to helping to alleviate the plight of children of the working 
     poor. In particular, NLC strongly endorses the Committee's 
     commitment not to include language that would preempt state 
     and local employment laws thereby permitting discrimination 
     in employment by government-funded faith-based social service 
     providers.
       As you know, local governments have a long and rich history 
     of working with faith-based organizations that predates the 
     enactment of the charitable choice provision contained in the 
     Welfare-To-Work Act of 1996. NLC is especially proud of the 
     fact that cities across the nation have carefully helped 
     faith-based groups deliver services to our constituents while 
     respecting the boundaries of our Constitution. Permitting 
     government-funded employment discrimination is the wrong way 
     to encourage faith-based institutions that deliver social 
     services to apply for public funding. Simply put, any 
     language that preempts local governments from protecting its 
     residents from employment discrimination undermines the 
     spirit and letter of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and 
     unnecessarily encourages litigation against municipalities.
       NLC asks Members of the House of Representatives to 
     maintain the Committee's bipartisan direction and oppose any 
     attempts to repeal longstanding anti-discrimination 
     protections during deliberation on the House floor. Thank 
     you.
           Very truly yours,
                                                  Donald J. Borut,
     Executive Director.
                                  ____



                               National Education Association,

                               Washington, DC, September 21, 2005.
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of the National Education 
     Association's (NEA) 2.7 million members, we would like to 
     offer our views on the School Readiness Act of 2005 (H.R. 
     2123), scheduled for floor debate this week. Overall, we 
     believe the bill contains a number of positive provisions. 
     However, we do have some concerns as outlined below. In 
     particular, we strongly oppose any amendment to repeal civil 
     rights protections for Head Start teachers, staff, and 
     volunteers and will oppose the final bill if it does not 
     contain these protections. Votes associated with these issues 
     may be included in the NEA Legislative Report Card for the 
     109th Congress.
       NEA believes that children's learning begins well before 
     they enter school, and that the transition to school must be 
     founded on strong school readiness. Head Start has a long 
     history of success in this arena, having provided high-
     quality early childhood education, health, social services, 
     and parental involvement programs to more than 18.5 million 
     low-income children between the ages of 3 and 5 since its 
     creation in 1964.
       Given the critical importance of Head Start, we are 
     particularly pleased that H.R. 2123 does not allow for block 
     granting of Head Start funds to states. We are also pleased 
     that the bill would align Head Start curricula with K-12 
     education while preserving the comprehensive nature of the 
     Head Start program. We believe these provisions will support 
     effective transitions for children's learning and development 
     and ensure that children will enter school ready to learn. At 
     the same time, the proposal will provide continuity for 
     children by retaining the essential parental involvement, 
     nutrition, and other nonacademic features of Head Start.
       We do have some concerns with portions of H.R. 2123 as 
     drafted as well as proposed amendments:
       Civil rights protections. We are very pleased that H.R. 
     2123 maintains provisions designed to protect over 198,000 
     Head Start teachers and staff and over 1,450,000 parent 
     volunteers from employment discrimination based on religion 
     in federally-funded Head Start programs. We recognize the 
     invaluable contributions of religious organizations 
     participating in Head Start. However, we are deeply concerned 
     that a repeal of civil rights protections could allow 
     religious organizations participating in Head Start to fire 
     teachers or parent volunteers based on their religion. We 
     strongly believe that allowing discrimination based on 
     religion would significantly impede the important goals of 
     Head Start as well as send a damaging message to students. We 
     urge your opposition to any amendment, including one expected 
     to be offered by Representative Boustany, that would repeal 
     civil rights protections for Head Start employees.
       Professional development. We are very pleased that H.R. 
     2123 has a strong focus on early childhood educator 
     professional development. We are concerned, however, that the 
     bill would require teachers to have higher academic degrees, 
     without providing for a substantial increase in funding 
     either for professional development or compensation. We 
     recommend addressing this concern, including by providing 
     grants to help teachers meet the costs of earning their 
     Bachelor's and Associates degrees and/or increasing the 
     salaries of those teachers who earn degrees in early 
     childhood education.
       Assessments. H.R. 2123 allows a study of, and 
     recommendations on, appropriate assessments for young 
     children. We would recommend that the National Academy of 
     Sciences conduct a review of the National Reporting System to 
     ensure that the assessments are comprehensive, reliable, and 
     that the results are used to improve student achievement.
       We also hope to work with you toward increasing funding 
     authorization levels to ensure that Head Start can fully 
     serve all eligible low-income children and their families.
       We thank you for your consideration of our views on these 
     important issues.
     Diane Shust,
       Director of Government Relations.
     Randall Moody,
       Manager of Federal Policy and Politics.
                                  ____



                                American Humanist Association,

                               Washington, DC, September 16, 2005.
       Dear Representative: The American Humanist Association 
     (AHA) stands in opposition to any retrenchment of existing 
     civil rights protections, and therefore opposes any specific 
     attempt to reverse the nondiscrimination provisions currently 
     in effect in the Head Start program. Congressman John Boehner 
     (OH) has indicated his intent to roll back vital civil rights 
     protections by introducing, on the House floor, an amendment 
     to H.R. 2123, the School Readiness Act.
       On behalf of the oldest and largest Humanist organization 
     in the Nation, I ask you to oppose any such attempt to 
     legalize discrimination with Federal funds as you vote on the 
     bipartisan Head Start reauthorization bill.
       There is no compelling reason to undo the civil rights 
     protections in the Head Start program that President Nixon 
     signed into law in 1972. If this 33 year old 
     nondiscrimination policy were discarded, the Head Start 
     reauthorization would permit religious organizations to use 
     Federal funds to discriminate on the basis of religion, even 
     when engaging in purely secular early childhood education 
     activities. Not only would such a removal of employment 
     discrimination safeguards hold significant potential harm for 
     Humanists, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, and others who hold 
     minority lifestances, it would not address an existing 
     problem. Faith-based organizations have been partnering with 
     the government to provide social services for many years 
     without the need to bypass civil rights laws.
       Humanists are particularly concerned about this potential 
     amendment because many dedicated teachers and volunteers in 
     the Head Start program would find themselves disenfranchised 
     just because they do not happen to believe as others do. As a 
     result, this bill will likely lose the existing support of 
     many religious, civil rights, education, health, and advocacy 
     organizations if Congressman Boehner's amendment is adopted.
       As Humanists we persistently oppose Federal funding for 
     discrimination, especially discrimination done on the basis 
     of religion or lack thereof. If religious or secular 
     organizations wish to utilize taxpayer dollars to operate on 
     our government's behalf, they must also abide by the 
     standards set for public service. This is why I write to ask 
     you to oppose any amendment to the legislation that would 
     roll back these critical civil rights protections. If such an 
     amendment is added to the bill, we strongly urge you to 
     oppose final passage of the bill.
       Should you have any questions about our position, please do 
     not hesitate to contact Roy Speckhardt on our staff.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Mel Lipman,
     AHA President.
                                  ____

                                             The Coalition Against


                                     Religious Discrimination,

                                               September 19, 2005.
       Dear Representative: We, the undersigned religious, civil 
     rights, labor, education, health, and advocacy organizations 
     are writing to urge you to oppose any amendment to repeal 
     longstanding critical civil rights protections contained in 
     the School Readiness Act (H.R. 2123) and vote ``no'' on final 
     passage if such an amendment

[[Page 21090]]

     is adopted. As unanimously passed out of the Committee on 
     Education and the Workforce, H.R. 2123 maintains longstanding 
     provisions designed to protect over 198,000 Head Start 
     teachers and staff and over 1,450,000 parent volunteers from 
     employment discrimination based on religion in federally-
     funded positions in Head Start programs.
       The critical longstanding nondiscrimination provisions have 
     been included in Head Start legislation since 1972. This is a 
     fundamental civil rights protection against employment 
     discrimination for Head Start teachers and volunteers. The 
     legislation always has received strong bipartisan support 
     from both the House and Senate since its enactment in the 
     92nd Congress when President Nixon signed the legislation 
     into law. The 33 year old civil rights provision has worked 
     effectively since the inception of this program, allowing 
     religious organizations to participate in programs while 
     maintaining constitutional and civil rights standards.
       We are pleased that the Committee-passed Head Start 
     legislation maintains longstanding critical civil rights 
     protections. However, we are troubled by the threat of 
     repealing these protections on the House floor. In a 
     statement released by the Committee on Education and the 
     Workforce on May 5, 2005, the day H.R. 2123 was introduced, 
     Chairman Boehner stated that he foresaw an amendment on the 
     House floor to roll back longstanding critical civil rights 
     protections. The civil rights protections afforded to Head 
     Start teachers and staff are vital and should not be 
     dislodged.
       We recognize that religious organizations participating in 
     the Head Start program make an invaluable contribution to the 
     education of thousands of students. These religious 
     organizations have complied with Head Start's existing civil 
     rights requirements. However, if the repeal of the existing 
     civil rights protections becomes law, teachers or parent 
     volunteers working in any Head Start program run by a 
     religious organization could potentially lose their jobs 
     based only on their religion. Students participating in Head 
     Start therefore could lose not only their teachers, but also 
     the close programmatic connection with their own parents 
     volunteering in the program. We strongly believe that 
     allowing discrimination based on religion would significantly 
     impede the important goals of Head Start, send a damaging 
     message to Head Start students, and harm their education by 
     separating students from their own teachers and parent 
     volunteers.
       We urge you to maintain current law and reject any assault 
     on civil rights protections in federally-funded programs, 
     especially a program as critical as Head Start. If these 
     longstanding critical civil rights protections are repealed 
     we urge you to vote ``no'' on final passage of H.R. 2123. The 
     dismantling of civil rights will destroy the nature of a 
     program in which the education of young children is so 
     dependent on parent participation and on ongoing, close 
     relationships with Head Start teachers.
           Sincerely,
       AFL-CIO.
       African American Ministers in Action.
       American Association of University Women.
       American Civil Liberties Union.
       American Federation of State, County and Municipal 
     Employees.
       American Federation of Teachers.
       American Humanist Association.
       American Jewish Committee.
       American Jewish Congress.
       American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC).
       Americans for Democratic Action.
       Americans for Religious Liberty.
       Americans United for Separation of Church and State.
       Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty.
       Central Conference of American Rabbis.
       Children's Defense Fund.
       Church Women United.
       Communications Workers of America.
       Disciples Justice Action Network (Disciples of Christ).
       Equal Partners in Faith.
       Faith Action Network of People For the American Way.
       Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network.
       General Board of Church and Society of The United Methodist 
     Church.
       Human Rights Campaign.
       International Union, UAW.
       Legal Momentum (formerly NOW Legal Defense).
       Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund 
     (MALDEF).
       NA'AMAT USA.
       National Association of Social Workers.
       National Center on Domestic and Sexual Violence.
       National Council of Jewish Women.
       National Council of Women's Organizations.
       National Education Association.
       National Head Start Association.
       National Mental Health Association.
       National Organization of Women.
       National PTA.
       National Women's Law Center.
       OMB Watch.
       People For the American Way.
       Secular Coalition for America.
       Service Employees International Union.
       Stop Family Violence.
       Texas Faith Network.
       Texas Freedom Network.
       The Interfaith Alliance/Foundation.
       The Secular Coalition for America.
       Union for Reform Judaism.
       Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations.
       United Church of Christ Justice & Witness Ministries.
       Women of Reform Judaism.
       YWCA USA.
                                  ____



                                      The Interfaith Alliance,

                               Washington, DC, September 16, 2005.
       Dear Representative: I write to you today as the president 
     of The Interfaith Alliance, a nonpartisan, national 
     grassroots organization dedicated to promoting the positive 
     and healing role of religion in public life to oppose any 
     amendment to repeal longstanding critical civil rights 
     protections contained in the School Readiness Act (H.R. 2123) 
     and vote ``no'' on final passage if such an amendment is 
     adopted. As unanimously passed out of the Committee on 
     Education and the Workforce, H.R. 2123 maintains longstanding 
     provisions designed to protect over 198,000 Head Start 
     teachers and staff and over 1,450,000 parent volunteers from 
     employment discrimination based on religion in federally 
     funded Head Start programs,
       As an organization whose membership is comprised of 150,000 
     people of faith and good will spanning 75 faith traditions, I 
     can think of no reason to justify an attempt to roll back 
     these longstanding civil rights and religious liberty 
     protections. Indeed, in a nation as intentionally and 
     increasingly pluralistic as ours, built-in protections 
     prohibiting religious discrimination in federally-funded 
     programs represent a fundamental commitment towards a society 
     that values the contributions and abilities of people of all 
     faith traditions equally.
       Religious organizations have had a long and proud history 
     in their active participation in Head Start programs. For 
     years, congregations have made substantial contributions to 
     their communities with the existing workplace protections in 
     place. If those in Congress who seek to repeal these 
     employment safeguards are successful, thousands of teachers 
     and parent volunteers who have dedicated themselves to this 
     program could find themselves no longer welcome at 
     religiously-affiliated Head Start programs because they are 
     of a different faith than the sponsoring organization.
       While The Interfaith Alliance is supportive of the right of 
     sectarian organizations to hire based on religious preference 
     for purposes of furthering their institutional ministry, we 
     believe that houses of worship forfeit that right once they 
     accept federal taxpayer dollars to implement social service 
     programs that are intended to serve all.
       Further, any attempt to politicize the Head Start program--
     a federally sponsored preschool program conceived to meet the 
     needs of disadvantaged children since 1965--through a floor 
     amendment to add the highly controversial religious exemption 
     language, is not only unnecessary, but a sad commentary on 
     the state of those political leaders who seek to attach 
     religious exemption language to every social service program 
     that comes before the Congress.
       The Interfaith Alliance is pleased with the bipartisan 
     direction of the Head Start legislation however; this bill 
     will no longer be bipartisan if there is any attempt to roll 
     back longstanding critical civil rights protections. The 
     civil rights protections afforded to Head Start teachers and 
     staff are vital and should not be dislodged. This bill has 
     gained broad support among religious, civil rights, labor, 
     education, health, and advocacy organizations, but that broad 
     support will end if there is any threat to remove the 
     longstanding critical civil rights protections in Head Start.
       If you need further information on our position on this 
     matter, please do not hesitate to contact Kim Baldwin, 
     Director of Public Policy and Voter Education or Preetmohan 
     Singh, Senior Policy Analyst.
           Sincerely,
     Rev. Dr. C. Welton Gaddy,
       President, The Interfaith Alliance, Pastor of Preaching and 
     Worship, North Minster Baptist Church (Monroe, LA).
                                  ____

                                            Unitarian Universalist


                                 Association of Congregations,

                                     Washington, DC, June 1, 2005.
       Dear Member of Congress: I am writing on behalf of the over 
     1,050 congregations that make up the Unitarian Universalist 
     Association in regard to H.R. 2123, the School Readiness Act 
     of 2005, the legislation to reauthorize the Head Start 
     program. The Unitarian Universalist Association would like to 
     express our continued support of this program, as we believe 
     that Head Start is a successful and necessary program that 
     helps prepare nearly 20 million low-income children for 
     success in kindergarten and later life.
       We remain pleased with the general direction of the House 
     bill as it comes out of the Committee on Education and the 
     Workforce.

[[Page 21091]]

     We are, however, concerned over proposals by committee 
     leadership to offer a floor amendment to repeal civil rights 
     protections in hiring in Head Start programs. The UUA 
     encourages you to pass a reauthorization bill that is truly 
     bi-partisan in recognizing the successes of the Head Start 
     program and maintaining the high quality of comprehensive 
     services it provides without repeal of long-standing civil 
     rights protections. We ask that you vote against any 
     amendment on the floor that would repeal civil rights 
     protections. If such an amendment is included in the final 
     bill, we ask that you vote NO on final passage of H.R. 2123.
       We urge you to oppose the repeal of longstanding civil 
     rights protections designed to protect Head Start teachers, 
     staff, and parent volunteers from employment discrimination 
     based on religion in federally funded Head Start programs. 
     This provision has worked for 24 years, encouraging religious 
     organizations to participate in Head Start and make 
     invaluable contributions to children's education and well-
     being, while maintaining Constitutional and civil rights 
     standards. Allowing discrimination based on religion would 
     significantly impede the important goals of Head Start, send 
     a damaging message to Head Start students, and harm their 
     education by separating students from their own teachers and 
     parent volunteers.
       On behalf of the Unitarian Universalist Association of 
     Congregations, I thank you for your consideration of our 
     views on Head Start reauthorization. Head Start is an 
     exemplary program that has a well-deserved reputation for 
     delivering quality services to millions of our country's 
     children. This program is an excellent example of how 
     religious organizations such as houses of worship work in 
     partnership with the government without compromising either 
     protections for religious minorities or the integrity of 
     religious organizations. We urge the House to pass a 
     bipartisan bill that will continue the success of Head Start 
     without eliminating important civil rights provisions by 
     voting NO on any proposed amendment eliminating such 
     provisions and voting NO on final passage of a bill including 
     such provisions.
           In Faith,
                                                Robert C. Keithan,
     Director.
                                  ____

                                                 Service Employees


                                     International Union, CLC,

                               Washington, DC, September 20, 2005.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of 1.8 million members of 
     the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), working in 
     health care, building services, and federal, state, and local 
     governments, including more than 220,000 early education 
     workers throughout the United States, I write to encourage 
     you to take a closer look at several key provisions in the 
     Head Start Reauthorization bill that could impact the quality 
     of Head Start for children. As the School Readiness Act of 
     2005 (H.R. 2123) moves to the House floor for a vote this 
     week, we hope that you will use this time as an opportunity 
     to improve the quality of Head Start programs that serve low-
     income children nationwide.
       Since its inception in 1965, the Head Start program has 
     enrolled more than 22 million children. Head Start provides 
     an array of comprehensive services to low-income parents and 
     children that they may not otherwise have access to on their 
     own. Head Start not only prepares children for school by 
     providing a solid foundation in cognitive learning and 
     socialization skills, but also helps make children ``ready to 
     learn'' by providing comprehensive health, dental, and 
     nutritional services critically needed by our at-risk 
     children. SEIU is committed to ensuring that children who 
     participate in Head Start acquire the skills that prepare 
     them for healthy, successful lives. This goal will not be 
     realized unless certain steps are taken to improve the Head 
     Start program.
       The Head Start bill passed by the House Education and 
     Workforce Committee contains several provisions that we 
     support including greater set asides for migrant and seasonal 
     workers and Native Americans, as well as Early Head Start 
     programs. However, SEIU remains concerned about a number of 
     provisions that may erode the quality of Head Start programs 
     if not modified. We have outlined those concerns below.
       SEIU supports continuing education for Head Start staff; 
     however, the bill's requirement for additional training and 
     education for Head Start staff may not become reality without 
     the quality improvement funding to make the plan attainable. 
     While SEIU supports additional training and education for 
     staff, we believe more funds also need to be provided for 
     that training and education. Head Start teachers on average 
     make $23,564 annually. Further, there are no current 
     incentives to retain highly qualified staff in Head Start 
     programs after attaining degrees.
       Additionally, Head Start needs sufficient resources to 
     ensure every eligible child can participate and to increase 
     the quality of programs. Two out of five preschool children 
     (about 800,000) and 97 percent of infants and toddlers who 
     qualify for Early Head Start cannot participate in the 
     program simply because there are not enough resources 
     invested in the program. We support full funding for Head 
     Start so all eligible children have access to the Head Start 
     program.
       Also, the bill's re-competition provisions need 
     improvement. SEIU is encouraged that the House bill does not 
     require automatic re-competition for every grantee after the 
     end of their grant period. However, the bill does require re-
     competition for grantees that have a ``deficiency'' during 
     their grant period--regardless of whether the deficiency has 
     been resolved or not. In addition, the Secretary has broad 
     authority in identifying what a ``deficiency'' is, the 
     finding of which would require programs to re-compete their 
     grants. Such uncertainty for all programs--even those with 
     stellar records of performance--is counterproductive and 
     would end programs' ability to do any long-range planning. In 
     the event a grantee is unsuccessful in a re-competition, SEIU 
     continues to have concerns for existing Head Start workers 
     who may be displaced by re-competition. Services and care-
     giving relationships for children should not be disrupted.
       Moreover, SEIU supports parental involvement in Head Start 
     programs and encourages Members of Congress to re-think its 
     plan to diminish the role of policy councils. Policy councils 
     offer real parental involvement regarding personnel and 
     budgets. Despite the advantages of parental involvement, the 
     House bill changes governance responsibility to the Board of 
     Directors, with Policy Councils playing only an advisory or 
     consulting role. Instead, Congress should recognize that 
     parents provide valuable insight into Head Start programs and 
     can provide the necessary oversight of Head Start programs 
     when armed with the proper training. SEIU supports parental 
     involvement through policy councils.
       Finally, SEIU vigorously opposes attempts to include 
     language that would repeal longstanding civil rights 
     protections that prohibit religious-based employment 
     discrimination by Head Start agencies. The House bill 
     currently maintains a provision designed to protect over 
     198,000 Head Start teachers and staff and over 1,450,000 
     parent volunteers from employment discrimination. This 
     decades old civil rights provision has worked effectively 
     since the inception of this program, allowing religious 
     organizations to participate while maintaining constitutional 
     civil and employment protections. The bill has gained broad 
     support among diverse advocacy organizations, but that 
     support will end if there is a successful effort to remove 
     those protections in Head Start when the bill goes to the 
     floor. SEIU asks that you vote against any amendment offered 
     that would roll back critical civil rights protections. If 
     such an amendment is included in the final bill, we urge you 
     vote NO on final passage of H.R. 2123.
       SEIU remains troubled by the bill as it is currently 
     constructed as outlined in the letter and we will endeavor to 
     improve the legislation when the Senate takes up 
     reauthorization. Again, should an amendment be offered that 
     allows faith-based organizations to use religious 
     discrimination against teachers, staff and parent volunteers 
     working at Head Start programs, we urge you to vote NO upon 
     final passage of the bill.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Anna Burger,
     International Secretary-Treasurer.
                                  ____



                                           CDF Action Council,

                                               September 20, 2005.
       Dear Representative: As H.R. 2123, the School Readiness Act 
     of 2005, moves towards a full vote in the House of 
     Representatives on Thursday, September 22, the Children's 
     Defense Fund is pleased to support many of the provisions on 
     which the Education and Workforce Committee has worked so 
     thoughtfully and diligently. We are especially pleased that 
     the Committee's bipartisan bill maintains the integrity of 
     the Head Start program and the quality performance standards 
     that have helped Head Start successfully serve over 22 
     million children since the program began.
       We are extremely concerned, however, about a religious 
     discrimination amendment that will be offered when the bill 
     comes to the House floor. This unwarranted amendment would 
     repeal the important civil rights protections that currently 
     exist in Head Start that protect teachers and volunteers 
     working in any Head Start program run by a religious 
     organization. Such an amendment would significantly hinder 
     the goals of the Head Start program and the quality of care 
     children receive.
       CDF acknowledges the continuing contribution of faith-based 
     individuals and organizations, which have been the backbone 
     of Head Start since its inception and have historically 
     embraced serving our most vulnerable children when few others 
     would even consider it. The religious discrimination 
     provision, however, strikes at the very core of civil rights 
     issues that so many of these individuals fought to secure. It 
     is imperative that faith-based organizations be subject to 
     the same civil rights laws that ALL programs who receive 
     federal funding must abide by. The following are concerns 
     raised by the amendment:
       Teachers and staff could be hired based on their religion 
     rather than their qualifications.
       Tens of thousands of already at-risk 3- and 4-year-old 
     children could lose their Head

[[Page 21092]]

     Start teachers, who often are the most important adults, 
     other than their parents, with whom they have established 
     meaningful relationships.
       Head Start has been an important source of employment for 
     countless parents, but this provision could result in 
     numerous parents losing their jobs, preventing families of 
     Head Start children from climbing the ladder out of poverty.
       Many Head Start volunteers are also parents. Parent 
     involvement has played a critical role in the success of Head 
     Start. These volunteers could be let go as well if the 
     provision passes.
       Head Start is a critical program for our country's most 
     vulnerable young children, providing them with valuable tools 
     for future success in life. We are greatly concerned that 
     removing civil rights protections for employees and 
     volunteers would be detrimental to the children and families 
     who benefit from this program. What message does this send to 
     the Head Start children when their teachers, staff, and 
     parents are denied opportunities in Head Start, simply 
     because they do not share the federally-funded employers' 
     religious beliefs?
       While substantial progress has been made creating a 
     bipartisan bill with many positive provisions, the addition 
     of a religious discrimination amendment would require CDF to 
     oppose H.R. 2123.
       Thank you for your continuing commitment to improving Head 
     Start and helping it reach more of the vulnerable children 
     and families who benefit from its essential services. Please 
     oppose the religious discrimination amendment.
           Sincerely Yours,
     Marian Wright Edelman.
                                  ____



                                        Human Rights Campaign,

                               Washington, DC, September 19, 2005.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of the more than 600,000 
     members of the Human Rights Campaign, we write to express our 
     grave concerns with certain provisions of the School 
     Readiness Act (H.R. 2123) that we understand may be added as 
     the legislation moves to the floor for a vote. We are 
     particularly concerned with statements made by Chairman John 
     Boehner (R-OH) which indicate that his clear intention is to 
     offer an amendment on the floor adding language to reverse 
     the non-discrimination provisions currently in effect in the 
     Head Start program. We do not believe it should be legal to 
     discriminate with federal funds.
       We ask you to oppose any attempt to rollback these civil 
     rights protections, which would undermine the current 
     bipartisan nature of the bill. If an amendment is added on 
     the floor which would roll back these civil rights 
     protections, we urge you to oppose final passage of the 
     School Readiness Act (H.R. 2123).
       As the nation's largest gay, lesbian, bisexual and 
     transgender civil rights organization, we oppose using 
     federal funds to discriminate on any basis, including 
     religion, which unfortunately has been used as a proxy for 
     discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender 
     identity. Two prominent cases illustrate this problem: 
     Bellmore v. United Methodist Children's Home and Department 
     of Human Resources of Georgia and Pedreira v. Kentucky 
     Baptist Homes for Children. Further, we are particularly 
     concerned that any provisions that allow federally funded 
     religious discrimination will pre-empt local and state non-
     discrimination laws that include sexual orientation and 
     gender identity.
       While we do not hold a position on the overall legislation, 
     we have serious concerns with a provision that we understand 
     will be offered on the floor that would roll back civil 
     rights protections that have been in place and working 
     effectively since 1972. By abandoning these non-
     discrimination protections, Head Start providers would be 
     able to discriminate on the basis of religion in federally 
     funded positions, even when engaging in purely secular early 
     childhood education activities. Faith-based organizations 
     have been partnering successfully with the government for a 
     number of years without the need to bypass civil rights laws 
     in their efforts to provide social services.
       We do not object to faith-based organizations providing 
     education-related services or other social services. Indeed, 
     we deeply respect the faith community's vital contribution to 
     care for the most vulnerable among us. Just as it is 
     important these vital programs continue to provide services, 
     it also remains important that federal funds are not used to 
     discriminate on the basis of religion or sexual orientation 
     or gender identity.
       For these reasons, we urge you to oppose any amendment to 
     the legislation which would rollback these critical civil 
     rights protections and work to produce a bipartisan bill to 
     reauthorize the Head Start program. A vote on an amendment 
     permitting federally funded discrimination will be considered 
     a key vote for the Human Rights Campaign.
       Should you have any questions please do not hesitate to 
     contact Angela Clements on our staff.
           Sincerely,
     David M. Smith,
                           Vice President for Policy and Strategy,
     Christopher Labonte,
     Legislative Director.
                                  ____



                             National Council of Jewish Women,

                                               September 19, 2005.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of the 90,000 members and 
     supporters of the National Council of Jewish Women (NCJW), I 
     am writing to ask you to oppose the Boehner amendment to H.R. 
     2123, the School Readiness Act of 2005, and to oppose final 
     passage of the bill if this amendment is adopted. NCJW has 
     been involved with Head Start since its inception, and we 
     strongly support the program and H.R. 2123 as passed 
     unanimously by the Education and the Workforce Committee. 
     Efforts to amend the bill to open the door to religious 
     discrimination would compromise the success of this program. 
     NCJW believes that taxpayer funds should never be used to 
     subsidize discrimination on any basis.
       Since President Nixon signed the Head Start program into 
     law four decades ago, this acclaimed early childhood 
     education program has included civil rights language 
     protecting Head Start teachers from employment 
     discrimination. This provision works well, allowing religious 
     organizations to participate in Head Start while maintaining 
     constitutional and civil rights standards.
       NCJW strongly supports the bipartisan effort to reauthorize 
     Head Start. But the Boehner amendment looms as a ``poison 
     pill'' undermining this bipartisanship. House consideration 
     of H.R. 2123 should focus on meeting the needs of 
     disadvantaged children--improving policy and providing 
     sufficient funds to extend Head Start to all eligible 
     children. The Boehner amendment is totally unnecessary and 
     interjects a controversial, political issue which has the 
     potential to threaten the bill's progress. The House of 
     Representatives must not roll back critical civil rights 
     protections.
       For over a century, NCJW has been at the forefront of 
     social change, raising its voice on important issues of 
     public policy. Inspired by our Jewish values, NCJW has been, 
     and continues to be, an advocate for the needs of women, 
     children, and families and a strong supporter of equal rights 
     and protections for everyone.
       I urge you to oppose any amendment allowing employment 
     discrimination and to oppose the underlying bill if such an 
     amendment is included.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Phyllis Snyder,
     NCJW President.
                                  ____



                                  National Council of La Raza,

                               Washington, DC, September 19, 2005.
       Dear Member of Congress: On behalf of the National Council 
     of La Raza (NCLR), the largest national Latino civil rights 
     and advocacy organization in the U.S., I write on an issue of 
     great importance to the Hispanic community. On Thursday, the 
     House of Representatives is scheduled to vote on legislation 
     to reauthorize the Head Start program, the ``School Readiness 
     Act of 2005'' (H.R. 2123). This legislation is the result of 
     bipartisan work of the Committee on Education and the 
     Workforce to address much-needed improvements to the program 
     for Latino children. However, NCLR is concerned that this 
     bipartisan work will be jeopardized by an amendment that 
     would allow for employment discrimination based on religion 
     in the program.
       NCLR has long recognized that Head Start is a critically 
     important program for ensuring that Latino children begin 
     their school careers ready to learn. For these reasons, NCLR 
     has pursued a reauthorization agenda focused on ensuring that 
     Head Start continues to show progress in its effort to 
     eliminate disparities in access and enhance the quality of 
     services for Latino and limited-English-proficient (LEP) 
     children and their families. We are pleased that Members from 
     both sides of the aisle supported this agenda and worked to 
     include provisions in H.R. 2123 that significantly improve 
     the program for Latinos. These provisions include, but are 
     not limited to, the following:
       Additional resources for Migrant and Seasonal Head Start 
     (MSHS) program expansion, which will allow for thousands of 
     farmworker children to exit the fields and enter the 
     classroom.
       An accountability provision which ensures that Head Start 
     providers serve new populations in their local communities 
     through enhanced monitoring and evaluations of annual 
     community assessments.
       A new requirement that the Secretary conduct a study on the 
     status of LEP children and their families in Head Start and 
     Early Head Start programs.
       A new requirement that the Secretary utilize training and 
     technical assistance funds for activities aimed at assisting 
     Head Start providers to conduct outreach and improve the 
     quality of services to LEP populations, particularly in 
     states with new and rapidly growing LEP populations.
       A new requirement that all Head Start parents receive 
     information and services in their home language, when 
     possible.
       A new requirement that, in addition to making progress 
     toward acquisition of the English language, LEPs show 
     progress toward the school readiness indicators outlined in 
     the Head Start education performance standards.
       In addition, while NCLR is pleased with the aforementioned 
     provisions in H.R 2123,

[[Page 21093]]

     we stand in solidarity with the broader civil rights 
     community in our strong opposition to any amendment that 
     could open the door to employment discrimination based on 
     religion in the Head Start program. Foremost, such an 
     amendment is unnecessary for ensuring greater participation 
     from the faith-based sector in the program; faith-based 
     providers have served as an important partner in Head Start 
     since the program's inception. Moreover, such an amendment 
     will only serve to deter critical attention and debate away 
     from provisions in the legislation that have garnered strong 
     bipartisan support, such as improvements to the program for 
     Latino children. We urge Members of Congress to vote NO on 
     any amendment seeking to allow recipients of Head Start funds 
     to discriminate based on religion. NCLR may recommend that 
     any vote related to such an amendment be included in the 
     National Hispanic Leadership Agenda Legislative Scorecard.
       In closing, NCLR affirms its strong support of provisions 
     included in H.R. 2123 which increase access to and improve 
     the quality of Head Start for Latino children. We are certain 
     that these policy changes will go a long way toward ensuring 
     that Latino children fully benefit from the program and that 
     Head Start remains a model for early education into the 
     future.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Janet Murguia,
     NCLR President and CEO.
                                  ____



                                  People for the American Way,

                               Washington, DC, September 16, 2005.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of the more than 750,000 
     members and supporters of People For the American Way, we 
     urge you to maintain the bipartisan direction of H.R. 2123, 
     the ``School Readiness Act of 2003,'' and oppose any attempt 
     to repeal longstanding anti-discrimination protections. We 
     commend you on your bipartisan efforts on Head Start 
     reauthorization legislation. Head Start programs not only 
     offer opportunities to thousands of low-income children, they 
     also enrich their communities by providing job opportunities 
     to over a third of the parents whose children have 
     participated in the program. As it stands, this bill 
     currently upholds key anti-discrimination provisions that 
     have been part of Head Start since its inception.
       However, in a statement released by the Committee on 
     Education and the Workforce on May 5, 2005, Chairman Boehner 
     stated that he anticipates and supports an amendment on the 
     House floor to rollback longstanding critical civil rights 
     protections. This type of amendment would be a direct attack 
     on bipartisan, anti-discrimination provisions that have been 
     part of Head Start since its creation in 1981 and cannot be 
     tolerated. People For the American Way cannot support a 
     compromise that does not ensure that the existing civil 
     rights protections in H.R. 2123 are not summarily removed on 
     the House floor.
       Proponents of anti-civil rights provisions claim there is a 
     need to exempt religious organizations from anti-
     discrimination laws in order to protect the religious 
     identity of that organization. This is simply not true. For 
     decades, religious organizations have partnered with the 
     government to provide social services. They have done so by 
     separating their worship and related activities from 
     government-funded social services, and, where necessary, 
     creating a separate non-sectarian 501(c)(3) organization to 
     provide the services. Under this model, religious 
     organizations have provided an invaluable contribution to the 
     education of thousands of Head Start students and to the 
     communities in which they live. Congress should not adopt 
     changes that would alter this beneficial relationship, 
     particularly when there is no evidence that religious 
     organizations are actively seeking the religious exemption in 
     question.
       Again, we are pleased with the bipartisan direction of Head 
     Start reauthorization legislation. However, we are concerned 
     with any amendments which would rollback longstanding 
     critical civil rights protections and thereby detrimentally 
     affect Head Start teachers, students and their parents. The 
     current, delicate balance encouraging the participation of 
     religious organizations and compliance with our Constitution 
     should not be disrupted. For these reasons, we urge you to 
     continue efforts to ensure that this legislation remains 
     bipartisan, as well as oppose any attempts to repeal 
     longstanding anti-discrimination provisions in H.R. 2123.
            Sincerely,
     Ralph G. Neas,
       President.
     Tanya M. Clay,
       Deputy Director of Public Policy.
                                  ____



                                     Union for Reform Judaism,

                                               September 19, 2005.
       Dear Representatives: On behalf of the Union for Reform 
     Judaism, whose 900 congregations across North America 
     encompass 1.5 million Reform Jews, and the Central Conference 
     of American Rabbis (CCAR), whose membership includes over 
     1800 Reform rabbis, I strongly urge you to maintain the 
     bipartisan character of the School Readiness Act of 2005 
     (H.R. 2123) by opposing any attempt to repeal longstanding 
     civil rights protections that prohibit faith-based Head Start 
     centers from discriminating in whom they hire on the basis of 
     religion. Should such language be added to the bill, I urge 
     you to vote against final passage.
       We expect government-funded programs to hire the people who 
     are most qualified, not those whose religious beliefs best 
     match those of an employer. This is especially problematic in 
     relation to Head Start. One's faith does not determine how 
     one reads a book to preschoolers or sings the ``alphabet 
     song.'' To deny children living in poverty the most qualified 
     teacher is nothing short of an attack on Head Start's core 
     mission--preparing children to succeed in school.
       Since its founding, Head Start has prided itself on the 
     strength of its family involvement component. Head Start has 
     successfully trained many of its low-income parents to work 
     at Head Start centers, helping parents rise out of poverty. 
     In fact, the Family and Child Experiences Survey, prepared in 
     January 2002 for the U.S. Department of Health and Human 
     Services, found that over 40 percent of Head Start staff 
     members had children in their households who were current or 
     former Head Start participants. On the day this bill becomes 
     law, faith-based Head Start programs could fire such staff 
     members because of their religious beliefs. A Head Start 
     center could refuse to consider a qualified parent for a job 
     because of the way the parent chooses to worship. Experience 
     teaches us that a broad exemption for religious organizations 
     would permit religious groups to use government money to 
     discriminate based on race, sexual orientation, and marital 
     status.
       We are pleased with the bi-partisan efforts to improve upon 
     previous Head Start reauthorization attempts. However, on the 
     day that H.R. 2123 was introduced, Representative John 
     Boehner (R-OH) stated his intention to offer an amendment to 
     roll-back the current civil rights protections within the 
     Head Start program when the bill is considered by the full 
     House. To plainly state such intentions diminishes the much-
     heralded bipartisan spirit of the bill and undermines the 
     gains made thus far in the mark-up process.
       Our tradition includes a story of a teacher whose prayer 
     for rain was answered promptly. Asked to tell of his special 
     merit, he replied: ``I teach children of the poor as well as 
     of the rich; I accept no fee from any who cannot afford it; 
     and I have a fishpond to delight the children and to 
     encourage them to do their lessons.'' Since 1965, through its 
     comprehensive services and high quality standards, Head Start 
     has striven to give millions of children an equal opportunity 
     to succeed in school, nurturing their love of learning and 
     delight in life. I urge you to protect such opportunity for 
     our nation's teachers, parents, and children by opposing any 
     attempt to repeal the civil rights protections in H.R. 2123.
           Respectfully,
     Rabbi David Saperstein.
                                  ____

       Dear Representative: We, the undersigned religious and 
     religiously affiliated organizations, write to urge you to 
     oppose the planned Boehner religious discrimination amendment 
     to the School Readiness Act (H.R. 2123), the bill 
     reauthorizing the Head Start program. The bill approved 48-0 
     by the House Committee on Education and the Workforce that 
     reaches the House floor is the product of many months of hard 
     work resulting in a strong bipartisan agreement. It maintains 
     critical civil rights protections in Head Start, preventing 
     religious discrimination in federally funded Head Start 
     positions. Any attempts to amend the bill and repeal these 
     protections threaten not only the bipartisan spirit of the 
     bill, but the integrity of the Head Start program itself. If 
     the promised Boehner amendment passes, we urge you to vote 
     ``no'' to H.R. 2123. We are disappointed that an otherwise 
     acceptable bill could be jeopardized with such an unwise 
     amendment.
       We represent a diverse array of religions, covering the 
     political and ideological spectrum. We stand united to oppose 
     this unwarranted attack on a vital civil rights provision 
     that protects over 1.6 million teachers and parent volunteers 
     from having to choose between their religion and their 
     participation in the local Head Start program.
       The bipartisan bill that passed unanimously out of the 
     Committee on Education and the Workforce has the potential to 
     garner support from a broad range of groups, including all of 
     the religious groups on this letter, but not if the proposed 
     language is included. As religious institutions, we support 
     preserving the autonomy of religious organizations with 
     respect to hiring decisions made in privately funded 
     programs. However, we also recognize the importance of 
     ensuring that taxpayer dollars do not fund positions 
     connected with the operation of the program itself where 
     candidates may be disqualified because of the religion they 
     practice. The longstanding nondiscrimination provision 
     included in Head Start legislation since 1972 strikes the 
     appropriate balance between religious autonomy and 
     nondiscrimination. For over three decades, religious 
     organizations have enthusiastically and effectively 
     participated in the program while upholding constitutional 
     and civil rights standards. We are

[[Page 21094]]

     not aware of any call by these religious based Head Start 
     programs for congressional authority to begin to discriminate 
     on the basis of religion in this government-funded program.
       As religious and religiously affiliated organizations, we 
     strive to make the world a better place for the next 
     generation and generations to follow. The Head Start program 
     is an extremely successful government funded means of 
     achieving this goal, providing opportunities for nearly one 
     million at-risk children each year. We urge you to oppose any 
     effort, such as Rep. Boehner's planned floor amendment, to 
     change this crucial program by stripping its civil rights 
     protections and allowing providers to discriminate on 
     religious grounds.
       Thank you for your consideration of this important matter.
           Respectfully,
         African American Ministers in Action, American Baptist 
           Churches, USA, American Jewish Committee, American 
           Jewish Congress, Baptist Joint Committee for Religious 
           Liberty, Central Conference of American Rabbis, 
           Christian Justice Action, United Church of Christ, 
           Disciples of Justice Action Network (Disciples of 
           Christ), Equal Partners in Faith, Faith Action Network 
           of People For the American Way.
         Na'Amat USA, National Council of Jewish Women, The 
           General Board of Church and Society of The United 
           Methodist Church, The Interfaith Alliance, Texas Faith 
           Network, Sikh American Legal Defense and Education Fund 
           (SALDEF), Union for Reform Judaism, Unitarian 
           Universalist Association of Congregations, Women of 
           Reform Judaism.
                                  ____



                                                    OMB Watch,

                               Washington, DC, September 16, 2005.
       Dear Representative: OMB Watch strongly urges you to oppose 
     the any attempt to include ``charitable choice'' provisions 
     in the Head Start program, which would allow religious 
     organizations to discriminate on the basis of the religion 
     when hiring for federally funded programs.
       Religious organizations play a meaningful role in the 
     delivery of social service programs. We do not question the 
     right of religious organizations to participate in federal 
     programs, nor their ability to avail themselves of an 
     exemption under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 
     that allows religious organizations to hire co-religionists 
     with their own money.
       However, we do question whether federal dollars should fund 
     discrimination by the very few religious organizations that 
     refuse to follow the same rules that all other organizations 
     participating in federal programs follow. Although religious 
     employers have the right under Title VII to apply religious 
     tests to employees, the Constitution requires that the direct 
     receipt and administration of federal funds remove that 
     exemption.
       In addition, the federal government has constitutional 
     obligations reinforced by Chief Justice Rehnquist's majority 
     opinion in Bowen v. Kendrick, 487 U.S. 589 (1988). The Court 
     stated that although the Constitution does not bar religious 
     organizations from participating in federal programs, it 
     requires (1) that no one participating in a federal program 
     can ``discriminate on the basis of religion'' and (2) that 
     all federal programs must be carried out in a ``lawful, 
     secular manner.'' Id. at 609, 612.
       Faith-based and secular grantees face high standards and 
     must be treated equally. The acceptance of federal funds--
     taxpayer money--should require all recipients to practice 
     non-discrimination in hiring as it relates to those funds.
       I urge you to maintain the integrity of religious grantees 
     and prevent government-funded religious discrimination by 
     opposing any attempt to include ``charitable choice'' 
     provisions into the Head Start program.
       If you have any questions, please contact Jennifer Lowe at 
     202-234-8494. Thank you for your attention to this matter.
           Sincerely,
                                                        Gary Bass,
                                               Executive Director.

  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The underlying reauthorization bill here is a good one, to help Head 
Start children to get the head start they need if they are going to 
have a chance to succeed in school. And we know from all of the studies 
for low-income children to have a chance in school, going through an 
early childhood development program like Head Start is absolutely 
essential and that those children that are involved in Head Start and 
other like programs have a much better opportunity and a much better 
chance to succeed while they are in school.
  We are about to get into the amendment process where we will consider 
a number of amendments to perfect this bill, and I would ask my 
colleagues to pay attention to these amendments. I think for most of 
them there is quite a bit of agreement. But, clearly, the one amendment 
dealing with the rights of faith-based organizations will draw an awful 
lot of attention.
  But I would ask my colleagues, why should we not let the House work 
its will? If Members agree or disagree, we ought to have that right and 
we ought to respect the outcome of that vote.
  Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly rise in 
opposition to the passage of the H.R. 2123, the School Readiness Act, a 
bill that reauthorizes the Head Start program through fiscal year 2011. 
Although the underlying bill enjoys wide, bipartisan support, the 
adoption of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. 
Boustany) has the effect of being a poison pill and makes the bill 
unpalatable.
  The Boustany Amendment permits faith-based organizations providing 
Head Start service to hire and fire on the basis of religious 
affiliation. The adoption of this amendment allows faith-based 
organizations to discriminate in hiring. This practice will work 
against a key object for which Head Start was designed to address: 
moving children and families out of poverty.
  The Boustany Amendment also drives a wedge within the faith-based 
community. The Head Start program was first established 1964 through 
the cooperation of African-American churches throughout the segregated 
South. From its birth, Head Start and the religious community have 
developed a strong partnership in the delivery of critical education 
and social services that have been the building blocks to escaping 
poverty. This relationship has worked well for generations and now it 
will be jeopardized if this provision is allowed to remain in the bill. 
Many faith-based organizations who sponsor Head Start programs have 
experienced no problems in fulfilling their spiritual mission and 
honoring the non-discrimination in hiring requirements under the Civil 
Rights Act. Permitting faith-based organizations to use federal dollars 
to discriminate in hiring is a step backwards in the continuing 
struggle for civil rights, a step I am not willing to support.
  To remove the civil rights protections guaranteed under this program 
compromises the very purpose of this program. For this reason, I cast 
my vote in opposition to H.R. 2123.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, Head Start is a program with many 
success stories, providing more than 900,000 low-income children with 
comprehensive educational, medical, dental, and nutritional services. 
It is an investment in our future. I am happy to see some improvement 
offered in the School Readiness Act of 2005, such as abandoning block-
granting, increasing accountability on academic performance and 
content, and teacher quality. Unfortunately, this bill falls short of 
the expectations set by my local community and I cannot support it.
  It does not go far enough in providing additional funding for 
teachers so they may acquire bachelor's degrees by 2011. In Oregon, 
only 58 percent of the eligible children are being served. Instead of 
focusing on getting more eligible children into the program, the 
Republican Leadership is once again attempting to repeal civil rights 
protections by introducing an amendment permitting religious 
organizations to use federal funds to discriminate in hiring and firing 
decisions. Faith-based organizations have long participated in the Head 
Start program and have successfully received federal funding without 
discriminating.
  Head Start is a bright light for families and children who need an 
extra boost into the future. It is a program that demonstrates that we 
care about all families within our communities. I cannot support a bill 
that discriminates and ignores equality protections.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the School 
Readiness Act which will reauthorize the Head Start program, but this 
measure will not get my vote if the amendment allowing for religious 
discrimination is adopted by this House.
  I think that we can all agree that this is not a perfect bill, though 
it is certainly an improvement over the Headstart reauthorization bill 
that the 108th Congress considered.
  As a former mayor of the city of Alexandria, Virginia, I know just 
how important Head Start programs are to communities because they help 
to provide our low-income preschool-aged children much needed services 
such as child development, educational, health, nutritional activities 
which help them receive greater advantages in life. More importantly, 
these programs help to level the playing field for disadvantaged 
children and prepare them for school.
  In addition to the educational services that are provided by Head 
Start programs, some of the other services include health screenings, 
such as dental and eye care. Statistics have

[[Page 21095]]

shown that children who receive these crucial services, along with a 
hot breakfast every morning, have increased their readiness for school.
  In my congressional district, one of the most successful Head Start 
programs is the Alexandria Head Start. This is a collaboration that the 
Campaign Center, the city of Alexandria and the Alexandria City Public 
Schools system formed about 37 years ago.
  AHS serves over 250 Head Start children and because of a wonderful 
group of dedicated educators and involved parents, these children are 
truly getting a ``head start.''
  I am pleased that many of my low-income constituents are served by 
Head Start programs. I am concerned, however, that the School Readiness 
Act's authorized funding levels, with limitations, will allow less than 
one-half of the eligible preschoolers, to participate in Head Start.
  Unfortunately the cost of the Iraq war and massive tax cuts have 
produced a fiscal crisis which now translates into the under-funding of 
critical programs like Head Start and others focused on our low-income 
citizens.
  I am saddened that so many children, who truly would benefit from 
participation in a Head Start program, will not be given a chance of 
doing so, and as a result, will be far less likely to reach their true 
potential.
  Another area of concern in this bill relates to teacher quality.
  The School Readiness Act will require that half of the Head Start 
teachers nationwide have at least a B.A. in child development or a 
related field by 2011, and that all new teachers, beginning three years 
after the enactment of the bill have at least an associate's degree or 
be enrolled in a program to achieve an associate's degree.
  While I certainly agree that our Head Start teachers should be highly 
educated, however, unless additional funding is provided for increased 
salaries, it will be extremely difficult for Head Start programs to 
attract and more importantly, retain the highly educated teachers the 
bill requires.
  Why would someone who is interested in being a teacher and possesses 
the education and background the bill requires, choose to make $25,000 
a year as a Head Start teacher instead of $41,000 as a kindergarten 
teacher for a school system that provides its teaches with cost-of-
living adjustments?
  The non-profit Trust for Early Education said it best in a recent 
report, ``If we do not provide appropriate compensation for our pre-
kindergarten teachers, they will leave the pre-kindergarten 
classroom.''
  The School Readiness Act needs to provide Head Start programs with 
the financial ability to recruit and retain our Nation's brightest 
teachers to educate our Nation's most disadvantaged.
  I am also adamantly opposed to the Boustany amendment.
  If a Head Start program is being administered by a faith-based 
institution and it is receiving federal funding for the program, it 
must not be permitted to discriminate on religious grounds when making 
employment decisions.
  It is as simple as that.
  Head Start teachers and workers not only provide cognitive 
development services to children; they help in the development of 
children's character.
  Most preschoolers have a strong sense of right from wrong. This will 
be setting a confusing example if we authorize discrimination of any 
kind. This amendment is opposed by every credible anti-discrimination 
an civil rights protection organization, and I ask my colleagues to 
oppose it.
  It was once said that ``Education is the great equalizer in a 
democratic society, and if people are not given access to a quality 
education, then what we are doing is creating an underclass of people 
who will ultimately challenge our very way of life.''
  While I recognize the shortcomings of the School Readiness Act, it is 
a worthwhile effort that will help our low-income children by working 
to level a very un-level playing field, so they will be prepared and 
successful in school.
  Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to address the House 
about H.R. 2123, the Head Start School Readiness Act of 2005. Once 
again, we gather here to address the needs of the Nation's youth and 
debate how we will meet those needs.
  For the past 30 years, Head Start has set the foundation for the 
educational achievement of most young children in this country and has 
many of today's successful young adults as its proof of effectiveness. 
Many years ago, we did the necessary research and identified the 
conditions under which young children are more receptive to learning. 
We realized that it would take special effort and targeted resources to 
prepare children for the rigors of the academic day.
  From the beginning until today, we have implemented changes to 
reflect technological advances, changing demographics, professional 
advancements, etc. We, as a Nation, have risen to the call of our 
children and provided a caring, nurturing responsive environment for 
them. We spend millions of dollars every year training teachers to 
carry out the Head Start function.
  Mr. Chairman, we also lose those well-trained individuals one after 
the other because we professionally abandon them after we have spent 
hard earned dollars training them. Along with my colleague from 
Illinois, I sought to provide the authorization for Head Start to 
implement salary and work incentives to retain trained teachers in the 
Head Start program. The amendment was not ruled in order and we have 
not had the opportunity to even have a discussion about the amendment. 
We proposed up to $300 million to aid the many Head Start programs 
nationwide.
  Mr. Chairman, rejecting my amendment I believe deprived the American 
people of an opportunity to hear how their elected representatives 
viewed something as critical as Head Start. It would have given the 
voting public an opportunity to compare how we prioritize items. They 
would have heard us debate how to spend our scarce dollars. They would 
have had a reference point and a window seat to observe how we 
determined what is important and measure that with what they think is 
important. To some the comparison may have been Head Start versus Iraq; 
for some it may have even been Head Start versus health care; for 
others it may have been Head Start versus affordable housing.
  As one who has fought tirelessly for the victims of natural and 
manmade disasters, I have supported every effort to rebuild New York 
after 9/11; I have supported every dime of supplemental funds for the 
victims of Hurricane Katrina; I have supported appropriations bills for 
every conceivable assistance package this country has had to provide. I 
now stand in support of retaining qualified certified and government-
trained teachers in a Head Start program free from discrimination, 
prejudice and intolerance. I submit to you, Mr. Chairman, it is not too 
much to spend and it is right on time.
  In any case, the people will not get that chance. They will never 
know if we may have carefully studied this issue and decide teacher 
retention was a worthy, valuable and cost effective expense.
  What they will hear is a debate on an amendment designed to re-
introduce discrimination and disadvantage to a program created to 
overcome the vestiges of poverty, racism, and academic neglect. This 
House will debate an amendment today to permit faith-based recipients 
of Federal Head Start dollars to discriminate against individual based 
on their individual, guaranteed right of free religious affiliation. As 
a former judge and prosecutor and an American--I am offended and 
insulted.
  We as a body cannot effect a simple reauthorization because each time 
we get to a bi-partisan agreement to move Head Start in to the 21st 
century--this poison pill provision rears its ugly head. Not to mention 
separation of Church and State.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a sad and unfortunate event in the history of 
this august body: That after over 200 years as a sovereign country--
with a checkered past, at best, on discrimination, we now debate 
discrimination by statute in the case of our young and budding leaders 
of tomorrow. I rise in objection to this amendment to permit 
discrimination based on religious affiliation in the Head Start 
program.
  I raise the highest objection that I can to rolling back over 200 
years of progress on justice, harmony and tolerance. I rise in 
objection to holding the future of Head Start hostage to this 
provision.
  Equally important, I rise to object to the proverbial slap in the 
face this amendment visits upon true and significant bipartisanship. I 
commend the chairman and the ranking minority on the Education and 
Workforce Committee for their commitment to the children of this Nation 
by presenting a bill free of polarizing provisions. Unlike so many 
contentious issues brought before the House, bipartisanship was not 
D.O.A.--``Dead on Arrival.'' Instead, a bipartisan, thought provoking 
legislative initiative was D.U.A.--``Dead Under Attack.''
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment and let 
Head Start get on with the business of preparing America's youth for 
tomorrow.
  Ms. BORDALLO. Mr. Chairman, today, in honor of the reauthorization of 
the Head Start Program, I would like to recognize the contributions of 
Head Start to the education of children in Guam and throughout our 
Nation. Head Start programs across the United States have been an 
essential part of the academic, physical, emotional, behavioral and 
cognitive development of 3 and 4 year olds.

[[Page 21096]]

  Early childhood education for pre-schoolers is extremely important as 
an essential element of child development. Guam's Head Start programs 
have educated thousands of children over the past 30 years to become 
good upstanding citizens. The program not only caters to the children, 
but integrates the involvement of parents to nurture an ongoing 
education in the homes.
  I commend all the hard working teachers who have enthusiastically and 
effectively worked to positively influence the lives of at-risk 
children and their families. I support Head Start and H.R. 2123, which 
is critical to provide adequate funding for this wonderful program.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bill, 
though I have concerns about one specific provision that would go too 
far to allow discrimination.
  The basic tenet of Head Start is as true today as it was a generation 
ago--quality early education programs can be instrumental in helping 
children overcome barriers to learning. This program not only plays an 
important role in providing opportunities for the next generation but 
also has an important impact on our economy. For every dollar spent on 
Head Start, we receive seven dollars back. There are few federal 
programs that can boost that kind of success.
  As a nation we must ensure that our children are prepared, 
academically, emotionally and nutritionally to enter school. Removing 
the outside forces that result in under-prepared students opens up 
children's minds to learn and gain an education. Head Start is one of 
the most important programs in our government and I am pleased to see 
this bill come to the floor with bipartisan support.
  Unfortunately, I have concerns about an amendment passed by this body 
that allows faith-based Head Start grantees to discriminate in hiring 
based on religion. Federally supported programs should never support 
discrimination in its programs on any level. Since Head Starts 
inception in 1972 it has never discriminated in hiring for faith based 
and other organizations. There is no need to start now.
  I was pleased the House did not adopt an amendment offered by Ms. 
Musgrave that would allow for-profit Head Start providers to collect 
federal funds as profit. While for-profit Head Start grantees play an 
important role in school readiness, I do not support allowing them to 
collect a profit from federal grants provided to serve low-income 
students. Any savings from funds designated for administrative costs 
should go towards serving the needs of these low-income students. This 
amendment provides the wrong type of incentive for Head Start grantees.
  While this bill is not perfect, there are many provisions that will 
provide needed and worthwhile reforms to Head Start. Head Start has 
proven to be a successful program and this bill will largely make it 
even more successful and efficient. So Mr. Chairman, I am voting in 
favor of this bill.
  Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Mr. Chairman, for almost 40 years, Head Start has 
assisted low-income preschool children and their families. It has been 
an invaluable resource to many children and families across our 
country.
  I am pleased to rise to join with my colleagues about the future of 
Head Start. As Congressman and a former County Executive, education is 
one of my top priorities. In particular, Head Start programs are 
essential to so many children's futures, for research shows that early 
learning is a fundamental piece of a child's education.
  I have long held a firm belief in the importance of education and 
have often spoke of our nation's need to ensure that, even at the 
earliest stages our children have access to programs and services that 
will enrich their education and lives.
  Last year, Head Start helped 912,000 three, four, and five year olds 
build a solid foundation so they are ready to tackle reading and math 
in kindergarten. Head Start allows children to be ready to succeed in 
school and in life. Giving them that extra boost that they need will 
allow them to be productive citizens.
  Head Start also provides the youngsters and their families with a 
comprehensive list of support services--from health screenings to 
nutritional advice to parent counseling.
  I stand behind this program because I have seen first hand how Head 
Start helps the entire family grow and succeed together.
  Head Start is a good start for America's future.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition of H.R. 2123, the 
School Readiness Act of 2005.
  Disappointingly, I would have voted for this legislation to 
reauthorize the Head Start program if it were the same bill that the 
Education and Workforce Committee passed unanimously with bipartisan 
support. That bill's new teacher qualifications and increased 
accountability would have greatly improved the educational outcomes for 
children in the Head Start program. I would have preferred that bill 
provide more funding to ensure all eligible children can receive Head 
Start services, but on balance, the bipartisan bill was worth voting 
for.
  Instead, the Republican Majority has added an amendment which would, 
for the first time in Head Start's 30-year history, allow a faith-based 
sponsored Head Start Program to use Federal taxpayer dollars to 
discriminate against highly qualified teachers and other employees 
solely because of their religious views. Ironically, even the faith-
based community Republicans spend so much time pandering to is opposed 
to this discriminatory amendment. Groups including the Baptist Joint 
Committee, American Jewish Congress and African American Ministers in 
Action oppose the notion that Head Start should allow religious 
discrimination.
  This Head Start bill, however, is only the latest example of such 
prejudice; President Bush and his Congressional Republican counterparts 
have steadily pushed an agenda latent with religious discrimination. 
Most recently, the Majority has sought to impart their religious views 
on historically secular programs such as the Workforce Investment Act 
and the Community Services Block Grant.
  Perhaps what is most abhorrent is that the Republican Party wants to 
institutionalize discrimination in a program that provides early 
childhood development and educational services that are intended to 
prepare low-income children to enter kindergarten and improve their 
success later in life. These are not the ``family values'' we should 
teach our children, whether it's paid for with tax-payer funds or not.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against this legislation. It is time to 
show the American people that this Congress supports tolerance over 
discrimination. It is time we had a Head Start Reauthorization bill 
that focuses on improving the educational development of our children, 
and is not being used as a vehicle to teach our children one of the 
world's ugliest lessons: discrimination.
  Mr. BACA. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 2123, the 
School Readiness Act of 2005.
  The goal of the Head Start program is to give at-risk children all 
across our Nation a fair chance at succeeding in the educational 
system.
  Head Start is especially important to Latino children. Latino 
children make up more than one-third, 34 percent, of all those eligible 
for the program. In my home State of California, 65.8 percent, which is 
almost two-thirds, of those enrolled in the Head Start program are 
Latino. As the Hispanic population experiences rapid growth, Head Start 
services must be strengthened to reflect the unique needs of Latino 
families. Head Start's ability to improve the educational skills and 
opportunities of Latino children will be an important component of 
America's future success.
  Head Start has long lasting effects on those most in need. Head Start 
graduates are more likely to graduate from high school and less likely 
to need special education, repeat a grade, or commit crimes in 
adolescence.
  This bill improves the program in several key ways: It increases 
funding for underserved children: for the children of migrant and 
seasonal workers, it will allow approximately 10,000 more children to 
leave the agricultural fields and enter the classroom; it expands the 
Native America Head Start programs; and it also works towards ensuring 
that parents can get information in their native language, when 
possible.
  This bill was passed unanimously out of the Committee on Education 
and the Workforce in May. It is important that we pass this legislation 
as a bipartisan effort to help American youth. Unfortunately, the 
Boustany amendment would jeopardize this important bill by allowing for 
employment discrimination based on religion. That kind of partisan 
politics has no place in a bill that is about increasing educational 
opportunities for our children.
  Many of our Latino parents and children already face a number of 
barriers in accessing the Head Start program. We must not add 
additional barriers or sacrifice their futures.
  It would place tens of thousands of already at-risk children in 
danger of losing their Head Start teachers. And in doing so, it would 
block countless low-income and minority parents from climbing the 
ladder out of poverty.
  We should not make it more difficult to participate in a program that 
enables thousands of parents to make the life-changing transition from 
being a parent volunteer to being a trained and paid Head Start 
teacher. This amendment is inconsistent with American values of 
tolerance and respect for all religions. Instead of trying to tack on a 
partisan amendment, we should pass a bill that maintains

[[Page 21097]]

Head Start's high standards and allows Head Start centers to hire the 
most qualified teachers. That is what's best for our children and for 
our country.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Boustany amendment.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, in solidarity with the National Head 
Start Association, the Children's Defense Fund and countless other 
lifelong advocates of the Head Start program, it is with a heavy heart 
that I must oppose this final, amended version of the Head Start 
reauthorization on the floor today.
  It did not have to be this way.
  I sit on the Education and Workforce Committee, which reported a 
genuinely bipartisan Head Start bill to this House. It wasn't perfect, 
and it did not reflect in every respect the Head Start reauthorization 
I would have written. For example, an amendment I offered to fully fund 
the program so that every eligible child could reap its benefits was 
defeated on a party line vote. Moreover, a second amendment I proposed 
to offset the significant costs faced by Head Start grantees working to 
comply with the Department of Health and Human Services' transportation 
safety requirements so that program dollars weren't diverted from 
serving kids was similarly not included.
  But, unlike failed initiatives in the recent past, the committee 
reported bill did not walk down the misguided path of block granting 
the Head Start program. Additionally, it took very positive steps 
towards establishing high standards for teacher quality and 
strengthening accountability for underperforming programs. It even 
included an amendment I offered on a bipartisan basis with 
Representatives Platts and Biggert to provide grantees new flexibility 
to serve additional needy children when program slots became available.
  That is why I am so disappointed to vote against this bill today. 
With the inclusion of the Boustany amendment, this bill for the first 
time seeks to legitimize publicly funded religious discrimination in 
the Head Start program. It takes money from taxpayers and then turns 
around and tells those same taxpayers they can be excluded from 
federally funded jobs in a Head Start center solely on the basis of 
their religious beliefs. In effect, it is a green light for religious 
bigotry.
  It has no place in the Head Start program, and it is precisely the 
wrong message to be sending to our nation's children. I will continue 
to support Head Start. But I must forcefully oppose this legislation.
  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, after years of hard work on both 
sides of the aisle to create a Head Start reauthorization bill that 
treats our Nation's neediest children fairly, it is with a heavy heart 
that I must oppose the final passage of H.R. 2123.
  Head Start is designed to ensure that all children--regardless of 
their family's income, race, or ethnic background--are able to enter 
kindergarten ready to learn. The Boustany amendment, which promotes 
discrimination on the basis of religion for faith-based organizations, 
destroys the principle of fairness that I believe is central and 
crucial to the success of Head Start. It is for this reason that I 
cannot support final passage of the bill.
  I have long been a supporter of the Head Start program because each 
and every year I witness the dramatic positive impact that early 
intervention services have on children's lives in my congressional 
district. My district includes many children who are in desperate need 
of Head Start services, especially those Hispanic children who depend 
on Head Start services to learn critical early literacy skills. These 
skills are doubly important now to meet the rigorous requirements of 
the No Child Left Behind Act. Latino children currently make up more 
than one-third of all eligible Head Start children, and the Los Angeles 
County Office of Education is home to the largest Head Start program in 
the Nation, serving more than 24,000 children. As a member of the 
Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and 
Education, I have continuously supported strong and sustained funding 
for the Head Start program.
  During consideration in the Education and the Workforce Committee 
this year, Democrats and Republicans worked constructively together to 
improve the delivery of Head Start services to the target populations. 
The product of this collaborative process was a bill that contained 
several forward-looking provisions that would help the overall 
administration and accountability of the program. In particular, I 
highlight the reauthorization bill's provisions to ensure that Head 
Start teachers possess at least an associate's degree in early 
childhood education within three years of the bill's enactment. In 
addition, I applaud the provision that would allocate 5 percent of 
total funds toward programs that support the children of migrant and 
seasonal workers, an easily-overlooked populace that is 
disproportionately Latino.
  It is important to note that I and my fellow Democrats recognize and 
appreciate the wonderful work that faith-based organizations do to 
support the mission of Head Start. Faith-based groups have and should 
continue to play a critical and respected role in the education of our 
Nation's youngsters.
  While the participation of faith-based groups is respected and 
valuable, however, the Boustany amendment would seriously damage the 
mission of Head Start, which is to ``level the playing field'' when it 
comes to early childhood education. It is essential that faith-based 
groups respect the civil rights of the thousands of Head Start teachers 
and volunteers who are committed to improving the lives of children, 
regardless of their personal religious beliefs. There are many faith-
based groups that work to prepare preschool-aged children for school 
without federal funds, and it is entirely permissible for these groups 
using private funds to hire their teachers based on religious grounds. 
What the Boustany amendment would allow, however, is for faith-based 
groups to ignore civil rights precedent and discriminate on the basis 
of religion when those programs are supported by public funds.
  It is important to note that not all faith-based organizations 
support the discrimination practices supported by the Boustany 
amendment. In fact, many religious organizations specifically oppose 
discrimination in hiring based on religion, including: American Jewish 
Congress, Church Women United, Interfaith Alliance/Foundation, Union 
for Reform Judaism, Unitarian Universalist Association of 
Congregations, and United Church of Christ Justice & Witness 
Ministries.
  Although the Boustany discrimination amendment has forced me to 
oppose H.R. 2123, I remain committed to the Head Start program and the 
services the program provides to our country's underserved children. I 
can only hope that the Republican leadership will come to its senses 
during the conference of this bill with the Senate and move to 
eliminate this discriminatory provision so that Head Start can once 
again go forward with the universal support that it has earned and that 
it deserves.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2123, 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 friends, Chairman Boehner and 
Congressman Castle, for their hard work on this important piece of 
legislation.
  Created in 1965 and located in every community in the country, Head 
Start has been a valuable part of our nation in preparing lower-income 
children for elementary school. However, in spite of the good efforts 
of the program, there are still shortcomings that need to be addressed. 
We can do more to ensure that the disadvantaged children in this 
country are better prepared for school.
  A readiness gap still exists between children in Head Start and their 
more affluent peers. The bill before us today will improve the Head 
Start program to help close the readiness gap by strengthening academic 
standards. The bill emphasizes cognitive development and the use of 
scientifically-based research in topics critical to a child's school 
readiness.
  This bill also seeks to protect parents and taxpayers from financial 
mismanagement in the Head Start program. The federal government invests 
nearly $7 billion in the program, but sadly, dozens of media stories 
and an independent investigation by the Government Accountability 
Office revealed problems in the financial management of some Head Start 
grantees. We should do all that we can to ensure that Head Start 
dollars are going to meet the needs of the students and are not wasted 
due to a few bad grantees. The School Readiness Act strengthens 
safeguards to protect against financial abuse.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill received unanimous support in committee, and 
I hope that it will also receive the full support of the whole House. 
H.R. 2123 is a good bill that will improve the lives and educational 
needs of our nation's most vulnerable children. I urge my colleagues to 
support the bill.
  Mr. HONDA. Mr. Chairman, as a former teacher and principal, I rise 
today to voice my support for H.R. 2123, the bipartisan Head Start 
bill.
  Since 1965, Head Start has helped over 20 million children build the 
confidence and skills they need to succeed in school and to become the 
leaders and productive citizens of the future. Children cannot learn 
when they are hungry, sick, or too worried about their families to 
concentrate in school. That is precisely why we need Head Start.
  Head Start is unique in its comprehensive approach to supporting 
children and families, offering early education, health care, social 
services, and nutrition services, while emphasizing parent involvement 
and support. This

[[Page 21098]]

approach has represented a formula for success for nearly 40 years.
  I am pleased that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have 
not pursued their strategy of last year and have worked with Members 
from this side of the aisle to produce a bill that does not include the 
block grant proposal that was advanced in the last Congress.
  I am also pleased that the bill will align Head Start curricula with 
K-12 education while preserving the comprehensive nature of the Head 
Start program. This will support effective transitions for children's 
learning and development and ensure that children will enter school 
ready to learn. At the same time, the proposal will provide continuity 
for children by retaining the essential parental involvement, 
nutrition, and other non-academic features of Head Start.
  I am glad that H.R. 2123 has a strong focus on early childhood 
educator professional development. Improving teacher quality in Head 
Start is critical to increasing overall program quality and helping 
more children reach kindergarten better prepared to succeed. I am 
concerned, however, that while the bill requires teachers to have 
higher academic degrees, it provides no funding to support the 
implementation of its important teacher quality provisions. Improving 
teacher quality is very important, but without providing the means to 
support the provision, the initiative is severely undercut. I hope that 
this problem is addressed in conference.
  Despite my support for the bill, I will vote against it if the 
divisive amendment being offered by Mr. Boustany passes. I strongly 
oppose this amendment, which would allow faith based-sponsored Head 
Start programs to use Federal taxpayer dollars to discriminate against 
qualified teachers and other employees solely because of their religion 
or personal religious views.
  Head Start began as a civil rights platform--ensuring that all 
children, regardless of race, ethnicity, or religion--get a head start 
in life. This amendment would roll back civil rights for Head Start 
teachers and parent volunteers by allowing religious discrimination. 
This is an outright assault on religious liberty and civil rights in 
federally funded programs. To trample on this now will turn back the 
clock on the progress we have made in protecting the civil rights of 
the people we entrust to give our children a head start.
  Allowing discrimination based on religion would significantly impede 
the important goals of Head Start as well as sending a damaging message 
to students. Religious institutions have been providing invaluable Head 
Start services for years and do not need this misguided amendment to 
continue their good work.
  As chair of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus, I 
recognize how important Head Start is to APA communities. Nationwide, 
over 25,000 APA children are served by Head Start. In California alone, 
over 6,000 APA children are enrolled in Head Start, with over half of 
them coming from homes where English is not the primary language.
  I want to support the improvements in Head Start that this bill will 
make in order to provide the children in these communities with the 
opportunities they richly deserve. But these communities, which have 
had to fight so hard to protect their own civil rights, do not want a 
Head Start program that discriminates and do not want Congress to act 
for the first time to specifically repeal civil rights protections 
against discrimination.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge all Members to put the needs of children first, 
vote against the Boustany amendment which is a poison pill that will 
kill this bill, and make a real commitment to improve the Head Start 
program.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my 
support for the Head Start Reauthorization Bill that was sent to this 
Chamber by the Committee.
  Head Start is one of the best programs we offer our youngest 
students. A recent report on Head Start released by the Department of 
Health and Human Services shows that Head Start helps close the 
achievement gap between students of differing socio-economic status.
  Since Head Start was created in 1965, it has proven to be our most 
valuable school readiness program in the history of this country.
  Time after time, we have seen reports that prove students who attend 
Head Start perform better than those who don't.
  It's important that this body reauthorize this program in a manner 
that shows bipartisan support for educating our children.
  I agree with many of the provisions in this bill, such as 
safeguarding financial abuse and improving disclosure rules. Fraud and 
abuse of providers of Head Start Programs is indefensible.
  The money allocated to Head Start programs should be used to educate 
children. Not for any other purpose. This bill cracks down on those 
programs engaging in fraud.
  Also, this legislation keeps current health and nutrition services, 
which are essential for ensuring children can learn.
  Young children have a difficult time learning if their basic needs 
aren't met. Providing health care is an essential part of this program.
  The ``best practices'' provision of this bill will help improve the 
curricula of our Head Start Program.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill as it was reported from 
Committee. Thousands of children in my district benefit from Head Start 
and it's essential that we reauthorize this program with a bipartisan 
plan that will help this Program serve more children effectively.
  Mr. MOORE of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, since I have been in Congress, I 
have been a consistent supporter of Head Start. This program assists 
over 900,000 children and their families nationwide, including the 
1,421 children enrolled in 6 Head Start programs in the Third 
Congressional District of Kansas. Thanks to this program, children 
enrolled in Head Start in the district are nearly twice as likely as 
other low-income children to receive basic medical care and over three 
times as likely to receive dental care. In the Third Congressional 
District, 77 percent of Head Start children have received basic primary 
health care, and 76 percent have a continuous, accessible source of 
dental care. The program has also provided mental health services to 
over 150 children in the district and has provided assistance to 200 
children with disabilities.
  I commend the Education and Workforce Committee for working in a 
bipartisan manner, by reporting legislation that did not include 
provisions that prevented similar legislation from being enacted in the 
108th Congress. Specifically, the Education and Workforce Committee did 
not include language permitting faith based organizations to 
discriminate on the basis of religion, which was part of similar 
legislation in the 108th Congress.
  During the debate on H.R. 2123, the House adopted an amendment 
offered by Representative John Boehner, which permits faith based 
organizations to make hiring decisions based on a person's religion. I 
cannot, therefore, vote for H.R. 2123 because it undermines fundamental 
civil rights protections against employee discrimination for Head Start 
teachers and volunteers. Since the inception of Head Start, this civil 
rights protection has allowed for religious organizations to 
participate in programs, while maintaining constitutional and civil 
rights standards. I appreciate the important contributions faith based 
organizations make to the education of thousands of students, through 
participating in the Head Start program. If the repeal of existing 
civil rights protections becomes law, then teachers or parent 
volunteers could lose their jobs based solely on their religion.
  The Head Start program provides essential early childhood education 
services, and I will continue to support its important work. I cannot, 
however, vote for this legislation that permits discrimination in 
hiring.
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to say that I will be voting 
against H.R. 2123. Since its creation in 1965, Head Start has served 
more than 18.5 million low-income children and has focused and 
redefined its approach to assisting disadvantaged children in their 
social, physical and educational growth. While I wholeheartedly support 
Head Start programs, the legislation under consideration today contains 
several provisions that would negatively affect these programs.
  The bill as amended contains two major flaws. First, the bill 
contains increased education requirements for Head Start teachers, but 
does not provide funds to assist teachers with the costs associated 
with these new requirements. Second, organizations receiving Federal 
dollars should not be able to discriminate on the basis of religion for 
employment purposes. The underlying Head Start Act specifically stated 
that hiring and firing decisions could not be made on the basis of 
religion, but this provision has been eliminated in this bill.
  The bill does include some positive aspects, such as maintaining the 
Federal to local funding structure, expanding set-asides to migrant and 
American Indian populations, and increasing outreach to homeless 
families and foster children. I hope these provisions are retained and 
the bill is further improved during consideration in the Senate and by 
a subsequent conference committee before the legislation is enacted.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 2123, as 
this bill is a remarkable improvement on last Congress's version and 
includes important provisions which will benefit all Head Start 
participants. I

[[Page 21099]]

will, however, vote against this legislation if Leadership succeeds in 
inserting a ``poison pill'' that, if adopted, would mark the first time 
Congress would permit organizations that run Head Start programs to 
discriminate against job applicants solely on the basis of their 
religion.
  While by no means a perfect bill, this legislation stands as a 
testament to the progress that can be made through bipartisan 
cooperation. This bill contains none of the controversial provisions 
from last Congress, such as block granting or universal competitions. 
Instead, H.R. 2123 contains several provisions which will benefit all 
Head Start participants, and I am proud of this fact and have worked 
hard with my Colleagues towards achieving these goals.
  In particular, H.R. 2123 provides additional resources for Migrant 
and Seasonal Head Start (MSHS) program expansion, which will allow for 
thousands of farm-worker children to exit the fields and enter the 
classroom. This expansion includes a 5% funding floor for Migrant and 
Seasonal Head Start. In step with this funding floor, the Secretary is 
required to compose a report determining how well we are serving 
children eligible for Migrant and Seasonal Head Start. The bill also 
requires a study on the status of limited-English-proficient children 
and their families in Head Start and Early Head Start programs. These 
provisions and many others included in the bill before us today will 
benefit all Head Start students and families and set kids on the right 
foot for competing with their peers throughout their school years.
  Mr. Chairman, it is evident that the provisions in this year's bill 
will help millions of Head Start students and their families' 
educational, personal, and economic well-being. I ask, why, then, are 
we considering inserting a poison pill into this remarkable piece of 
legislation? The amendment offered by Mr. Boustany would severely block 
the program's participants, children and parents, from climbing out of 
poverty to self-sufficiency. This is simply unacceptable in light of 
what Katrina has unearthed as a systemic problem in our country: 
widespread and unresolved poverty.
  This amendment would prevent volunteer Head Start parents from moving 
off the welfare rolls into self-sufficiency as Head Start certified 
teachers, simply because they are the wrong religion. This outcome is 
not needed, not wanted, and definitely not helpful to the millions 
living in poverty today.
  Additionally, this amendment also sets a dangerous precedent: such a 
change would allow faith-based organizations to discriminate not just 
on the basis of a person's religious affiliation, but also on how 
closely they follow the tenets of that religion. This could include 
religious beliefs on medical treatments, marriage, pregnancy, gender, 
and even race.
  Don't let Head Start fail by excluding qualified teachers and engaged 
parents from Head Start programs run by faith-based organizations. I 
urge my colleagues to vote no on final passage if this dangerous 
amendment passes.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Bass). All time for general debate has 
expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the committee amendment in the nature of a 
substitute printed in the bill shall be considered as an original bill 
for the purpose of amendment under the 5-minute rule and shall be 
considered read.
  The text of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute is 
as follows:

                               H.R. 2123

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``School Readiness Act of 
     2005''.

     SEC. 2. PURPOSE.

       Section 636 of the Head Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9831) is 
     amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 636. STATEMENT OF PURPOSE.

       ``It is the purpose of this subchapter to promote school 
     readiness by enhancing the development of low-income 
     children, including development of cognitive abilities, 
     through educational instruction in prereading skills, 
     premathematics skills, language, and social and emotional 
     development linked to school readiness and through the 
     provision to low-income children and their families of 
     health, educational, nutritional, social and other services 
     that are determined, based on family needs assessments, to be 
     necessary.''.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       Section 637 of the Head Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9832) is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (17) by striking ``, but for fiscal 
     years'' and all that follows down to the period;
       (2) by redesignating paragraphs (16) and (17) as paragraphs 
     (23) and (24), respectively;
       (3) by redesignating paragraph (15) as paragraph (21);
       (4) by redesignating paragraphs (11) through (14) as 
     paragraphs (16) through (19), respectively;
       (5) by redesignating paragraph (10) as paragraph (14);
       (6) by redesignating paragraphs (3) through (9) as 
     paragraphs (6) through (12), respectively;
       (7) by redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph (4);
       (8) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following:
       ``(2) The term `challenging State developed academic 
     content standards' has the meaning given such term in 
     paragraphs (1) and (5) of section 1111(b) of the Elementary 
     and Secondary Education Act of 1965.
       ``(3) The term `deficient' means--
       ``(A) systemic or significant failure of a Head Start 
     agency in an area of performance that the Secretary 
     determines involves--
       ``(i) a threat to the health, safety, or civil rights of 
     children or staff;
       ``(ii) a denial to parents of the exercise of their full 
     roles and responsibilities related to program governance;
       ``(iii) a failure to perform the requirements of section 
     641A(a), as determined by the Secretary;
       ``(iv) the misuse of funds received under this subchapter;
       ``(v) loss of legal status (as determined by the Secretary) 
     or financial viability, loss of permits, debarment from 
     receiving Federal grants or contracts, or the improper use of 
     Federal funds; or
       ``(vi) failure to meet any other Federal or State 
     requirement;
       ``(B) failure of the board of directors of a Head Start 
     agency to fully exercise its legal and fiduciary 
     responsibilities;
       ``(C) failure of a Head Start agency to meet the 
     administrative requirements of section 644(b); or
       ``(D) failure of a Head Start agency to meet the 
     integration requirements of section 642B(a).'';
       (9) by inserting after paragraph (4), as so redesignated, 
     the following:
       ``(5) The term `eligible entities' means an institution of 
     higher education or other agency with expertise in delivering 
     training in early childhood development, family support, and 
     other assistance designed to improve the quality of early 
     childhood education programs.'';
       (10) by inserting after paragraph (12), as so redesignated, 
     the following:
       ``(13) The term `homeless children' has the meaning given 
     such term in subtitle B of title VII of the McKinney-Vento 
     Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11431-11435).'';
       (11) by inserting after paragraph (14), as so redesignated, 
     the following:
       ``(15) Limited english proficient; limited english 
     proficiency.--The terms `limited English proficient' and 
     `limited English proficiency' mean with respect to an 
     individual, that such individual--
       ``(A)(i) was not born in the United States or has a native 
     language that is not English;
       ``(ii)(I) is a Native American, an Alaska Native, or a 
     native resident of a territory or possession of the United 
     States; and
       ``(II) comes from an environment in which a language that 
     is not English has had a significant impact on such 
     individual's level of English language proficiency; or
       ``(iii) is migratory, has a native language that is not 
     English, and comes from an environment in which a language 
     that is not English is dominant; and
       ``(B) has difficultly in speaking or understanding the 
     English language to an extent that may be sufficient to deny 
     such individual--
       ``(i) the ability to successfully achieve in classrooms in 
     which the language of instruction is English; or
       ``(ii) the opportunity to fully participate in society.'';
       (12) by inserting after paragraph (19), as so redesignated, 
     the following:
       ``(20) Professional development.--The term `professional 
     development' means high quality activities that will enhance 
     the school readiness of eligible children and prevent such 
     children from encountering difficulties once they enter 
     school by improving the knowledge and skills of Head Start 
     teachers and staff, as relevant to their roles and functions, 
     including activities that--
       ``(A) provide teachers with the content knowledge and 
     teaching strategies needed to provide effective instruction 
     and other school readiness services in early language and 
     literacy, early mathematics, cognitive skills, approaches to 
     learning, creative arts, science, physical health and 
     development, and social and emotional development linked to 
     school readiness;
       ``(B) assist teachers in meeting the requirements in 
     paragraphs (1) and (2) of section 648A(a), as appropriate;
       ``(C) improve teachers' classroom management skills, as 
     appropriate;
       ``(D) for teachers, are sustained, intensive, and 
     classroom-focused in order to have a positive and lasting 
     impact on classroom instruction and teachers' performance in 
     the classroom;
       ``(E) are not primarily 1-day or short-term workshops or 
     conferences, and attendance at activities that are 1-day or 
     short-term workshops or conferences must be as part of the 
     professional development plan defined in section 648A(f);
       ``(F) assist teachers and staff in increasing their 
     knowledge and skills in program administration, program 
     quality, and the provision of services and instruction, as 
     appropriate, in a manner that improves service delivery to 
     eligible children and families;
       ``(G) are part of a sustained effort to improve overall 
     program quality and outcomes for eligible children and 
     families;

[[Page 21100]]

       ``(H) advance teacher understanding of effective 
     instructional strategies that are--
       ``(i) based on scientifically based research; and
       ``(ii) strategies for improving school readiness or 
     substantially increasing the knowledge and teaching skills of 
     teachers;
       ``(I) are, where applicable, aligned with and directly 
     related to--
       ``(i) challenging State academic content standards, student 
     academic achievement standards, assessments, and the Head 
     Start Child Outcomes Framework developed by the Secretary;
       ``(ii) the curricula, ongoing assessments, and other 
     instruction and services designed to help meet the standards 
     described in section 641A(a)(1); and
       ``(iii) the Head Start Child Outcomes Framework developed 
     by the Secretary;
       ``(J) are developed or selected with extensive 
     participation of administrators and teachers from Head Start 
     programs;
       ``(K) are developmentally appropriate for the children 
     being served;
       ``(L) are designed to give teachers of limited English 
     proficient children, and other teachers and instructional 
     staff, the knowledge and skills to provide instruction and 
     appropriate language and support services to increase the 
     English language skills of such children;
       ``(M) as a whole, are regularly evaluated for their impact 
     on increased teacher and staff effectiveness and improved 
     ability of teachers to support learning and increase 
     participating children's school readiness, with the findings 
     of the evaluations used to improve the quality of 
     professional development;
       ``(N) provide instruction in methods of teaching children 
     with special needs, as appropriate;
       ``(O) include instruction in ways that Head Start personnel 
     may work more effectively with parents, as appropriate; and
       ``(P) are designed to give teachers and staff the knowledge 
     and skills to provide instruction and appropriate support 
     services to children of diverse backgrounds, as 
     appropriate.'';
       (13) by inserting after paragraph (21), as so redesignated, 
     the following:
       ``(22) The term `scientifically based research'--
       ``(A) means research that involves the application of 
     rigorous, systematic and objective procedures to obtain 
     reliable and valid knowledge relevant to education activities 
     and programs; and
       ``(B) includes research that--
       ``(i) employs systematic, empirical methods that draw on 
     observation or experiment;
       ``(ii) involves rigorous data analyses that are adequate to 
     test the stated hypotheses and justify the general 
     conclusions drawn;
       ``(iii) relies on measurements or observational methods 
     that provide reliable and valid data across evaluators and 
     observers, across multiple measurements and observations, and 
     across studies by the same or different investigators;
       ``(iv) is evaluated using experimental or quasi-
     experimental designs in which individuals, entities, programs 
     or activities are assigned to different conditions and with 
     appropriate controls to evaluate the effects of the condition 
     of interest, with a preference for random assignment 
     experiments, or other designs to the extent that those 
     designs contain within-condition or across-condition 
     controls;
       ``(v) ensures that experimental studies are presented in 
     sufficient detail and clarity to allow for replication or, at 
     a minimum, offer the opportunity to build systematically on 
     their findings; and
       ``(vi) has been accepted by a peer-reviewed journal or 
     approved by a panel of independent experts through a 
     comparably rigorous, objective, and scientific review.''; and
       (14) by inserting after paragraph (24), as so redesignated, 
     the following:
       ``(25) The term `State educational agency' has the meaning 
     given such term in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 
     of 1965.
       ``(26) The term `unresolved area of noncompliance' means a 
     failure to correct a noncompliance item within 90 days, or 
     within such additional time (if any) authorized by the 
     Secretary, after receiving from the Secretary notice of such 
     noncompliance item.''.

     SEC. 4. FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FOR HEAD START PROGRAMS.

       Section 638 of the Head Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9833) is 
     amended by inserting ``for a period of 5 years'' after 
     ``provide financial assistance to such agency''.

     SEC. 5. AUTHORIZATION.

       Section 639 of the Head Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9834) is 
     amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 639. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       ``(a) In General.--There are authorized to be appropriated 
     for carrying out the provisions of this subchapter 
     $6,899,000,000 for the fiscal year 2006 and such sums as may 
     be necessary for the fiscal years 2007 through 2011.
       ``(b) Specific Programs.--From the amount appropriated 
     under subsection (a), the Secretary shall make available not 
     more than $20,000,000 for fiscal year 2006, and such sums as 
     may be necessary for fiscal years 2007 through 2011 to carry 
     out such other research, demonstration, and evaluation 
     activities, including longitudinal studies, under section 
     649, of which not more than $7,000,000 for each of the fiscal 
     years 2006 through 2011 to carry out impact studies under 
     section 649(g).''.

     SEC. 6. ALLOTMENT OF FUNDS; LIMITATIONS ON ASSISTANCE.

       (a) Allotments.--Section 640(a) of the Head Start Act (42 
     U.S.C. 9835(a)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (2)--
       (A) by amending subparagraph (A) to read as follows:
       ``(A) Indian Head Start programs, services for children 
     with disabilities, and migrant and seasonal Head Start 
     programs, except that--
       ``(i) there shall be made available for each fiscal year 
     for use by Indian Head Start programs and by migrant and 
     seasonal Head Start programs, on a nationwide basis, not less 
     than the amount that was obligated for use by Indian Head 
     Start programs and by migrant and seasonal Head Start 
     programs for fiscal year 2005;
       ``(ii) migrant and seasonal Head Start programs shall 
     receive at least 5 percent of the amount appropriated for 
     such fiscal year until such time as the Secretary can make 
     funding decisions to ensure access to funding for eligible 
     children of migrant and seasonal farmworkers is comparable to 
     access to funding for other eligible children based on the 
     data collected and reported pursuant to section 648(j), 
     except that no future reduction in funding shall result in 
     the termination of Head Start services provided to any 
     eligible child 3 years of age or older who is participating 
     in any such program on the date a reduction in funding 
     occurs, and shall, to the extent possible, continue 
     participation for children less than 3 years of age receiving 
     services prior to such reduction in funding; and
       ``(iii) Indian Head Start programs shall receive at least 
     3.5 percent of the amount appropriated for such fiscal year 
     until such time as the Secretary can make funding decisions 
     to ensure access to funding for eligible Indian children is 
     comparable to access to funding for other eligible 
     children;''; and
       (B) by amending subparagraph (B) to read as follows:
       ``(B) payments, subject to paragraph (7) to Guam, American 
     Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and 
     the Virgin Islands of the United States, and subject to the 
     requirements of section 105(f)(1)(B)(ix) of Public Law 108-
     188 to Palau;'';
       (C) by amending (C) to read as follows:
       ``(C) training and technical assistance activities to 
     foster program quality and management improvement as 
     described in section 648, in an amount for each fiscal year 
     which is equal to 2 percent of the amount appropriated for 
     such fiscal year, of which--
       ``(i) not less than 50 percent shall be made available to 
     local Head Start agencies to make program improvements 
     identified by such agencies and comply with the standards 
     described in section 641A(a)(1), of which not less than 50 
     percent shall be used to comply with the standards described 
     in section 641A(a)(1)(B) and for the uses described in 
     clauses (iii), (iv), and (vii) of subsection (a)(3)(B);
       ``(ii) not less than 20 percent shall be made available to 
     support a State system of early childhood education training 
     and technical assistance, including the State Early Learning 
     Council described in section 642B(b);
       ``(iii) not less than 30 percent shall be made available to 
     the Secretary to assist local programs in meeting the 
     standards described in section 641A(a)(1) and shall be 
     allocated to address program weaknesses identified by 
     monitoring activities conducted by the Secretary under 
     section 641A(c); and
       ``(iv) not less than $3,000,000 of the amount in clause 
     (iii) appropriated for such fiscal year shall be made 
     available to carry out activities described in section 
     648(d)(4);''; and
       (D) by striking the last sentence.
       (2) in paragraph (3)--
       (A) in subparagraph (A)--
       (i) in clause (i)(I) by striking ``year 1999'' and all that 
     follows down to the semicolon and inserting ``years 2006 
     through 2011''; and
       (ii) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(iii) After the reservation of amounts under paragraph 
     (2) and the 60 percent amount referred to in subparagraph (A) 
     of this paragraph, a portion of the remaining funds shall be 
     made available--
       ``(I) to expand services to underserved populations, such 
     as children receiving services under Early Head Start 
     programs and under migrant and seasonal Head Start programs; 
     and
       ``(II) to increase funding to grantees with full enrollment 
     and whose aggregate amount of financial assistance provides 
     funding per child that is below the national average.'';
       (B) by amending subparagraph (B) to read as follows:
       ``(B) Funds reserved under this paragraph (in this 
     paragraph referred to as `quality improvement funds') shall 
     be used to accomplish the following goals:
       ``(i) Ensuring that Head Start programs meet or exceed 
     standards pursuant to section 641A(a)(1).
       ``(ii) Ensuring that such programs have adequate numbers of 
     qualified staff, and that such staff is furnished adequate 
     training, including developing skills to promote the 
     development of language skills, premathematic skills, and 
     prereading in young children and in working with children 
     with limited English proficiency, children referred by child 
     welfare services, and children with disabilities, when 
     appropriate.
       ``(iii) Developing and financing the salary scales 
     described under section 644(a)(3) and section 653, in order 
     to ensure that salary levels and benefits are adequate to 
     attract and retain qualified staff for such programs.
       ``(iv) Using salary increases--
       ``(I) to assist with the implementation of quality programs 
     and improve staff qualifications;
       ``(II) to ensure that staff can promote the language skills 
     and literacy growth of children and can provide children with 
     a variety of skills that have been identified, through 
     scientifically

[[Page 21101]]

     based early reading research, as predictive of later reading 
     achievement; and
       ``(III) to encourage the staff to continually improve their 
     skills and expertise by informing the staff of the 
     availability of Federal and State incentive and loan 
     forgiveness programs for professional development.
       ``(v) Improving community-wide strategic planning and needs 
     assessments for such programs and collaboration efforts for 
     such programs, including collaborations to increase program 
     participation by underserved populations of eligible 
     children.
       ``(vi) Ensuring that the physical environments of Head 
     Start programs are conducive to providing effective program 
     services to children and families, and are accessible to 
     children with disabilities and their parents.
       ``(vii) Ensuring that such programs have qualified staff 
     that can promote language skills and literacy growth of 
     children and that can provide children with a variety of 
     skills that have been identified, through scientifically 
     based reading research, as predictive of later reading 
     achievement.
       ``(viii) Providing assistance to complete postsecondary 
     course work including scholarships or other financial 
     incentives, such as differential and merit pay, to enable 
     Head Start teachers to improve competencies and the resulting 
     child outcomes.
       ``(ix) Upgrading the qualifications and skills of 
     educational personnel to meet the professional standards 
     established under section 648A(a)(1), including certification 
     and licensure as bilingual education teachers and other 
     educational personnel who serve limited English proficient 
     children.
       ``(x) Promoting the regular attendance and stability of all 
     children participating in Head Start programs, with 
     particular attention to highly mobile children, including 
     children from migrant and seasonal farm worker families (if 
     appropriate), homeless children, and children in foster care.
       ``(xi) Making such other improvements in the quality of 
     such programs as the Secretary may designate.''; and
       (C) by amending subparagraph (C) to read as follows:
       ``(C) Quality improvement funds shall be used to carry out 
     the activities in any or all of the following clauses:
       ``(i)(I) Not less than one-half of the amount reserved 
     under this paragraph, to improve the compensation (including 
     benefits) of classroom teachers and other staff of Head Start 
     agencies providing instructional services and thereby 
     enhancing recruitment and retention of qualified staff, 
     including recruitment and retention pursuant to achieving the 
     requirements set forth in section 648A(a). The expenditure of 
     funds under this clause shall be subject to section 653. 
     Salary increases, in excess of cost-of-living allowance, 
     provided with such funds shall be subject to the specific 
     standards governing salaries and salary increases established 
     pursuant to section 644(a).
       ``(II) If a Head Start agency certifies to the Secretary 
     for such fiscal year that part of the funds set aside under 
     subclause (I) to improve wages cannot be expended by such 
     agency to improve wages because of the operation of section 
     653, then such agency may expend such part for any of the 
     uses specified in this subparagraph (other than wages).
       ``(III) From the remainder of the amount reserved under 
     this paragraph (after the Secretary carries out subclause 
     (I)), the Secretary may carry out the activities described in 
     clauses (ii) through (vii).
       ``(ii) To train classroom teachers and other staff to meet 
     the education standards described in section 641A(a)(1)(B), 
     through activities--
       ``(I) to promote children's language and prereading growth, 
     through techniques identified through scientifically based 
     reading research;
       ``(II) to promote the acquisition of the English language 
     for limited English proficient children and families, while 
     ensuring that children are making meaningful progress in 
     attaining the knowledge, skills, abilities, and development 
     described in section 641A(a)(1)(B);
       ``(III) to foster children's school readiness through 
     activities described in section 648A(a)(1); and
       ``(IV) to provide education and training necessary to 
     improve the qualifications of Head Start staff, particularly 
     assistance to enable more instructors to be fully competent 
     and to meet the degree requirements under section 
     648A(a)(2)(A), and to support staff training, child 
     counseling, and other services necessary to address the 
     challenges of children participating in Head Start programs, 
     including children from immigrant, refugee, and asylee 
     families, children from families in crisis, children who 
     experience chronic violence in their communities, children 
     who experience substance abuse in their families, and 
     children with emotional and behavioral problems.
       ``(iii) To employ additional Head Start staff, including 
     staff necessary to reduce the child-staff ratio, lead 
     instructors who meet the qualifications of section 648A(a) 
     and staff necessary to coordinate a Head Start program with 
     other services available to children participating in such 
     program and to their families.
       ``(iv) To pay costs incurred by Head Start agencies to 
     purchase insurance (other than employee benefits) and thereby 
     maintain or expand Head Start services.
       ``(v) To supplement amounts provided under paragraph (2)(C) 
     to provide training necessary to improve the qualifications 
     of the staff of the Head Start agencies, and to support staff 
     training, child counseling, and other services necessary to 
     address the problems of children participating in Head Start 
     programs, including children from dysfunctional families, 
     children who experience chronic violence in their 
     communities, and children who experience substance abuse in 
     their families.
       ``(vi) To conduct outreach to homeless families in an 
     effort to increase the program participation of homeless 
     children.
       ``(vii) To conduct outreach to migrant and seasonal farm-
     working families and families with children with a limited 
     English proficiency.
       ``(viii) Such other activities as the Secretary may 
     designate.'';
       (3) in paragraph (4) by striking ``1998'' in subparagraph 
     (A) and inserting ``2005'';
       (4) in paragraph (5) by amending subparagraphs (A), (B), 
     and (C) to read as follows:
       ``(A) From amounts reserved and allotted pursuant to 
     paragraph (4), the Secretary shall award the collaboration 
     grants described in subparagraphs (B) and (D).
       ``(B) From the reserved sums in paragraph (4), the 
     Secretary shall award a collaboration grant to any State that 
     submits a written request. Such grant shall be equal to the 
     amount the State received under this paragraph for such 
     activity for fiscal year 2005. Such grant shall be used by 
     the State to facilitate collaboration regarding activities 
     carried out in the State under this subchapter, and other 
     activities carried out in and by the State that are designed 
     to benefit low-income children and families and to encourage 
     Head Start agencies to collaborate with entities involved in 
     State and local planning processes (including the State lead 
     agency administering the financial assistance under the Child 
     Care and Development Block Grant Act of 1990 and the entities 
     that provide child care resource and referral services in the 
     State) in order to better meet the needs of low-income 
     children and their families.
       ``(C) In order to improve results for children, a State 
     that receives a grant under subparagraph (B) shall appoint an 
     individual to serve as the State Director of Head Start 
     Collaboration to be a liaison between the appropriate 
     regional office of the Administration for Children and 
     Families and agencies carrying out Head Start programs in the 
     State. The State shall--
       ``(i) ensure that such Director holds a position with 
     sufficient authority and access to ensure that the 
     collaboration described in subparagraph (B) is effective and 
     involves a range of State agencies and local entities, 
     including--
       ``(I) the State educational agency;
       ``(II) the State Department of Health and Human Services;
       ``(III) the State agency that oversees child care;
       ``(IV) the State agency that assists children with 
     developmental disabilities;
       ``(V) the State Head Start Association;
       ``(VI) the State network of child care resource and 
     referral agencies;
       ``(VII) local educational agencies;
       ``(VIII) community-based and faith-based organizations;
       ``(IX) representatives of migrant and seasonal Head Start 
     programs located in the State;
       ``(X) representatives of Indian Head Start programs located 
     in the State;
       ``(XI) State and local providers of early childhood 
     education and child care, including providers with experience 
     serving children with limited English proficiency; and
       ``(XII) other entities carrying out programs serving low-
     income children and families in the State;
       ``(ii) involve the entities described in clause (i) to 
     develop a strategic plan for the coordinated outreach to 
     identify eligible children and to implement strategies based 
     on a needs assessment, which shall include an assessment of 
     the availability of high quality prekindergarten services for 
     low-income children in the State. Such assessment shall be 
     completed not later than 1 year after the date of enactment 
     of the School Readiness Act of 2005 and be updated on an 
     annual basis and shall be made available to the general 
     public within the State;
       ``(iii) ensure that the collaboration described in 
     subparagraph (B) involves coordination of Head Start services 
     with health care, welfare, child care, child protective 
     services, education, and community service activities, family 
     literacy services, activities relating to children with 
     disabilities (including coordination of services with those 
     State officials who are responsible for administering part C 
     and section 619 of the Individuals with Disabilities 
     Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1419, 1431 et seq.)), and services 
     for homeless children (including coordination of services 
     with the Office of Coordinator for Education of Homeless 
     Children and Youth designated under section 722(g)(1)(J)(ii) 
     of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act of 2001 (42 
     U.S.C. 11432(g)(1)(J)(ii));
       ``(iv) require the State Director of Head Start 
     Collaboration to--
       ``(I) serve on the Early Learning Council pursuant to 
     section 642B(b);
       ``(II) consult with the Early Learning Council, chief State 
     school officer, local educational agencies, representatives 
     of local Head Start agencies and providers of early childhood 
     education and care in unified planning regarding early care 
     and education services at both the State and local levels, 
     including collaborative efforts to develop school readiness 
     standards;
       ``(III) consult with the chief State school officer, local 
     educational agencies, State child care administrators, State 
     human services administrators, representatives of local child 
     care resource and referral agencies, local early childhood 
     councils, providers of early childhood education and care, 
     and other relevant State and

[[Page 21102]]

     local agencies, and representatives of the State Head Start 
     Association to plan for the provision of full-working-day, 
     full-calendar-year early care and education services for 
     eligible children with working parents who have a 
     demonstrated need;
       ``(IV) consult with the chief State school officer, local 
     educational agencies and Head Start agencies to improve 
     alignment between Head Start programs and State-funded 
     prekindergarten activities to meet shared goals of school 
     readiness; and
       ``(V) establish improved linkages between Head Start 
     agencies and other children and family agencies, including 
     agencies that provide health, mental health or family 
     services or other child and family support services.'';
       (C) in subparagraph (D)(i) by inserting ``and providers of 
     services supporting early childhood education and child 
     care'' after ``Associations''; and
       (D) by amending paragraph (6)(A) to read as follows:
       ``(A) From amounts reserved and allotted pursuant to 
     paragraphs (2) and (4), the Secretary shall use, for grants 
     for programs described in section 645A(a) of this subchapter, 
     a portion of the combined total of such amounts equal to at 
     least 10 percent for each of the fiscal years 2006 through 
     2011, of the amount appropriated pursuant to section 639(a), 
     except as provided in subparagraph (B).''.
       (b) Service Delivery Models.--Section 640(f) of the Head 
     Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9835(f)) is amended by inserting before 
     the period at the end the following: ``, including models 
     that leverage the existing capacity and capabilities of the 
     delivery system of early childhood education and child 
     care''.
       (c) Maintenance of Service Levels.--Section 640(g)(2) of 
     the Head Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9835(g)(2)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``For the purpose of expanding Head Start 
     programs, in'' and inserting ``In'';
       (2) by amending subparagraph (C) to read as follows:
       ``(C) the extent to which the applicant has undertaken 
     community-wide strategic planning and needs assessments 
     involving other community organizations and Federal, State, 
     and local public agencies serving children and families 
     (including organizations and agencies providing family 
     support services and protective services to children and 
     families and organizations serving families in whose homes 
     English is not the language customarily spoken), and 
     individuals, organizations, and public entities serving 
     children with disabilities and homeless children including 
     the local educational agency liaison designated under section 
     722(g)(1)(J)(ii) of the McKinney-Veto Homeless Assistance Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 11432(g)(1)(J)(ii));'';
       (3) in subparagraph (D) by striking ``other local'' and 
     inserting ``the State and local'';
       (4) in subparagraph (E) by inserting ``would like to 
     participate but'' after ``community who'';
       (5) in subparagraph (G)--
       (A) by inserting ``leverage the existing delivery systems 
     of such services and'' after ``manner that will''; and
       (B) by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (6) in subparagraph (H)--
       (A) by inserting ``, including the local educational agency 
     liaison designated under section 722(g)(1)(J)(ii) of the 
     McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 
     11432(g)(1)(J)(ii)),'' after ``community involved'';
       (B) by striking ``plans to coordinate'' and inserting 
     ``successfully coordinated its activities''; and
       (C) by striking the period at the end and inserting ``; 
     and''; and
       (7) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(I) the amount of funds used by such agency to pay 
     administrative expenses and the amount of available funds 
     received by such agency under this section to serve each 
     enrolled child.''.
       (d) Vehicle Safety Requirements.--Section 640(i) of the 
     Head Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9835(i)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``(i) The'' and inserting the following:
       ``(i) Transportation Safety.--
       ``(1) Regulations.--The''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) Waiver authority.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Secretary may waive for a period of 
     up to one year the requirements of regulations promulgated 
     under paragraph (1) for one or more vehicles used by the 
     agency or its designee in transporting children enrolled in a 
     Head Start program or an Early Head Start program if--
       ``(i) such requirements pertain to child restraint systems 
     and bus monitors;
       ``(ii) the agency demonstrates that compliance with such 
     requirements will result in a significant disruption to the 
     Head Start program or the Early Head Start program; and
       ``(iii) is in the best interest of the child.
       ``(B) Renewal.--The Secretary may renew a waiver under 
     subparagraph (A).''.
       (e) Migrant and Seasonal Head Start Programs.--Section 
     640(l) of the Head Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9835(l)) is amended--
       (1) by amending paragraph (3) to read as follows:
       ``(3) In carrying out this subchapter, the Secretary shall 
     continue the administrative arrangement at the national level 
     for meeting the needs of Indian children and children of 
     migrant and seasonal farmworkers and shall ensure that 
     appropriate funding is provided to meet such needs, including 
     training and technical assistance and the appointment of a 
     national migrant and seasonal Head Start collaboration 
     director and a national Indian Head Start collaboration 
     director.''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(4)(A) For the purposes of paragraph (3), the Secretary 
     shall conduct an annual consultation in each affected Head 
     Start region, with tribal governments operating Head Start 
     programs and Early Head Start programs.
       ``(B) The consultations shall be for the purpose of better 
     meeting the needs of American Indian and Alaska Native 
     children and families pertinent to subsections (a), (b), and 
     (c) of section 641, taking into consideration funding 
     allocations, distribution formulas, and other issues 
     affecting the delivery of Head Start services within tribal 
     communities.
       ``(C) The Secretary shall publish a notification of the 
     consultations in the Federal Register prior to conducting the 
     consultations.
       ``(D) A detailed report of each consultation shall be 
     prepared and made available, on a timely basis, to all tribal 
     governments receiving funds under this subchapter.''.
       (f) Enrollment of Homeless Children.--Section 640 of the 
     Head Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9835) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following:
       ``(m) Enrollment of Homeless Children.--The Secretary shall 
     by regulation prescribe policies and procedures to remove 
     barriers to the enrollment and participation of homeless 
     children in Head Start programs. Such regulations shall 
     require Head Start agencies--
       ``(1) to implement policies and procedures to ensure that 
     homeless children are identified and prioritized for 
     enrollment;
       ``(2) to allow homeless families to apply to, enroll in and 
     attend Head Start programs while required documents, such as 
     proof of residency, immunization and other medical records, 
     birth certificates and other documents, are obtained within a 
     reasonable time frame; and
       ``(3) coordinate individual Head Start centers and programs 
     with efforts to implement subtitle B of title VII of the 
     McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11431-
     11435).
       ``(n) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this subchapter 
     shall be construed to require a State to establish a program 
     of early education for children in the State, to require any 
     child to participate in a program of early education, to 
     attend school, or to participate in any initial screening 
     prior to participation in such program, except as provided 
     under section 612(a)(3), (consistent with section 
     614(a)(1)(C)), of the Individuals with Disabilities Education 
     Act.
       ``(o) Materials.--All curricula and instructional materials 
     funded under this subchapter shall be scientifically based 
     and age appropriate. Parents shall have the ability to 
     inspect, upon request, any curricula or instructional 
     materials.''.

     SEC. 7. DESIGNATION OF AGENCIES.

       (a) Authority To Designate.-- Section 641(a) of the Head 
     Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9836(a)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(a) Authority To Designate.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary is authorized to designate 
     as a Head Start agency any local public or private nonprofit 
     or for-profit agency within a State, including a community-
     based or faith-based organization that--
       ``(A) has power and authority to carry out the purpose of 
     this subchapter and perform the functions set forth in 
     section 642 within a State; and
       ``(B) is determined to be capable of planning, conducting, 
     administering, and evaluating, either directly or by other 
     arrangements, a Head Start program.
       ``(2) Designation requirements.--To be designated as a Head 
     Start agency and to receive financial assistance under this 
     subparagraph, an entity described in sub paragraph (1) 
     shall--
       ``(A) establish measurable objectives for--
       ``(i) the school readiness of children participating in the 
     program under this subchapter;
       ``(ii) meeting the performance standards described in 
     section 641A;
       ``(iii) educational instruction in prereading, 
     premathematics, and language skills; and
       ``(iv) the provision of health, educational, nutritional, 
     social and other services related to school readiness; and
       ``(B) align curricula to challenging State developed 
     academic content standards and the Head Start Child Outcomes 
     Framework developed by the Secretary.
       ``(3) Eligibility for subsequent financial assistance.--In 
     order to receive financial assistance under this subchapter 
     subsequent to the initial financial assistance provided 
     following the effective date of this subsection, an entity 
     described in paragraph (1) shall demonstrate that the entity 
     has met the measurable objectives described in paragraph (2);
       ``(4) Measuring Progress.--Progress in meeting such 
     measurable objectives shall not be measured primarily or 
     solely by the results of assessments.''
       (b) Priority in Designation.--Section 641(c) of the Head 
     Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9836(c)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(c) Consultation.--In the administration of this section, 
     the Secretary shall, in consultation with the chief executive 
     officer of the State involved, give priority in the 
     designation of Head Start agencies to Head Start agencies 
     that--
       ``(1) are receiving assistance under this subchapter on the 
     effective date of this subsection;
       ``(2) meet or exceed program and financial management 
     requirements, standards described in section 641A(a);
       ``(3) meet or exceed the education standards and 
     requirements described in section 641A(a)(1)(B);
       ``(4) have no unresolved area of noncompliance;

[[Page 21103]]

       ``(5) have not been deemed deficient since the then most 
     recent designation;
       ``(6) employ qualified staff (including in center-based 
     programs, a teaching staff of whom at least 50 percent have 
     an associate, baccalaureate, or advanced degree in early 
     child education or a related field), except that the 
     Secretary may waive the application of this paragraph, for a 
     period not to exceed 3 years, for Head Start programs 
     operating in rural areas, for migrant and seasonal Head Start 
     programs, and for Indian Head Start programs, on a case-by-
     case basis, if the program demonstrates progress in 
     increasing the qualifications of teaching staff and 
     demonstrates adequate instructional supervision by qualified 
     staff;
       ``(7) were not deemed by the Secretary as chronically 
     under-enrolled since the then most recent designation;
       ``(8) utilize curricula based on scientifically based 
     research, that are aligned with challenging State developed 
     academic content standards and the Head Start Child Outcomes 
     Framework developed by the Secretary;
       ``(9) demonstrate active partnerships with local 
     educational agencies serving the same communities to 
     facilitate smooth transitions to kindergarten;
       ``(10) actively implement a memorandum of understanding 
     described in section 642B(a) and additional collaborative 
     partnerships with organizations that enhance the delivery of 
     services to children;
       ``(11) demonstrate success in improving child outcomes 
     across all domains of development, including measurable 
     progress in language skills, prereading knowledge, and 
     premathematics knowledge;
       ``(12) maintain classroom environments constructive to 
     early learning and future school success;
       ``(13) demonstrate strong parental involvement and 
     activities to develop parent skills to support their 
     children's educational development and ability to participate 
     effectively in decisions relating to the education of their 
     children;
       ``(14) are overseen by a board described in section 642(b) 
     that provides direction and actively oversees all program 
     activities;
       ``(15) document strong fiscal controls, including--
       ``(A) the employment of well-qualified fiscal staff with a 
     history of successful management of a public or private 
     organization;
       ``(B) having no reportable material weaknesses with 
     applicable laws and regulations on all annual financial 
     audits performed since the most recent designation;
       ``(C) meeting or exceeding annual requirements for 
     financial support under section 640(b); and
       ``(D) maintaining total administrative costs at or below 15 
     percent of total program costs;
       ``(16) are licensed to operate in accordance with all 
     applicable State child care regulations;
       ``(17) conduct outreach activities to ensure that services 
     are provided to the most at-risk families in the community;
       ``(18) have developed strong community partnerships with 
     public and private organizations, such as businesses, health, 
     and social service providers; and
       ``(19) provide opportunities for ongoing professional 
     development.''.
       (c) Designation When No Entity Has Priority.--Section 
     641(d) of the Head Start Act (43 U.S.C. 9836(d)) is amended 
     to read as follows:
       ``(d) Designation When No Entity Has Priority.--
       ``(1) In general.--If no entity in a community is entitled 
     to the priority specified in subsection (c), the Secretary 
     shall, after conducting an open competition, designate for a 
     5-year period a Head Start agency from among qualified 
     applicants in such community.
       ``(2) Considerations in designation.--In selecting from 
     among qualified applicants for designation as a Head Start 
     agency, the Secretary shall consider the effectiveness of 
     each such applicant to provide Head Start services, based 
     on--
       ``(A) any past performance of such applicant in providing 
     services comparable to Head Start services, including how 
     effectively such applicant provided such comparable services;
       ``(B) the plan of such applicant to provide comprehensive 
     health (including mental and behavioral health), educational, 
     nutritional, social, and other services needed to prepare 
     children to succeed in school;
       ``(C) the capacity of such applicant to serve eligible 
     children with curriculum and teaching practices based on 
     scientifically based research that promote the school 
     readiness of children participating in the program;
       ``(D) the plan of such applicant to meet standards set 
     forth in section 641A(a)(1), with particular attention to the 
     standards set forth in subparagraphs (A) and (B) of such 
     section;
       ``(E) the proposed budget and plan of such applicant to 
     maintain strong fiscal controls and cost effective fiscal 
     management;
       ``(F) the plan of such applicant to coordinate the Head 
     Start program the applicant proposes to carry out with other 
     educational programs for young children, including--
       ``(i) the Early Reading First and Even Start programs under 
     subparts 2 and 3 of part B of title I of the Elementary and 
     Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6371 et seq., 6381 
     et seq.);
       ``(ii) programs under section 619 and part C of the 
     Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1419, 
     1431 et seq.);
       ``(iii) State prekindergarten programs;
       ``(iv) child care programs;
       ``(v) the educational programs that the children 
     participating in the Head Start program involved will enter 
     at the age of compulsory school attendance; and
       ``(vi) reading readiness programs such as those conducted 
     by public and school libraries;
       ``(G) the plan of such applicant to coordinate the Head 
     Start program that the applicant proposes to carry out, with 
     public and private entities that are willing to commit 
     resources to assist the Head Start program in meeting its 
     program needs;
       ``(H) the plan of such applicant--
       ``(i) to seek the involvement of parents (including 
     grandparents and kinship caregivers, as appropriate) of 
     children participating in the proposed Head Start program, in 
     activities (at home and, if practicable, at the location of 
     the Head Start program) designed to help such parents become 
     full partners in the education of their children;
       ``(ii) to afford such parents the opportunity to 
     participate in the development and overall conduct of the 
     program at the local level;
       ``(iii) to offer (directly or through referral to local 
     entities, such as entities carrying out Even Start programs 
     under subpart 3 of part B of title I of the Elementary and 
     Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6381 et seq.), 
     public and school libraries, and entities carrying out family 
     support programs) to such parents--

       ``(I) family literacy services; and
       ``(II) parenting skills training;

       ``(iv) to offer to parents of participating children, 
     substance abuse counseling (either directly or through 
     referral to local entities), including information on the 
     effect of drug exposure on infants and fetal alcohol 
     syndrome;
       ``(v) at the option of such applicant, to offer (directly 
     or through referral to local entities) to such parents--

       ``(I) training in basic child development (including 
     cognitive development);
       ``(II) assistance in developing literacy and communication 
     skills;
       ``(III) opportunities to share experiences with other 
     parents (including parent mentor relationships);
       ``(IV) regular in-home visitation;

       ``(V) mental and behavioral health services; or
       ``(VI) any other activity designed to help such parents 
     become full partners in the education of their children;

       ``(vi) to provide, with respect to each participating 
     family, a family needs assessment that includes consultation 
     with such parents about the benefits of parent involvement 
     and about the activities described in subparagraph (H) in 
     which such parents may choose to become involved (taking into 
     consideration their specific family needs, work schedules, 
     and other responsibilities); and
       ``(vii) to extend outreach to fathers, in appropriate 
     cases, in order to strengthen the role of fathers in 
     families, in the education of their young children, and in 
     the Head Start program, by working directly with fathers and 
     father figures through activities such as--

       ``(I) in appropriate cases, including fathers in home 
     visits and providing opportunities for direct father-child 
     interactions; and
       ``(II) targeting increased male participation in the 
     conduct of the program;

       ``(I) the ability of such applicant to carry out the plans 
     described in paragraphs (2), (4), and (5);
       ``(J) the plan of such applicant to meet the needs of 
     limited English proficient children and their families, 
     including procedures to identify such children, plans to 
     provide trained personnel, and plans to provide services to 
     assist the children in making progress toward the acquisition 
     of the English language, while making meaningful progress in 
     attaining the knowledge, skills, abilities, and development 
     described in section 641A(a)(1)(B);
       ``(K) the plan of such applicant to meet the diverse 
     cultural needs of the population served;
       ``(L) the plan of such applicant to meet the needs of 
     children with disabilities;
       ``(M) the plan of such applicant who chooses to assist 
     younger siblings of children who will participate in the Head 
     Start program, to obtain health services from other sources;
       ``(N) the plan of such applicant to collaborate with other 
     entities carrying out early childhood education and child 
     care programs in the community;
       ``(O) the plan of such applicant to meet the needs of 
     homeless children, including transportation needs, and 
     children in foster care;
       ``(P) the plan of such applicant to maintain a qualified 
     staff, including a teaching staff qualified to implement 
     research-based educational curricula aligned with challenging 
     State-developed academic content standards, the Head Start 
     Child Outcomes Framework developed by the Secretary, and the 
     State early learning standards in States in which such 
     standards are developed;
       ``(Q) the plan of such applicant to enter into memoranda of 
     understanding with local educational agencies, child care 
     providers, and other entities within the service area; and
       ``(R) other factors related to the requirements of this 
     subchapter.''.
       (d) Selection of Applicants.--Section 641(g) of the Head 
     Start Act (43 U.S.C. 9836(g)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(g) Issuance of Rules.--Not later than 180 days after the 
     enactment of the School Readiness Act of 2005, the Secretary 
     shall issue rules to carry out this section.''.

     SEC. 8. QUALITY STANDARDS; MONITORING OF HEAD START AGENCIES 
                   AND PROGRAMS.

       (a) Quality Standards.--Section 641A(a) of the Head Start 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 9836a(a)) is amended--

[[Page 21104]]

       (1) by amending paragraph (1)(B)--
       (A) in clause (i)--
       (i) by inserting ``based on sound scientific evidence'' 
     after ``standards''; and
       (ii) by inserting ``and sustained academic gains'' after 
     ``readiness''; and
       (B) by amending clause (ii) to read as follows:
       ``(ii) additional scientifically-based education standards 
     to ensure that the children participating in the program, at 
     a minimum develop and demonstrate--
       ``(I) language knowledge and skills, including oral 
     language and listening comprehension;
       ``(II) prereading knowledge and skills that prepare 
     children for early literacy in schools, including 
     phonological awareness, print awareness and print skills, and 
     alphabetic knowledge;
       ``(III) premathematics knowledge and skills, including 
     aspects of classification, seriation, number, spatial 
     relations, and time;
       ``(IV) cognitive abilities related to academic achievement 
     and child development;
       ``(V) social and emotional development related to early 
     learning, school success, and sustained academic gains; and
       ``(VI) in the case of limited-English proficient children, 
     progress toward acquisition of the English language while 
     making meaningful progress in attaining the knowledge, 
     skills, abilities, and development described in subclauses 
     (I) through (IV);'';
       (2) in paragraph (2)--
       (A) by amending subparagraph (B) to read as follows:
       ``(B) take into consideration--
       ``(i) past experience with use of the standards in effect 
     under this subchapter on October 27, 1998;
       ``(ii) changes over the period since October 27, 1998, in 
     the circumstances and problems typically facing children and 
     families served by Head Start agencies;
       ``(iii) developments concerning research based practices 
     with respect to early childhood education and development, 
     children with disabilities, family services, program 
     administration, and financial management;
       ``(iv) projected needs of an expanding Head Start program;
       ``(v) guidelines and standards currently in effect or under 
     consideration that promote child health services and physical 
     development, including outdoor activity that supports 
     children's motor development and overall health and 
     nutrition;
       ``(vi) changes in the population of children who are 
     eligible to participate in Head Start programs, including the 
     language background and family structure of such children;
       ``(vii) scientifically based research to ensure that 
     children participating in Head Start programs make a 
     successful transition to schools that the children will be 
     attending; and
       ``(viii) the unique challenges faced by individual 
     programs, including those that are seasonal or short term, 
     and those that serve rural populations; and''; and
       (B) in subparagraph (C)(ii) by striking ``the date'' and 
     all that follows through ``Act of 1998'', and inserting 
     ``October 27, 1998''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(4) Evaluations and corrective actions for delegate 
     agencies.--
       ``(A) Procedures.--The Head Start agency shall establish 
     procedures relating to its delegate agencies, including--
       ``(i) procedures for evaluating delegate agencies;
       ``(ii) procedures for defunding delegate agencies; and
       ``(iii) procedures for appealing a defunding decision 
     relating to a delegate agency.
       ``(B) Evaluations.--Each Head Start agency--
       ``(i) shall evaluate its delegate agencies using the 
     procedures established pursuant to this section, including 
     subparagraph (A); and
       ``(ii) shall inform the delegate agencies of the 
     deficiencies identified through the evaluation that shall be 
     corrected.
       ``(C) Remedies to ensure corrective actions.--If the Head 
     Start agency identifies a deficiency for a delegate agency 
     through the evaluation, the Head Start agency may--
       ``(i) initiate procedures to terminate the designation of 
     the agency unless the agency corrects the deficiency;
       ``(ii) conduct monthly monitoring visits to such delegate 
     agency until all deficiencies are corrected or the Head Start 
     agency decides to defund such delegate agency; and
       ``(iii) release funds to such delegate agency only as 
     reimbursements until all deficiencies are corrected or the 
     Head Start agency decides to defund such delegate agency.
       ``(D) Rule of construction.--Nothing in this paragraph 
     shall be construed to impact or obviate the responsibilities 
     of the Secretary with respect to Head Start agencies or 
     delegate agencies receiving funding under this subchapter.''.
       (b) Results-Based Performance Measures.--Section 641A(b) of 
     the Head Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9836a(b)) is amended--
       (1) by amending paragraph (2) to read as follows:
       ``(2) Characteristics of measures.--The performance 
     measures developed under this subsection shall--
       ``(A) be used to assess the impact of the various services 
     provided by Head Start programs and, to the extent the 
     Secretary finds appropriate, administrative and financial 
     management practices of such programs;
       ``(B) be adaptable for use in self-assessment, peer review, 
     and program evaluation of individual Head Start agencies and 
     programs;
       ``(C) be developed for other program purposes as determined 
     by the Secretary;
       ``(D) be appropriate for the population served; and
       ``(E) be reviewed no less than every 4 years, based on 
     advances in the science of early childhood development.

     The performance measures shall include the performance 
     standards described in subparagraphs (A) and (B) of 
     subsection (a)(1).'';
       (2) by amending paragraph (3) to read as follows:
       ``(3) Use of measures.--
       ``(A) The Secretary shall use the performance measures 
     pursuant to this subsection to identify--
       ``(i) strengths and weaknesses in the operation of Head 
     Start programs nationally, regionally, and locally; and
       ``(ii) program areas that may require additional training 
     and technical assistance resources.
       ``(B) The Secretary shall provide a detailed justification 
     to the Congress regarding the planned uses of the data 
     collected by the National Reporting System developed by the 
     Secretary and shall demonstrate its scientific validity and 
     reliability for such purposes, including its scientific 
     validity and reliability with children with limited English 
     proficiency for such purposes;
       ``(C) The Secretary shall not use the National Reporting 
     System assessment results either as the primary method for 
     assessing program effectiveness or as the primary method for 
     making grantee funding determinations.
       ``(D) The Secretary shall develop a process to ensure that 
     the National Reporting System shall not be used to exclude 
     children from Head Start programs.''; and
       (3) by amending paragraph (4) to read as follows:
       ``(4) Educational measures.--Results based measures shall 
     be designed for the purpose of promoting the competencies of 
     children participating in Head Start programs specified in 
     subsection (a)(1)(B)(ii), with an emphasis on measuring those 
     competencies that have a strong scientifically-based 
     predictability of a child's school readiness and later 
     performance in school.''.
       (c) Monitoring of Local Agencies and Programs.--Section 
     641A(c) of the Head Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9836a(c)) is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)--
       (A) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A) by inserting 
     ``develop and utilize a risk-based assessment system to'' 
     after ``shall'';
       (B) by amending subparagraph (C) to read as follows:
       ``(C) Followup reviews, including unannounced reviews as 
     appropriate, of programs with 1 or more findings of 
     deficiencies not later than 6 months after the date of such 
     finding.''; and
       (C) by amending subparagraph (D) to read as follows:
       ``(D) Unannounced site inspections of Head Start centers 
     and other reviews, as appropriate.'';
       (2) by amending paragraph (2) to read as follows:
       ``(2) Conduct of reviews.--The Secretary shall ensure that 
     reviews described in subparagraphs (A) through (C) of 
     paragraph (1)--
       ``(A) that incorporate a monitoring visit, may be done 
     without prior notice of the visit to the local agency or 
     program;
       ``(B) are conducted by review teams composed of individuals 
     who are knowledgeable about the program areas they are 
     reviewing and, to the maximum extent practicable, the diverse 
     (including linguistic and cultural) needs of eligible 
     children (including children with disabilities) and limited-
     English proficient children and their families;
       ``(C) include as part of the reviews of the programs, a 
     review and assessment of program effectiveness, including 
     strengths and areas for improvement, as measured in 
     accordance with the results-based performance measures 
     developed by the Secretary pursuant to subsection (b) and 
     with the standards established pursuant to subparagraphs (A) 
     and (B) of subsection (a)(1);
       ``(D) seek information from the communities and the States 
     involved about the performance of the programs and the 
     efforts of the Head Start agencies to collaborate with other 
     entities carrying out early childhood education and child 
     care programs in the community;
       ``(E) seek information from the communities where Head 
     Start programs exist about innovative or effective 
     collaborative efforts, barriers to collaboration, and the 
     efforts of the Head Start agencies and programs to 
     collaborate with the entities carrying out early childhood 
     education and child care programs in the community;
       ``(F) include as part of the reviews of the programs, a 
     review and assessment of whether a program is in conformity 
     with the income eligibility requirements, as defined in 
     section 645 and regulations promulgated thereunder;
       ``(G) include as part of the reviews of the programs, a 
     review and assessment of whether programs have adequately 
     addressed the population and community needs (including 
     populations of children with a limited English proficiency 
     and children of migrant and seasonal farm-working families);
       ``(H) include as part of the review the extent to which the 
     program addresses the community needs and strategic plan 
     identified in section 640(g)(2)(C); and
       ``(I) are conducted in a manner that evaluates program 
     performance, quality, and overall operations with consistency 
     and objectivity, and

[[Page 21105]]

     based on a transparent and reliable system of review.''.
       (d) Corrective Action; Termination.--Section 641A(d) of the 
     Head Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9836a(d)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1) by amending the matter preceding 
     subparagraph (A) to read as follows:
       ``(1) Determination.--If the Secretary determines, on the 
     basis of a review pursuant to subsection (c), that a Head 
     Start agency designated pursuant to section 641 fails to meet 
     the standards described in subsection (a) or results-based 
     performance measures developed by the Secretary under 
     subsection (b), or fails to adequately address the community 
     needs and strategic plan identified in 640(g)(2)(C), the 
     Secretary shall--'';
       (2) by amending paragraph (2) to read as follows:
       ``(2) Quality improvement plan.--
       ``(A) Agency and program responsibilities.--In order to 
     retain a designation as a Head Start agency under this 
     subchapter, or in the case of a Head Start program, in order 
     to continue to receive funds from such agency, a Head Start 
     agency, or Head Start program that is the subject of a 
     determination described in paragraph (1) (other than an 
     agency or program required to correct a deficiency 
     immediately or during a 90-day period under clause (i) or 
     (ii) of paragraph (1)(B)) shall--
       ``(i) develop in a timely manner, a quality improvement 
     plan that shall be subject to the approval of the Secretary, 
     or in the case of a program, the sponsoring agency, and which 
     shall specify--

       ``(I) the deficiencies to be corrected;
       ``(II) the actions to be taken to correct such 
     deficiencies; and
       ``(III) the timetable for accomplishment of the corrective 
     actions specified; and

       ``(ii) eliminate each deficiency identified, not later than 
     the date for elimination of such deficiency specified in such 
     plan (which shall not be later than 1 year after the date the 
     agency or program received notice of the determination and of 
     the specific deficiency to be corrected).
       ``(B) Secretarial responsibility.--Not later than 30 days 
     after receiving from a Head Start agency a proposed quality 
     improvement plan pursuant to subparagraph (A), the Secretary 
     shall either approve such proposed plan or specify the 
     reasons why the proposed plan cannot be approved.
       ``(C) Agency responsibility for program improvement.--Not 
     later than 30 days after receiving from a Head Start program, 
     a proposed quality improvement plan pursuant to subparagraph 
     (A), the sponsoring agency shall either approve such proposed 
     plan or specify the reasons why the proposed plan cannot be 
     approved.''; and
       (3) in paragraph (3) by inserting ``and programs'' after 
     ``agencies'';
       (4) by amending subsection (e) to read as follows:
       ``(e) Summaries of Monitoring Outcomes.--Not later than 120 
     days after the end of each fiscal year, the Secretary shall 
     publish a summary report on the findings of reviews conducted 
     under subsection (c) and on the outcomes of quality 
     improvement plans implemented under subsection (d), during 
     such fiscal year. Such information shall be made available to 
     all parents with children receiving assistance under this 
     subchapter in an understandable and uniform format, and to 
     the extent practicable, provided in a language that the 
     parents can understand, and in addition, make the information 
     widely available through public means such as distribution 
     through public agencies, and at a minimum posting such 
     information on the Internet immediately upon publication.''; 
     and
       (5) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(f) Reduction of Grants and Redistribution of Funds in 
     Cases of Under-Enrollment.--
       ``(1) Definitions.--In this subsection:
       ``(A) Actual enrollment.--The term `actual enrollment' 
     means, with respect to the program of a Head Start agency, 
     the actual number of children enrolled in such program and 
     reported by the agency (as required in paragraph (2)) in a 
     given month.
       ``(B) Base grant.--The term `base grant' means, with 
     respect to a Head Start agency for a fiscal year, that 
     portion of the grant derived--
       ``(i) from amounts reserved for use in accordance with 
     section 640(a)(2)(A), for a Head Start agency administering 
     an Indian Head Start program or migrant and seasonal Head 
     Start program;
       ``(ii) from amounts reserved for payments under section 
     640(a)(2)(B); or
       ``(iii) from amounts available under section 640(a)(2)(D) 
     or allotted among States under section 640(a)(4).
       ``(C) Funded enrollment.--The term `funded enrollment' 
     means, with respect to the program of a Head Start agency in 
     a fiscal year, the number of children that the agency is 
     funded to serve through a grant for the program during such 
     fiscal year, as indicated in the grant agreement.
       ``(2) Enrollment reporting requirement for current fiscal 
     year.--Each entity carrying out a Head Start program shall 
     report on a monthly basis to the Secretary and the relevant 
     Head Start agency--
       ``(A) the actual enrollment in such program; and
       ``(B) if such actual enrollment is less than the funded 
     enrollment, any apparent reason for such enrollment 
     shortfall.
       ``(3) Secretarial review and plan.--The Secretary shall--
       ``(A) on a semiannual basis, determine which Head Start 
     agencies are operating with an actual enrollment that is less 
     than the funded enrollment based on not less than the average 
     of 4 consecutive months of data;
       ``(B) for each such Head Start agency operating a program 
     with an actual enrollment that is less than 95 percent of its 
     funded enrollment, as determined under subparagraph (A), 
     develop, in collaboration with such agency, a plan and 
     timetable for reducing or eliminating under-enrollment taking 
     into consideration--
       ``(i) the quality and extent of the outreach, recruitment, 
     and community needs assessment conducted by such agency;
       ``(ii) changing demographics, mobility of populations, and 
     the identification of new underserved low-income populations;
       ``(iii) facilities-related issues that may impact 
     enrollment;
       ``(iv) the ability to provide full-day programs, where 
     needed, through Head Start funds or through collaboration 
     with entities carrying out other preschool or child care 
     programs, or programs with other funding sources (where 
     available);
       ``(v) the availability and use by families of other 
     preschool and child care options (including parental care) in 
     the local catchment area; and
       ``(vi) agency management procedures that may impact 
     enrollment; and
       ``(C) provide timely and ongoing technical assistance to 
     each agency described in subparagraph (B) for the purpose of 
     implementing the plan described in such subparagraph.
       ``(4) Implementation.--Upon receipt of the technical 
     assistance described in paragraph (3)(C), a Head Start agency 
     shall immediately implement the plan described in paragraph 
     (3)(B).
       ``(5) Secretarial action for conversion to serve younger 
     children.--If, after implementing the plan described in 
     paragraph (3)(B), the grantee continues to operate a program 
     at less than full enrollment, the grantee may, upon approval 
     by the Secretary, be permitted to use a portion of the base 
     grant equal to the percentage difference between funded 
     enrollment and actual enrollment for the most then recent 
     year, to serve persons described in section 645A(c) if such 
     agency currently operates a grant described in section 645A 
     and submits an application containing--
       ``(A) evidence of community need for such services;
       ``(B) a description of how the needs of pregnant women, 
     infants, and toddlers will be addressed in accordance with 
     section 645A(b) and with regulations prescribed by the 
     Secretary pursuant to section 641A in areas including--
       ``(i) the approach to childhood development and health 
     services; and
       ``(ii) the approach to family and community partnerships; 
     and approach to program design and management;
       ``(C) assurances that the agency will participate in 
     technical assistance activities for newly funded and existing 
     grantees under section 654A; and
       ``(D) evidence that the agency meets the eligibility 
     criteria as grantees under section 645A.
     Any grantee permitted to serve children under this paragraph 
     shall be subject to the rules, regulations, and conditions 
     under section 645A.
       ``(6) Secretarial action for continued under-enrollment.--
     If, 1 year after the date of implementation of the plan 
     described in paragraph (3)(B), the Head Start agency 
     continues to operate a program at less than full enrollment, 
     the Secretary shall, where determined appropriate, continue 
     to provide technical assistance to such agency.
       ``(7) Secretarial review and adjustment for chronic under-
     enrollment.--
       ``(A) In general.--If, after receiving technical assistance 
     and developing and implementing a plan to the extent 
     described in paragraphs (3), (4), and (5) for 6 months, a 
     Head Start agency is still operating a program with an actual 
     enrollment that is less than 95 percent of its funded 
     enrollment, the Secretary may--
       ``(i) designate such agency as chronically under-enrolled; 
     and
       ``(ii) recapture, withhold, or reduce the base grant for 
     the program by, a percentage equal to the percentage 
     difference between funded enrollment and actual enrollment 
     for the program for the most recent year in which the agency 
     is determined to be under-enrolled under paragraph (2)(B).
       ``(B) Waiver or limitation of reductions.--If the 
     Secretary, after the implementation of the plan described in 
     paragraph (3)(B), finds that--
       ``(i) the shortfall can reasonably be expected to be 
     temporary; or
       ``(ii) the number of slots allotted to the agency is small 
     enough that under-enrollment does not constitute a 
     significant shortfall,

     the Secretary may, as appropriate, waive or reduce the 
     percentage recapturing, withholding, or reduction otherwise 
     required by subparagraph (A).
       ``(C) Procedural requirements; effective date.--The actions 
     taken by the Secretary under this paragraph with respect to a 
     Head Start agency shall take effect 1 day after the date on 
     which--
       ``(i) the time allowed for appeal under section 646(a) 
     expires without an appeal by the agency; or
       ``(ii) the action is upheld in an administrative hearing 
     under section 646.
       ``(8) Redistribution of funds.--
       ``(A) In general.--Funds held by the Secretary as a result 
     of recapturing, withholding, or reducing a base grant in 
     accordance with

[[Page 21106]]

     paragraph (6) in a fiscal year shall be redistributed in such 
     fiscal year as follows:
       ``(i) If such funds are attributable to the portion of a 
     base grant derived from amounts specified in paragraph 
     (1)(B)(i) payable, but for the operation of this paragraph, 
     to carry out an Indian Head Start program, then such funds 
     shall be redistributed to increase enrollment in such fiscal 
     year in 1 or more Indian Head Start programs.
       ``(ii) If such funds are attributable to the portion of a 
     base grant derived from amounts specified in paragraph 
     (1)(B)(i) payable, but for the operation of this paragraph, 
     to carry out a migrant and seasonal Head Start program, then 
     such funds shall be redistributed to increase enrollment in 
     such fiscal year in 1 or more migrant and seasonal Head Start 
     programs.
       ``(iii) If such funds are attributable to the portion of a 
     base grant derived from amounts specified in clause (ii) or 
     (iii) of paragraph (1)(B) payable, but for the operation of 
     this paragraph, to carry out a Head Start program (excluding 
     Indian Head Start programs, and migrant and seasonal Head 
     Start programs) in a State, then such funds shall be 
     redistributed to increase enrollment in such fiscal year in 1 
     or more--

       ``(I) other Head Start programs (excluding Indian Head 
     Start programs and migrant and seasonal Head Start programs) 
     that are carried out in such State; or
       ``(II) if the Secretary determines that children eligible 
     under section 641 are being adequately served within such 
     State, 1 or more Early Head Start programs (excluding Indian 
     Head Start programs and migrant and seasonal Head Start 
     programs) or 1 or more Head Start programs for the purpose of 
     becoming a grantee pursuant to section 645A.

       ``(B) Adjustment to funded enrollment.--The Secretary shall 
     adjust as necessary the requirements relating to funded 
     enrollment indicated in the grant agreement of a Head Start 
     agency receiving funds redistributed under this paragraph.''.

     SEC. 9. POWERS AND FUNCTIONS OF HEAD START AGENCIES.

       (a) Qualifications for Designation.--Section 642(b) of the 
     Head Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9837(b)) is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(b) In order to be so designated, a Head Start agency 
     shall do all of the following:--
       ``(1) Establish a program with standards set forth in 
     section 641A(a)(1), with particular attention to the 
     standards set forth in subparagraphs (A) and (B) of such 
     section.
       ``(2) Demonstrate capacity to serve eligible children with 
     scientifically-based curricula and other interventions that 
     help promote the school readiness of children participating 
     in the program.
       ``(3) Establish effective procedures by which parents and 
     area residents concerned will be enabled to directly 
     participate in decisions that influence the character of 
     programs affecting their interests.
       ``(4) Establish an independent board of directors selected 
     from among eligible individuals who shall serve on the board 
     (or may designate an existing entity whose members are 
     eligible individuals, that shall be such board) for a period 
     not to exceed 5 years, except that board members who oversee 
     a public entity and who are selected by election (or members 
     of a board of a local educational agency or a local council, 
     appointed by an elected official or an official of a general 
     purpose local government), may serve for such period as may 
     be determined by the electing or appointing authority, as the 
     case may be. An individual who has a conflict of interest is 
     ineligible to serve as a member of the board. Members of the 
     board of all nonpublic entities shall include representatives 
     of the local community (including at least 1 member with 
     significant financial management or accounting experience and 
     the chair of the council described in section 
     642(b)(4)(B)(ii)). Additional members shall be selected for 
     their expertise in education, business administration, 
     community affairs, government, legal affairs, and such other 
     areas of expertise as may contribute to effective governance 
     of the Head Start agency. All members of the board shall 
     receive training in the management responsibilities and 
     obligations, ethics, and financial literacy and management, 
     and shall adopt practices that assure active, independent and 
     informed governance of the Head Start agency, including 
     independent oversight of the financial and management 
     practices of such agency. The board shall provide direction 
     to the executive director of the Head Start agency and shall 
     operate as an entity independent of staff employed by the 
     Head start agency, entity, or applicant and have the 
     following duties and responsibilities:
       ``(A) To provide independent oversight to ensure that the 
     Head Start agency under the direction of the executive 
     director is delivering high quality services to children and 
     families in compliance with all applicable standards in 
     effect under this subchapter and with the applicable 
     performance measures established by the Secretary under 
     section 644.
       ``(B) To establish 2 or more standing committees to 
     facilitate governance of the Head Start agency which shall 
     include both of the following:
       ``(i) An audit and finance committee whose primary 
     responsibility shall be--

       ``(I) to approve annually the operating budget of the Head 
     Start agency;
       ``(II) to review and recommend to the board the selection 
     of independent auditors who shall report all critical 
     accounting policies and practices to the finance and audit 
     committee;
       ``(III) to review and recommend to the board the 
     termination or extension of the existing audit firm at least 
     once every 5 years;
       ``(IV) to review and advise the board of the audit 
     management letter provided pursuant to the chapter 75 of 
     title 31 of the United States Code, and of any audit 
     findings; and
       ``(V) to monitor agency actions to correct any such audit 
     findings or other actions necessary to comply with applicable 
     laws (including regulations) governing financial statements 
     and accounting practices.

       ``(ii) A policy council, a majority of whose 
     representatives shall be parents of children participating in 
     a Head Start program or in an Early Head Start program, or of 
     children who participated in a Head Start program or in an 
     Early Head Start program in the then most recent 5-year 
     period preceding the selection of the particular 
     representative involved, and whose primary responsibility 
     shall be to serve as a link between parents and the board of 
     directors and to make and submit recommendations on the 
     following activities to the Board:

       ``(I) The strategic direction of the program, including 
     long and short-term planning goals and objectives.
       ``(II) Program operation policies, including standards of 
     conduct for program staff and volunteers.
       ``(III) Activities to support the active involvement of 
     parents in supporting program operations.
       ``(IV) Classroom activities and staffing.
       ``(V) Program responsiveness to community and parent needs.
       ``(VI) Other areas the committee identifies as necessary to 
     improve program operations.

       ``(C) To approve the selection and dismissal of the Head 
     Start director, and to review annually the human resources 
     available to ensure the effective operation of the Head Start 
     agency.
       ``(D) To consult, on a regular basis, with the policy 
     committee and to take actions on recommendations submitted by 
     such committee.
       ``(E) To review and approve the major operational policies 
     of the Head Start agency, including policies addressing 
     accounting, financial management, procurement, record 
     confidentiality, and personnel (including specific standards 
     governing salaries, salary adjustments, travel and per diem 
     allowances, and other employee benefits).
       ``(F) To ensure that the Head Start agency is operated in 
     compliance with applicable Federal, State, and local laws 
     (including regulations), and to monitor agency implementation 
     of any corrective action necessary to comply with applicable 
     laws (including regulations);
       ``(G) To oversee the program planning of the Head Start 
     agency, including adoption of the Head Start agency 
     philosophy and mission statement, adoption of policies for 
     determining community needs, setting long- and short-range 
     goals and objectives, establishment of criteria for selecting 
     families in Head Start programs or Early Head Start programs, 
     and to oversee and approve the agency's applications to 
     receive funds made available under this subchapter; and
       ``(H) To establish, to adopt, and to periodically update 
     written standards of conduct that establish standards and 
     formal procedures for disclosing, addressing, and resolving--
       ``(i) any conflict of interest, and any appearance of a 
     conflict of interest, by board members, officers, employees, 
     consultants, and agents who provide services or furnish goods 
     to the Head Start agency; and
       ``(ii) complaints, including investigations, when 
     appropriate.
       ``(5) To seek the involvement of parents, area residents, 
     and local business in the design and implementation of the 
     program.
       ``(6) To provide technical and other support needed to 
     enable parents and area residents to secure on their own 
     behalf available assistance from public and private sources.
       ``(7) To establish effective procedures to facilitate the 
     involvement of parents of participating children in 
     activities designed to help such parents become full partners 
     in the education of their children, and to afford such 
     parents the opportunity to participate in the development and 
     overall conduct of the program at the local level, including 
     a process through which parents of children currently 
     participating in a Head Start program or an Early Head Start 
     program select the parent representatives to serve on the 
     council under section 642(b)(4)(B)(ii).
       ``(8) To conduct outreach to schools in which children 
     participating in Head Start programs enroll, local 
     educational agencies, the local business community, 
     community-based organizations, faith-based organizations, 
     museums, and libraries to generate support and leverage the 
     resources of the entire local community in order to improve 
     school readiness.
       ``(9) To offer (directly or through referral to local 
     entities, such as entities carrying out Even Start programs 
     under subpart 3 of part B of title I of the Elementary and 
     Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 2741 et seq.)), to 
     parents of participating children, family literacy services 
     and parenting skills training.
       ``(10) To offer to parents of participating children 
     substance abuse counseling (either directly or through 
     referral to local entities), including information on drug-
     exposed infants and fetal alcohol syndrome.
       ``(11) At the option of such agency, to offer (directly or 
     through referral to local entities), to such parents--
       ``(A) training in basic child development (including 
     cognitive development);
       ``(B) assistance in developing literacy and communication 
     skills;

[[Page 21107]]

       ``(C) opportunities to share experiences with other parents 
     (including parent-mentor relationships);
       ``(D) mental and behavioral health services;
       ``(E) regular in-home visitation; or
       ``(F) any other activity designed to help such parents 
     become full partners in the education of their children.
       ``(12) To provide, with respect to each participating 
     family, a family needs assessment that includes consultation 
     with such parents about the benefits of parent involvement 
     and about the activities described in paragraphs (5) through 
     (8) in which such parents may choose to be involved (taking 
     into consideration their specific family needs, work 
     schedules, and other responsibilities).
       ``(13) To consider providing services to assist younger 
     siblings of children participating in its Head Start program 
     to obtain health services from other sources.
       ``(14) To perform community outreach to encourage 
     individuals previously unaffiliated with Head Start programs 
     to participate in its Head Start program as volunteers.
       ``(15)(A) To inform custodial parents in single-parent 
     families that participate in programs, activities, or 
     services carried out or provided under this subchapter about 
     the availability of child support services for purposes of 
     establishing paternity and acquiring child support; and
       ``(B) refer eligible parents to the child support offices 
     of State and local governments.
       ``(16) provide parents of limited English proficient 
     children outreach and services under this subchapter, in an 
     understandable and uniform format and, to the extent 
     practicable, in a language that such parents can 
     understand.''.
       (b) Coordination and Collaboration.--Section 642(c) of the 
     Head Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9837(c)) is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(c) The head of each Head Start agency shall coordinate 
     and collaborate with the State agency responsible for 
     administering the State program carried out under the Child 
     Care and Development Block Grant Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 9858 
     et seq.), and other early childhood education and development 
     programs, including programs under subtitle B of title VII of 
     the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11431-
     11435), Even Start programs under subpart 3 of part B of 
     title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 
     (20 U.S.C. 2741 et seq.), and programs under Part C and 
     section 619 of the Individuals with Disabilities Education 
     Act (20 U.S.C. 1431-1445, 1419), and the Child Abuse 
     Prevention and Treatment Act (42 U.S.C. 5106a), serving the 
     children and families served by the Head Start agency to 
     carry out the provisions of this subchapter.''.
       (c) Other Coordination.--Section 642(d) of the Head Start 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 9837(d)) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraphs (2) through (4) as 
     paragraph (5) through (7), respectively;
       (2) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following:
       ``(2) Coordination.--
       ``(A) Local educational agency.--In communities where both 
     public prekindergarten programs and Head Start programs 
     operate, a Head Start agency shall collaborate and coordinate 
     activities with the local educational agency or other public 
     agency responsible for the operation of the prekindergarten 
     program and providers of prekindergarten, including outreach 
     activities to identify eligible children.
       ``(B) Elementary schools.--Head Start staff shall, with the 
     permission of the parents of children enrolled in Head Start 
     programs, regularly communicate with the elementary schools 
     such children will be attending--
       ``(i) to share information about such children;
       ``(ii) to receive advice and support from the teachers in 
     such elementary schools participating in Early Reading First 
     programs funded under subpart 1 of part B of title I of the 
     Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 regarding 
     scientifically based teaching strategies and options; and
       ``(iii) to ensure a smooth transition to elementary school 
     for such children.
       ``(C) Other early education and child development 
     programs.--The head of each Head Start agency shall 
     coordinate activities and collaborate with the State agency 
     responsible for administering the State program carried out 
     under the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of 1990 
     (42 U.S.C. 9858 et seq.), and other entities carrying out 
     early childhood education and development programs, programs 
     under subtitle B of title VII of the McKinney-Vento Homeless 
     Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11431-11435), Even Start programs 
     under subpart 3 of part B of title I of the Elementary and 
     Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6381 et seq.), and 
     programs under section 619 and part C of the Individuals with 
     Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C 1419, 1431 et seq.), 
     serving the children and families served by the Head Start 
     agency.
       ``(D) Other programs.--Each Head Start agency shall 
     collaborate, as appropriate, with providers of social and 
     community services available to children and families 
     participating in Head Start programs, and may support such 
     partnerships with financial agreements, when applicable, for 
     the provision of such services.
       ``(3) Collaboration.--A Head Start agency shall take steps 
     to coordinate activities with the local educational agency 
     serving the community involved and with schools in which 
     children participating in a Head Start program operated by 
     such agency will enroll following such program, including--
       ``(A) collaborating on the shared use of transportation and 
     facilities;
       ``(B) collaborating to enhance the efficiency of services 
     while increasing the program participation of underserved 
     populations of eligible children; and
       ``(C) exchanging information on the provision of 
     noneducational services to such children.
       ``(4) Parental involvement.--In order to promote the 
     continued involvement of the parents (including grandparents 
     and kinship caregivers, as appropriate) of children that 
     participate in Head Start programs in the education of their 
     children upon transition to school, the Head Start agency 
     shall work with the local educational agency--
       ``(A) to provide training to the parents--
       ``(i) to inform the parents about their rights and 
     responsibilities concerning the education of their children; 
     and
       ``(ii) to enable the parents--

       ``(I) to understand and work with schools in order to 
     communicate with teachers and other school personnel;
       ``(II) to support the schoolwork of their children; and
       ``(III) to participate as appropriate in decisions relating 
     to the education of their children; and

       ``(B) to take other actions, as appropriate and feasible, 
     to support the active involvement of the parents with 
     schools, school personnel, and school-related 
     organizations.'';
       (3) in paragraph (5), as so redesignated--
       (A) by striking ``A'' and inserting ``Each'';
       (B) by striking ``may'' and inserting ``shall'';
       (C) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (A);
       (D) by redesignating subparagraph (B) as subparagraph (C); 
     and
       (E) by inserting after subparagraph (A) the following:
       ``(B) collaborating to increase the program participation 
     of underserved populations of eligible children; and''; and
       (4) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(8) Head Start agencies shall implement a research-based 
     early childhood curricula that promotes young children's 
     school readiness in the areas of language and cognitive 
     development, early reading and premathematics skills, socio-
     emotional skills, physical development, and approaches to 
     learning. Such curricula shall be--
       ``(A) based on scientifically based research and have 
     standardized training procedures and published curriculum 
     materials to support implementation; and
       ``(B) comprehensive, outcomes based, and linked to ongoing 
     assessment with instructional goals and measurable 
     objectives.
       ``(9) Head Start agencies shall use ongoing, research-based 
     assessment methods that are developmentally appropriate, 
     culturally and linguistically responsive, and tied to 
     children's daily activities in order to support the 
     educational instruction of children in the program, including 
     language skills, prereading knowledge and premathematics 
     knowledge. Assessment instruments shall be those designed and 
     validated for making decisions about teaching and learning 
     and aligned with the program's curricula and Section 
     641A(a)(1).
       ``(10) For the purpose of meeting the performance 
     standards, Head Start agencies shall use high-quality 
     research-based developmental screening tools that have been 
     demonstrated to be standardized, reliable, valid, and 
     accurate for children from a range of racial, ethnic, 
     linguistic, and cultural backgrounds.''.
       (d) Assessment.--Section 642 of the Head Start Act (42 
     U.S.C. 9837) is amended by striking subsection (e) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(e) Assessment.--Each Head Start agency shall adopt, in 
     consultation with experts in child development and with 
     classroom teachers, an assessment to be used when hiring or 
     evaluating any classroom teacher in a center-based Head Start 
     program. Such assessment shall measure whether such teacher 
     has mastered the functions described in section 648A(a)(1) 
     and attained a level of literacy appropriate to implement 
     Head Start curricula.
       ``(f) Funded Enrollment; Waiting List.--Each Head Start 
     agency shall enroll 100 percent of its funded enrollment and 
     maintain an active waiting list at all times with ongoing 
     outreach to the community and activities to identify 
     underserved populations.''.

     SEC. 10. LOCAL AND STATE INTEGRATION OF EARLY CHILDHOOD 
                   EDUCATION.

       The Head Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9831 et. seq.) is amended by 
     inserting after section 642A the following:

     ``SEC. 642B. LOCAL AND STATE INTEGRATION OF EARLY CHILDHOOD 
                   EDUCATION.

       ``(a) Local Integration.--In general, Head Start agencies 
     shall enter into ongoing partnerships with local educational 
     agencies, State-funded preschool and other early childhood 
     programs. Head Start agencies shall operate in a manner 
     consistent with the goal of creating and expanding an 
     efficient and effective system of early childhood and school 
     readiness services in each State and community, while 
     maintaining compliance with Standards under section 641A(a).
       ``(1) Memoranda of understanding.--Each Head Start agency 
     shall enter into a memorandum of understanding with any local 
     educational agencies or local councils, responsible for 
     managing publicly funded prekindergarten programs in the 
     service area of the Head Start agency (or if such agencies 
     and such councils are not applicable in the service area, 
     with the largest provider of publicly funded prekindergarten 
     in the service area), that shall include plans to coordinate 
     the following activities:
       ``(A) Educational activities, curricula, and instruction 
     aligned to challenging State developed

[[Page 21108]]

     educational activities, curricula, and instruction aligned to 
     challenging State developed academic content standards.
       ``(B) Public information dissemination and access to 
     programs for families contacting any of the early childhood 
     programs.
       ``(C) Selection priorities for eligible children to be 
     served by programs.
       ``(D) Service delivery areas.
       ``(E) Staff training, including opportunities for joint 
     staff training on topics such as academic content standards 
     and instructional methods.
       ``(F) Program technical assistance.
       ``(G) Provision of additional services to meet the child 
     care needs of working parents.
       ``(H) Planning and parent education for smooth transitions 
     to kindergarten as required in section 642A(3) and 642A(6).
       ``(I) Provision and use of facilities, transportation, and 
     other program elements.
       ``(J) Other elements mutually agreed to by the parties to 
     such memorandum.
       ``(2) Timing of memoranda.--Each Head Start agency shall 
     enter into a memorandum of understanding under paragraph (1) 
     not later than 1 year after the effective date of this 
     section.
       ``(3) Secretarial review.--Each memorandum of understanding 
     entered into under paragraph (1) shall be submitted to the 
     Secretary not later than 30 days after entering into such 
     memorandum.
       ``(A) If a Head Start agency is unable to comply with the 
     requirement in (1) the Head Start agency shall notify the 
     Secretary and the chief executive officer of the State not 
     later than 30 days after determining that they are unable to 
     enter into such memorandum. The Secretary, in cooperation 
     with the State Early Learning Council and the State Director 
     of Head Start Collaboration, shall evaluate the causes of 
     failure to enter into a memorandum of understanding under 
     paragraph (1). With the assistance of the State Early 
     Learning Council and the State Director of Head Start 
     Collaboration, all parties shall again attempt to enter into 
     a memorandum of understanding under paragraph (1). Then if no 
     such memorandum of understanding is entered into, the 
     Secretary shall make 1 of the following determinations:
       ``(i) The local educational agency, local council, or other 
     appropriate entity is unable or unwilling to enter into such 
     a memorandum despite reasonable efforts on the part of the 
     Head Start agency.
       ``(ii) The Head Start agency has not engaged in reasonable 
     efforts to successfully negotiate and enter into a memorandum 
     of understanding pursuant to paragraph (1).
       ``(iii) There is an absence of publicly funded 
     prekindergarten in the service area of the Head Start agency.
       ``(B) If the Secretary determines the Head Start agency is 
     not making reasonable efforts to enter into a memorandum of 
     understanding pursuant to paragraph (1), the Head Start 
     agency shall be found deficient and shall be considered by 
     the Secretary in the same manner as other deficiency 
     findings.
       ``(C) If the Secretary concludes that the local educational 
     agency, local council, or other appropriate entity is not 
     making reasonable efforts to reach such a memorandum of 
     understanding, the Head Start agency shall not be found out 
     of compliance with paragraph (1).
       ``(4) Revision of memoranda.--Each memorandum of 
     understanding shall be revised and renewed annually by the 
     parties to such memorandum, in alignment with the beginning 
     of the school year.
       ``(5) Absence of prekindergarten.--In the absence of 
     publicly funded prekindergarten in the service area of a Head 
     Start agency, the Head Start agency shall submit notice to 
     the Secretary and the chief executive officer of the State, 
     and shall work with the State Early Learning Council and the 
     State Director of Head Start Collaboration to improve 
     coordination in their service area.
       ``(b) Statewide Integration.--From the amounts reserved 
     under section 640(a)(2)(C)(ii), the Secretary shall award an 
     early learning collaboration grant to each State for the 
     purposes of supporting a State Early Learning Council 
     responsible for advancing the development of a coordinated 
     early childhood services delivery system in the State. A 
     State that receives a grant under this subparagraph shall--
       ``(1) establish a State Early Learning Council, which shall 
     include the State Director of Head Start Collaboration, 
     representatives from the State preschool programs, 
     representatives of local educational agencies, the State 
     official who oversees child care programs, the State official 
     who oversees section 619 and part C of the Individuals with 
     Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1419, 1431 et seq.), 
     the State official who oversees the State educational agency, 
     and representatives from Head Start agencies located in the 
     State, including migrant and seasonal Head Start programs and 
     Indian Head Start programs. The chief executive officer of 
     the State may designate an existing entity to serve as the 
     Early Learning Council if such entity includes 
     representatives described in this paragraph;
       ``(2) ensure that allotted funds distributed to a State for 
     a fiscal year to carry out this subsection may be used by the 
     State to pay not more than 30 percent of the cost of carrying 
     out this subsection;
       ``(3) direct the Early Learning Council--
       ``(A) to increase coordination and collaboration among 
     State preschool, Head Start programs, child care programs, 
     early childhood special education, and other early childhood 
     programs, including in the areas of outcomes and standards, 
     technical assistance, coordination of services, cross-sector 
     professional development and training, community outreach, 
     communication, and better serving the needs of working 
     families through provision of full-day and full-year early 
     education services;
       ``(B) to work with State agencies responsible for 
     education, child care, and early intervention to provide 
     leadership and assistance to local Head Start programs, 
     school districts, and State and locally funded preschool and 
     child care programs to increase integration among early 
     childhood programs through adoption of local memoranda of 
     understanding described in subparagraph (A) and other means;
       ``(C) to work with State agencies responsible for 
     education, child care, and early intervention to provide 
     leadership and assistance to develop a coherent sequence of 
     standards for children age 3 through the early elementary 
     grades to effect a smooth transition to and success in the 
     early elementary grades;
       ``(D) to conduct periodic statewide needs assessments 
     concerning early care and education programs for children 
     from birth to school entry;
       ``(E) to work to identify and address barriers to and 
     opportunities for integration between entities carrying out 
     Federal and State child development, child care, and early 
     childhood education programs;
       ``(F) to develop recommendations regarding means of 
     establishing a unified data collection system for early care 
     and education programs operating throughout the State;
       ``(G) to address coordination of early learning programs 
     with health care (including mental and behavioral health 
     care), welfare, family literacy and services for homeless 
     children;
       ``(H) to support a State system of early childhood 
     education, and training and technical assistance that 
     improves the quality of early learning programs and the 
     capacity of such programs to deliver services pursuant to 
     section 648(b); and
       ``(I) to develop a plan for increasing the participation of 
     children underrepresented in State early childhood education 
     and child care programs, including Head Start, State 
     preschool programs, and programs carried out under the Child 
     Care and Development Block Grant Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 9858 
     et seq.).
       ``(4) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to 
     provide the Early Learning Council with authority to alter 
     the provisions of this Act.
       ``(5) Funds made available under this section shall be used 
     to supplement, and not supplant, other Federal, State, and 
     local funds that would otherwise be expended to carry out the 
     purposes of this section.''.

     SEC. 11. HEAD START ALIGNMENT WITH K-12 EDUCATION.

       Section 642A of the Head Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9837a) is 
     amended--
       (1) by amending the heading to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 642A. HEAD START ALIGNMENT WITH K-12 EDUCATION.'';

       (2) in paragraph (2)--
       (A) by inserting ``ongoing'' after ``establishing''; and
       (B) by inserting ``McKinney-Vento liaisons as established 
     under section 722 (g)(1)(J)(ii) of the McKinney-Vento 
     Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11432(g)(1)(J)(ii)),'' 
     after ``social workers,'';
       (3) by redesignating paragraphs (3) through (7) as 
     paragraphs (5) through (9), respectively; and
       (4) by inserting the following after paragraph (2):
       ``(3) developing continuity of developmentally appropriate 
     curricula between Head Start and local educational agencies 
     to ensure an effective transition and appropriate shared 
     expectations for children's learning and development as they 
     make such transition to school;
       ``(4) organizing and participating in joint training, 
     including transition-related training for school staff and 
     Head Start staff;'';
       (5) by amending paragraph (7), as so redesignated, to read 
     as follows:
       ``(7) developing and implementing a family outreach and 
     support program in cooperation with entities carrying out 
     parental involvement efforts under title I of the Elementary 
     and Secondary Education Act of 1965 and family outreach and 
     support efforts under subtitle B of title VII of the 
     McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11431-
     11435);'';
       (6) in paragraph (8), as so redesignated--
       (A) by inserting ``and continuity in parental involvement 
     activities'' after ``developmental continuity''; and
       (B) by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (7) by amending paragraph (9), as so redesignated, to read 
     as follows:
       ``(9) linking the services provided in such Head Start 
     program with the education services, including services 
     relating to language, literacy, and numeracy, provided by 
     such local educational agency;''; and
       (8) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(10) helping parents (including grandparents and kinship 
     caregivers, as appropriate) to understand the importance of 
     parental involvement in a child's academic success while 
     teaching them strategies for maintaining parental involvement 
     as their child moves from Head Start to elementary school;
       ``(11) developing and implementing a system to increase 
     program participation of underserved populations of eligible 
     children; and
       ``(12) coordinating activities and collaborating to ensure 
     that curricula used in the Head Start program is aligned 
     with--

[[Page 21109]]

       ``(A) State early learning standards with regard to 
     cognitive, social, emotional, and physical competencies that 
     children entering kindergarten are expected to demonstrate; 
     and
       ``(B) the Head Start Child Outcomes Framework developed by 
     the Secretary.''.

     SEC. 12. ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS AND STANDARDS.

       Section 644 of the Head Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9839(f)(2)) is 
     amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) by inserting ``(1) Standards.--'' after ``(a)''; and
       (B) by inserting after the 3d sentence the following:
       ``(2) Annual report.--Each Head Start agency shall make 
     available to the public a report published at least once in 
     each fiscal year that discloses the following information 
     from the then most recently concluded fiscal year, except 
     that reporting such information shall not reveal personally 
     identifiable information about an individual child:
       ``(A) The total amount of public and private funds received 
     and the amount from each source.
       ``(B) An explanation of budgetary expenditures and proposed 
     budget for the following fiscal year.
       ``(C) The total number of children and families served and 
     percent of average monthly enrollment, including the percent 
     of eligible children served.
       ``(D) The results of the most recent review by the 
     Secretary and the financial audit.
       ``(E) The percentage of enrolled children that received 
     medical and dental exams.
       ``(F) Information about parent involvement activities.
       ``(G) The agency's efforts to prepare children for 
     kindergarten.
       ``(H) Any other information that describes the activities 
     of the agency.
       ``(3) Procedural conduct.--''; and
       (2) in subsection (f)(2)
       (A) by redesignating subparagraphs (A) through (E) as 
     subparagraphs (B) through (F), respectively; and
       (B) by inserting before subparagraph (B), as so 
     redesignated, the following:
       ``(A) a description of the consultation conducted by the 
     Head Start agency with the providers in the community 
     demonstrating capacity and capability to provide services 
     under this subchapter, and of the potential for collaboration 
     with such providers and the cost effectiveness of such 
     collaboration as opposed to the cost effectiveness of the 
     purchase of a facility;''.

     SEC. 13. ELIGIBILITY.

       Section 645(a) of the Head Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9840) is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)--
       (A) in subparagraph (B)(i)--
       (i) by striking ``to a reasonable extent'' and inserting 
     ``not to exceed 10 percent of the total enrollment'';
       (ii) by striking ``benefit from such programs'' and 
     inserting ``benefit from such programs, including children 
     referred by child welfare services,''; and
       (iii) by inserting ``(a homeless child shall be deemed to 
     meet the low-income criteria)'' before the semicolon; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) The amount of a basic allowance provided under 
     section 403 of title 37, United States Code, on behalf of an 
     individual who is a member of the uniformed services for 
     housing that is acquired or constructed under the authority 
     of subchapter IV of chapter 169 of title 10, United States 
     Code, or any other related provision of law, shall not be 
     considered to be income for purposes of determining the 
     eligibility of a child of the individual for programs 
     assisted under this subchapter.''.

     SEC. 14. EARLY HEAD START PROGRAMS.

       (a) In General.--Section 645A(b) of the Head Start Act (42 
     U.S.C. 9840a(b)) is amended--
       (1) by amending paragraphs (4) and (5) to read as follows:
       ``(4) provide services to parents to support their role as 
     parents (including parenting skills training and training in 
     basic child development) and to help the families move toward 
     self-sufficiency (including educational and employment 
     services as appropriate);
       ``(5) coordinate services with services (including home-
     based services) provided by programs in the State and 
     programs in the community (including programs for infants and 
     toddlers with disabilities and programs for homeless infants 
     and toddlers) to ensure a comprehensive array of services 
     (such as health and mental health services, and family 
     support services);'';
       (2) by amending paragraph (8) to read as follows:
       ``(8) ensure formal linkages with the agencies and entities 
     described in section 644(b) of the Individuals with 
     Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1444(b)) and providers 
     of early intervention services for infants and toddlers with 
     disabilities under the Individuals with Disabilities 
     Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq.) and the agency 
     responsible for administering section 106 of the Child Abuse 
     Prevention and Treatment Act (42 U.S.C. 5106a);'';
       (3) by redesignating paragraph (9) as paragraph (11); and
       (4) by inserting after paragraph (8) the following:
       ``(9) develop and implement a systematic procedure for 
     transitioning children and parents from an Early Head Start 
     program into a Head Start program or another local early 
     childhood education program;
       ``(10) establish channels of communication between staff of 
     Early Head Start programs and staff of Head Start programs or 
     other local early childhood education programs, to facilitate 
     the coordination of programs; and''.
       (b) Migrant and Seasonal Programs; Community- and Faith-
     Based Organizations.--Section 645A(d) of the Head Start Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 9840a(d)) is amended--
       (1) by amending paragraph (1) to read as follows:
       ``(1) entities operating Head Start programs under this 
     subpart, including migrant and seasonal Head Start programs; 
     and''; and
       (2) in paragraph (2) by inserting ``, including community- 
     and faith-based organizations'' after ``entities'' the 2d 
     place it appears.
       (c) Training and Technical Assistance Account.--Section 
     645A(g)(2)(B) of the Head Start Act (42 U.S.C. 
     9640a(g)(2)(B)) is amended--
       (1) in clause (iii) by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) in clause (iv) by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(v) providing professional development designed to 
     increase program participation for underserved populations of 
     eligible children.''.
       (d) Center-Based Staff.--Section 645A of the Head Start Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 9840a) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(h) Center-Based Staff.--The Secretary shall ensure that, 
     not later than September 30, 2008, all teachers providing 
     direct services to children and families participating in 
     Early Head Start programs located in Early Head Start centers 
     have a minimum of a child development associate credential or 
     an associate degree, and have been trained (or have 
     equivalent course work) in early childhood development.''.

     SEC. 15. PARENTAL CONSENT REQUIREMENT FOR NONEMERGENCY 
                   INTRUSIVE PHYSICAL EXAMINATIONS.

       The Head Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9831 et seq.) is amended by 
     inserting after section 645A the following:

     ``SEC. 645B. PARENTAL CONSENT REQUIREMENT FOR NONEMERGENCY 
                   INTRUSIVE PHYSICAL EXAMINATIONS.

       ``(a) Definition.--The term `nonemergency intrusive 
     physical examination' means, with respect to a child, a 
     physical examination that--
       ``(1) is not immediately necessary to protect the health or 
     safety of such child, or the health or safety of another 
     individual; and
       ``(2) includes incision or is otherwise invasive, or 
     includes exposure of private body parts.
       ``(b) Requirement.--Before administering any health care 
     service (including any nonemergency intrusive physical 
     examination) to a child (or referring such child to obtain 
     such service) in connection with participation in a program 
     under this subchapter, a Head Start agency and an entity that 
     receives assistance under section 645A shall obtain the 
     written consent of a parent of such child.
       ``(c) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section shall 
     be construed to prohibit a Head Start agency or an entity 
     that receives assistance under section 645A from using 
     established methods, for handling cases of suspected or known 
     child abuse and neglect, that are in compliance with 
     applicable Federal, State, or tribal law.''.

     SEC. 16. RIGHT TO APPEAL.

       Section 646(a)(3) of the Head Start Act (42 U.S.C. 
     9841(a)(3)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(3) if financial assistance under this subchapter is 
     terminated or reduced, an application for a noncompeting 
     continuation award is denied based on a previous failure to 
     comply with terms applicable to financial assistance 
     previously provided this subchapter, or suspension of 
     financial assistance is continued for more than 30 days, the 
     recipient with respect to whom such action is taken shall 
     have the opportunity to appeal such action in accordance with 
     such procedures, except that no funds made available under 
     this subchapter may be used to reimburse any such recipient 
     for legal fees and other costs incurred in pursuing such an 
     appeal;''.

     SEC. 17. AUDITS.

       Section 647 of the Head Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9842) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(c)(1) Not later than 180 days after the end of each 
     fiscal year, each Head Start agency, and each entity that 
     receives assistance under section 645A, shall submit to the 
     Secretary an independent financial audit of the Head Start 
     program carried out with financial assistance provided under 
     this subchapter. Such audit shall be carried out by a 
     certified public accountant selected through a competitive 
     process from among qualified certified accountants by the 
     local oversight board established in accordance with section 
     642(b)(4) by such agency, except that no accountant may 
     perform audits of such program for a period exceeding 5 
     consecutive fiscal years.
       ``(2) Not later than 60 days after receiving such audit, 
     the Secretary shall provide to such agency or such entity, 
     and to the chief executive officer of the State in which such 
     program is operated, a notice identifying the actions such 
     agency or such entity is required to take to correct all 
     deficiencies identified in such audit.
       ``(d) Each recipient of financial assistance under this 
     subchapter shall--
       ``(1) maintain, and annually submit to the Secretary, a 
     complete accounting of its administrative expenses (including 
     a detailed statement identifying the amount of financial 
     assistance provided under this subchapter used to pay 
     expenses for salaries and compensation and the amount (if 
     any) of other funds used to pay such expenses); and
       ``(2) provide such additional documentation as the 
     Secretary may require.''.

     SEC. 18. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND TRAINING.

       (a) Allocation of Resources.--Section 648(c) of the Head 
     Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9843(c)) is amended--

[[Page 21110]]

       (1) in paragraph (2) by inserting ``and for activities 
     described in section 1221(b)(3) of the Elementary and 
     Secondary Education Act of 1965'' after ``disabilities'' ; 
     and
       (2) in paragraph (5) by inserting ``, including the needs 
     of homeless children and their families'' after 
     ``assessment'';
       (3) in paragraph (10) by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (4) in paragraph (11) by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting a semicolon; and
       (5) by adding the following at the end:
       ``(12) assist Head Start agencies and programs in 
     increasing program participation of homeless children; and
       ``(13) assist Head Start agencies and Head Start programs 
     in improving outreach to, and the quality of services 
     available to, limited English proficient children and their 
     families, particularly in communities that have experienced a 
     large percentage increase in the population of limited 
     English proficient individuals, as measured by the Bureau of 
     the Census.''.
       (b) Training in Use of Media.--Section 648(d) of the Head 
     Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9843(d)) is amended by inserting ``, 
     including community- and faith-based organizations'' after 
     ``entities'' the first place such term appears.
       (c) Child Development and National Assessment Program.--
     Section 648(e) of the Head Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9843(e)) is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(e) The Secretary shall provide, either directly or 
     through grants or other arrangements, funds from programs 
     authorized under this subchapter to support an organization 
     to administer a centralized child development and national 
     assessment program leading to recognized credentials for 
     personnel working in early childhood development and child 
     care programs, training for personnel providing services to 
     limited English proficient children (including services to 
     promote the acquisition of the English language), training 
     for personnel providing services to children determined to be 
     abused or neglected, training for personnel providing 
     services to children referred by or receiving child welfare 
     services, training for personnel in helping children cope 
     with community violence, and resource access projects for 
     personnel working with disabled children.''.
       (d) Addressing Unique Needs.--Section 648 of the Head Start 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 9843) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(f) The Secretary shall provide, either directly or 
     through grants, or other arrangements, funds for training of 
     Head Start personnel in addressing the unique needs of 
     migrant and seasonal working families, families with a 
     limited English proficiency, and homeless families.
       ``(g) More than 50 percent of funds expended under this 
     section shall be used to provide high quality, sustained, 
     intensive, and classroom-focused training and technical 
     assistance in order to have a positive and lasting impact on 
     classroom instruction. Funds shall be used to carry out 
     activities related to any or all of the following:
       ``(1) Education and early childhood development.
       ``(2) Child health, nutrition, and safety.
       ``(3) Family and community partnerships.
       ``(4) Other areas that impact the quality or overall 
     effectiveness of Head Start programs.
       ``(h) Funds under this subchapter used for training shall 
     be used for needs identified annually by a grant applicant or 
     delegate agency in their program improvement plan, except 
     that funds shall not be used for long-distance travel 
     expenses for training activities available locally or 
     regionally or for training activities substantially similar 
     to locally or regionally available training activities.
       ``(i)(1) The Secretary shall work in collaboration with the 
     Head Start agencies that carry out migrant and seasonal Head 
     Start programs, State Directors of Head Start Collaboration, 
     the migrant and seasonal Head Start collatoration director, 
     and other appropriate entities--
       ``(A) to accurately determine the number of children 
     nationwide who are eligible to participate in migrant and 
     seasonal Head Start programs each year;
       ``(B) to document how many of these children are receiving 
     Head Start services each year; and
       ``(C) to the extent practicable, to ensure that access to 
     migrant and seasonal Head Start programs for eligible 
     children is comparable to access to other Head Start programs 
     for other eligible children;
       ``(2) In carrying out paragraph (1)(A), the Secretary shall 
     consult with the Secretary of Education about the Department 
     of Education's systems for collecting and reporting data 
     about, and maintaining records on, students from migrant and 
     seasonal farmworker families.
       ``(3) Not later than 9 months after the effective date of 
     this subsection, the Secretary shall publish in the Federal 
     Register a notice of how the Secretary plans to carry out 
     paragraph (1) and shall provide a period for public comment. 
     To the extent practicable, the Secretary shall consider 
     comments received before submitting a report to the Congress.
       ``(4) Not later than 1 year after the effective date of 
     this subsection, the Secretary shall submit a report to the 
     Committee on Education and the Workforce of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Health, Education, 
     Labor, and Pensions of the Senate, detailing how the 
     Department of Health and Human Services plans to carry out 
     paragraph (1).
       ``(5) The Secretary shall submit annually a report to the 
     Congress detailing the number of children of migrant and 
     seasonal farmworkers, who are eligible to participate in Head 
     Start programs and the number of such children who are 
     enrolled in Head Start programs.
       ``(6) The Secretary shall take appropriate action, 
     consistent with section 444 of the General Education 
     Provisions Act, to ensure the protection of the 
     confidentiality of any personally identifiable data, 
     information, and records collected or maintained by the 
     Secretary, by Head Start agencies that carry out migrant and 
     seasonal Head Start programs, by State Directors of Head 
     Start Collaboration, by the Migrant and Seasonal Farmworker 
     Collaboration Project Director, and by other appropriate 
     entities pursuant to this subsection.
       ``(7) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to 
     authorize the development of a nationwide database of 
     personally identifiable information on individuals involved 
     in studies or other collections of data under this 
     subsection.
       ``(j) For purposes of this section, the term `eligible 
     entities' means an institution of higher education or other 
     entity with expertise in delivering training in early 
     childhood development, family support, and other assistance 
     designed to improve the delivery of Head Start services.''.

     SEC. 19. STAFF QUALIFICATIONS AND DEVELOPMENT.

       (a) Classroom Teachers.--Section 648A(a)(2) of the Head 
     Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9843a(a)(2)) is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(2) Degree requirements.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall ensure that not 
     later than September 30, 2011, at least 50 percent of all 
     Head Start teachers nationwide in center-based programs 
     have--
       ``(i) a baccalaureate or advanced degree in early childhood 
     education; or
       ``(ii) a baccalaureate or advanced degree in a field 
     related to early childhood education, with experience in 
     teaching preschool children.
       ``(B) Progress.--Each Head Start agency shall provide to 
     the Secretary a report indicating the number and percentage 
     of classroom instructors with child development associate 
     credentials and associate, baccalaureate, or advanced 
     degrees. The Secretary shall compile all program reports and 
     make them available to the Committee on Education and the 
     Workforce of the United States House of Representatives and 
     the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions of 
     the United States Senate.
       ``(C) Requirement for new head start teachers.--Within 3 
     years after the effective date of this subparagraph, the 
     Secretary shall require that all Head Start teachers 
     nationwide in center-based programs hired following the 
     effective date of this subparagraph--
       ``(i) have an associate, baccalaureate, or advanced degree 
     in early childhood education or a related field; or
       ``(ii) be currently enrolled in a program of study leading 
     to an associate degree in early childhood education and agree 
     to complete degree requirements within 3 years from the date 
     of hire.
       ``(D) Service requirements.--The Secretary shall establish 
     requirements to ensure that individuals who receive financial 
     assistance under this subchapter in order to comply with the 
     requirements under section 648A(a)(2) shall subsequently 
     teach in a Head Start center for a period of time equivalent 
     to the period for which they received assistance or repay the 
     amount of the funds.
       ``(E) Limitation.--The Secretary shall require that any 
     Federal funds provided directly or indirectly to comply with 
     subparagraph (A) shall be used toward degrees awarded by an 
     institution of higher education, as defined by sections 101 
     or 102 of the Higher Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1001-1002).''.
       (b) Classroom Teachers.--Section 648A of the Head Start Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 9843a) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(f) Professional Development Plans.--Each Head Start 
     agency and program shall create, in consultation with an 
     employee, a professional development plan for all full-time 
     employees who provide direct services to children.''.

     SEC. 20. RESEARCH, DEMONSTRATIONS, AND EVALUATION.

       (a) New Ideas and Approaches.--Section 649(a)(1)(B) of the 
     Head Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9844(a)(1)(B)) is amended to read 
     as follows:
       ``(B) use the Head Start programs to develop, test, and 
     disseminate new ideas and approaches based on existing 
     scientifically based research, for addressing the needs of 
     low-income preschool children (including children with 
     disabilities and children determined to be abused or 
     neglected) and their families and communities (including 
     demonstrations of innovative non-center based program models 
     such as home-based and mobile programs), and otherwise to 
     further the purposes of this subchapter.''.
       (b) Study.--Section 649(d) of the Head Start Act (42 U.S.C. 
     9844(d) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (7) by adding ``and'' at the end;
       (2) in paragraph (8) by striking the semicolon and 
     inserting a period;
       (3) by striking paragraph (9); and
       (4) by striking the last sentence.
       (c) Expert Panel.--Section 649(g) of the Head Start Act (42 
     U.S.C. 9844(g)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)(A)--
       (A) by striking clause (i); and
       (B) by redesignating clauses (ii) and (iii) as clauses (i) 
     and (ii), respectively; and
       (2) in paragraph (7)(C)(i) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(i) Not later than September 30, 2007, the Secretary 
     shall transmit to the committees specified in clause (ii) the 
     final report.''.
       (d) NAS Study.--Section 649(h) of the Head Start Act (42 
     U.S.C. 9844(h)) is amended to read as follows:

[[Page 21111]]

       ``(h) NAS Study.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall use funds allocated 
     in section 640(a)(2)(C)(iii) to contract with the National 
     Academy of Sciences for the Board on Children, Youth, and 
     Families of the National Research Council to establish an 
     independent panel of experts to review and synthesize 
     research, theory and applications in the social, behavioral 
     and biological sciences and to make recommendations on early 
     childhood pedagogy with regard to each of the following:
       ``(A) Age and developmentally appropriate Head Start 
     academic requirements and outcomes, including the domains in 
     641A(a)(B).
       ``(B) Differences in the type, length, mix and intensity of 
     services necessary to ensure that children from challenging 
     family and social backgrounds including: low-income children, 
     children of color, children with special needs, and children 
     with limited English proficiency enter kindergarten ready to 
     succeed.
       ``(C) Appropriate assessments of young children (including 
     systematic observation assessment in a child's natural 
     environment, and parent and provider interviews) for purposes 
     of improving instruction, services, and program quality, and 
     accommodations for children with disabilities and appropriate 
     assessments for children with special needs (including needs 
     related to the acquisition of the English language).
       ``(D) An evaluation of the current and appropriate uses of 
     the National Reporting System developed by the Secretary.
       ``(2) Composition.--The panel shall consist of multiple 
     experts in each of the following areas:
       ``(A) Child development and education, including cognitive, 
     social, emotional, physical, approaches to learning, and 
     other domains of child development and learning.
       ``(B) Professional development, including teacher 
     preparation, to individuals who teach young children in 
     programs.
       ``(C) Assessment of young children, including screening, 
     diagnostic and classroom-based instructional assessment; 
     children with special needs, including children with 
     disabilities and limited English proficient children.
       ``(3) Timing.--The National Academy of Sciences and the 
     Board shall establish the panel not later than 90 days after 
     the date of the enactment of the School Readiness Act of 
     2005. The panel shall complete its recommendations within 18 
     months of its convening.
       ``(4) Application of panel recommendations.--The 
     recommendations of the panel shall be used as guidelines by 
     the Secretary to develop, inform and revise, where 
     appropriate, the Head Start education performance measures 
     and standards and the assessments utilized in the Head Start 
     program.''.
       (e) Study of Status of Limited English Proficient 
     Children.--Section 649 of the Head Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9844) 
     is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(i) Limited English Proficient Children.--
       ``(1) Study.-- Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of the School Readiness Act of 2005, the Secretary 
     shall conduct a study on the status of limited English 
     proficient children and their families in Head Start programs 
     and Early Head Start programs.
       ``(2) Report.--The Secretary shall prepare and submit to 
     Congress, not later than September 2008, a report containing 
     the results of such study, including information on--
       ``(A)(i) the demographics of limited English proficient 
     children less than 5 years of age and the geographical 
     distribution of such children; and
       ``(ii) the number of such children receiving Head Start 
     services and the number of such children receiving Early Head 
     Start services, and the geographical distribution of such 
     children receiving such services;
       ``(B) the nature of the Head Start services and of the 
     Early Head Start services provided to limited English 
     proficient children and their families, including the types, 
     content, duration, intensity, and costs of family services, 
     language assistance, and educational services;
       ``(C) procedures in Head Start programs for assessing 
     language needs and for making the transition of limited 
     English proficient children to kindergarten, including the 
     extent to which Head Start programs meet the requirements of 
     section 642A for limited English proficient children;
       ``(D) the qualifications and training provided to Head 
     Start teachers and Early Head Start teachers who serve 
     limited English proficient children and their families;
       ``(E) the rate of progress made by limited English 
     proficient children and their families in Head Start programs 
     and in Early Head Start programs, including--
       ``(i) the rate of progress made by limited English 
     proficient children toward meeting the additional educational 
     standards described in section 641A(a)(1)(B)(ii) while 
     enrolled in Head Start programs;
       ``(ii) the correlation between such progress and the type 
     and quality of instruction and educational programs provided 
     to limited English proficient children; and
       ``(iii) the correlation between such progress and the 
     health and family services provided by Head Start programs to 
     limited English proficient children and their families; and
       ``(F) the extent to which Head Start programs make use of 
     funds under section 640(a)(3) to improve the quality of Head 
     Start services provided to limited English proficient 
     children and their families.''.

     SEC. 21. REPORTS.

       (a) Report.--Section 650(a) of the Head Start Act (42 
     U.S.C. 9845(a)) is amended--
       (1) by amending the first sentence to read as follows:

     ``At least once during every 2-year period, the Secretary 
     shall prepare and submit, to the Committee on Education and 
     the Workforce of the House of Representatives and the 
     Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions of the 
     Senate, a report concerning the status of children (including 
     disabled, homeless, and limited English proficient children) 
     in Head Start programs, including the number of children and 
     the services being provided to such children.''; and
       (2) in paragraph (8) by inserting ``, homelessness'' after 
     ``background''.
       (b) National Reporting System.--Section 650 of the Head 
     Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9845) is amended by adding at the end 
     the following:
       ``(c) National Reporting System.--The Secretary shall 
     submit annually to the Committee on Education and the 
     Workforce of the House of Representatives and the Committee 
     on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions of the Senate, a 
     report on the status of the National Reporting System 
     developed by the Secretary. Such report shall include--
       ``(1) information on all contracts, grants, and expenses 
     relating to the development and implementation of the 
     National Reporting System;
       ``(2) information described in section 641A(b)(3)(B); and
       ``(3) a description of the recommendations made by the 
     Technical Working Group, including issues of the technical 
     adequacy, purpose, and administration of the System, and an 
     explanation of how the Secretary plans to address these 
     recommendations.''.

     SEC. 22. LIMITATION ON RATE OF FEDERAL FUNDING FOR 
                   COMPENSATION.

       Section 653 of the Head Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9848) is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking the heading;
       (2) by striking ``Sec. 653. The'' and inserting the 
     following:

     ``SEC. 653. WAGES AND COMPENSATION.

       ``(a) Comparability of Wages.--The''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(b) Federal Rate Limitation.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, no Federal funds shall be used to pay all 
     or any part of the compensation of an individual employed by 
     a Head Start agency in carrying out programs under this 
     subchapter, either as direct or indirect costs or any 
     proration thereof, at a rate in excess of the rate then 
     payable for level II of the Executive Schedule under section 
     5316 of title 5, United States Code.''.

     SEC. 23. LIMITATION ON USE OF FUNDS.

       The Head Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9831 et seq.) is amended by 
     inserting after section 656 the following:

     ``SEC. 656A. LIMITATION ON CERTAIN USES OF FUNDS.

       ``No funds made available to carry out this subchapter may 
     be used--
       ``(1) for publicity or propaganda purposes not heretofore 
     authorized by the Congress; or
       ``(2) unless authorized by law in effect on the effective 
     date of this section, to produce any prepackaged news story 
     intended for broadcast or distribution unless such story 
     includes a clear notification contained within the text or 
     audio of such story stating that the prepackaged news story 
     was prepared or funded by the Department of Health and Human 
     Services.''.

     SEC. 24. CONFORMING AMENDMENT.

       Section 641A(a)(2)(A) of the Head Start Act (42 U.S.C. 
     9836a(a)(2)(A)) is amended by striking ``non-English language 
     background'' and inserting ``limited English proficient''.

     SEC. 25. EFFECTIVE DATE; APPLICATION OF AMENDMENTS.

       (a) General Effective Date.--Except as provided in 
     subsections (b) and (c), this Act and the amendments made by 
     this Act shall take effect on the date of the enactment of 
     this Act.
       (b) Application of Amendments.--The amendments made by this 
     Act shall not apply with respect to any fiscal year that 
     begins before the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (c) Priority in the Designation of Head Start Agencies.--
       (1) Effective date.--Section 641(c), as amended by section 
     7(b) of this Act, shall take effect exactly twelve months 
     from the date of the enactment of this Act, except for 
     section 641(c)(5), which shall take effect on the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.
       (2) Implementation rule.--For purposes of carrying out 
     section 641(c) of the Head Start Act, as amended by section 
     7(b) of this Act, the Secretary may only consider the 
     performance of a Head Start program in meeting the 
     requirements described in section 641(c) of the Head Start 
     Act, as amended by section 7(b) of this Act, from the date of 
     enactment of this Act, except any performance that 
     constitutes a deficiency since the then most recent 
     designation.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. No amendment to the committee amendment is in 
order except those printed in House Report 109-229. Each amendment may 
be offered only in the order printed in the report, by a Member 
designated in the report, shall be considered read, shall be debatable 
for the time specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by 
the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and 
shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question.
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in House 
Report 109-229.


                 Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Castle

  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

[[Page 21112]]

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Castle:
       Page 8, line 23, insert ``and''.
       Page 9, line 2, strike ``and''.
       Page 9, strike lines 3 and 4.
       Page 9, line 15, before the semicolon insert ``, as 
     appropriate''.
       Page 12, line 10, strike the closing quotation mark and the 
     period that follows.
       Page 12, after line 10, insert the following:
       ``(27) the term `auditor' means a certified public 
     accountant or a Federal, State, or local government audit 
     organization, which meets the general standards specified in 
     generally accepted government auditing standards.''.
       Page 13, line 25, insert ``(including under any decision 
     made by the Secretary under clause (ii) or (iv))'' before the 
     semicolon.
       Page 14, line 10, strike ``648(j)'' and insert ``648(i)''.
       Page 15, line 2, after ``children'' insert ``based on the 
     data collected, and in accordance with the requirements of, 
     section 648(i), except that no future reduction in funding 
     shall result in the termination of Head Start services 
     provided to any eligible child 3 years of age or older who is 
     participating in any such program on the date a reduction in 
     funding occurs, and shall, to the extent possible, continue 
     participation for children less than 3 years of age receiving 
     services prior to such reduction in funding''.
       Page 26, line 22, strike ``and''.
       Page 28, line 9, insert ``, other State and local agencies 
     administering the State prekindergarten program, as 
     applicable,''.
       Page 35, line 3, insert ``and developmentally'' after 
     ``age''.
       Page 37, line 1, strike ``Progress'' and insert 
     ``progress''.
       Page 38, line 13, strike ``research,'' and insert 
     ``research''.
       Page 40, line 10, after ``health,'' insert ``providers of 
     early childhood education,''.
       Page 46, line 25, before the semicolon insert ``, including 
     private entities and charter schools offering pre-
     kindergarten''.
       Page 49, line 7, strike ``and'' after the semicolon.
       Page 49, after line 7, insert the following:
       ``(VI) approaches to learning related to child development 
     and early learning; and
       Page 49, line 8, strike ``(VI)'' and insert ``(VII)''.
       Page 54, line 12, before the semicolon insert ``as 
     appropriate''.
       Page 62, beginning in line 11, strike ``the program of a 
     Head Start agency,'' and insert ``a Head Start program,'' .
       Page 62, beginning in line 13, strike ``and reported by the 
     agency (as required in paragraph (2))''.
       Page 67, line 9, strike ``and (5)'' and insert ``(5), and 
     (6)''.
       Page 67, line 16, strike ``by,'' and insert ``by''.
       Page 69, line 1, strike ``(6)'' and insert ``(7)''.
       Page 72, line 14, after ``chair of'' insert ``(or the 
     designee of the chair, approved by)''.
       Page 74, line 2, insert ``except when the auditor is 
     assigned by the State under State law'' before the semicolon.
       Page 76, line 2, strike ``committee'' and insert 
     ``council''.
       Page 76, line 3, strike ``committee'' and insert 
     ``council''.
       Page 80, line 13, insert ``to'' before ``refer''.
       Page 80, line 15, insert ``To'' before ``provide''.
       Page 85, beginning in line 6, strike ``as appropriate'' and 
     insert ``, as appropriate,''.
       Page 86, line 6, strike ``socio-emotional skills,'' and 
     insert ``socio-emotional development,''.
       Page 87, after line 20, insert the following:

     SEC. 10. HEAD START ALIGNMENT WITH K-12 EDUCATION.

       Section 642A of the Head Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9837a) is 
     amended--
       (1) by amending the heading to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 642A. HEAD START ALIGNMENT WITH K-12 EDUCATION.'';

       (2) in paragraph (2)--
       (A) by inserting ``ongoing'' after ``establishing''; and
       (B) by inserting ``McKinney-Vento liaisons as established 
     under section 722 (g)(1)(J)(ii) of the McKinney-Vento 
     Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11432(g)(1)(J)(ii)),'' 
     after ``social workers,'';
       (3) by redesignating paragraphs (3) through (7) as 
     paragraphs (5) through (9), respectively; and
       (4) by inserting the following after paragraph (2):
       ``(3) developing continuity of developmentally appropriate 
     curricula between Head Start and local educational agencies 
     to ensure an effective transition and appropriate shared 
     expectations for children's learning and development as they 
     make such transition to school;
       ``(4) organizing and participating in joint training, 
     including transition-related training for school staff and 
     Head Start staff;'';
       (5) by amending paragraph (7), as so redesignated, to read 
     as follows:
       ``(7) developing and implementing a family outreach and 
     support program in cooperation with entities carrying out 
     parental involvement efforts under title I of the Elementary 
     and Secondary Education Act of 1965 and family outreach and 
     support efforts under subtitle B of title VII of the 
     McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11431-
     11435);'';
       (6) in paragraph (8), as so redesignated--
       (A) by inserting ``and continuity in parental involvement 
     activities'' after ``developmental continuity''; and
       (B) by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (7) by amending paragraph (9), as so redesignated, to read 
     as follows:
       ``(9) linking the services provided in such Head Start 
     program with the education services, including services 
     relating to language, literacy, and numeracy, provided by 
     such local educational agency;''; and
       (8) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(10) helping parents (including grandparents and kinship 
     caregivers, as appropriate) to understand the importance of 
     parental involvement in a child's academic success while 
     teaching them strategies for maintaining parental involvement 
     as their child moves from Head Start to elementary school;
       ``(11) developing and implementing a system to increase 
     program participation of underserved populations of eligible 
     children; and
       ``(12) coordinating activities and collaborating to ensure 
     that curricula used in the Head Start program is aligned 
     with--
       ``(A) State early learning standards with regard to 
     cognitive, social, emotional, and physical competencies that 
     children entering kindergarten are expected to demonstrate; 
     and
       ``(B) the Head Start Child Outcomes Framework developed by 
     the Secretary.''.
       Page 87, line 21, strike ``10'' and insert ``11''.
       Page 88, line 10, strike ``Standards'' and insert 
     ``standards''.
       Page 90, line 21, after ``into'' insert ``within 30 days''.
       Page 96, strike line 6 and all that follows through page 
     98, line 21.
       Page 105, strike line 6 and all that follows through page 
     106, line 3, and insert the following:

     ``SEC. 645B. PARENTAL CONSENT REQUIREMENT FOR HEALTH CARE 
                   SERVICES, INCLUDING NONEMERGENCY INTRUSIVE 
                   PHYSICAL EXAMINATIONS.

       ``(a) Definitions.--For purposes of this section:
       ``(1) The term `health care service' includes--
       ``(A) any nonemergency intrusive physical examination; and
       ``(B) any screening, included but not limited to, a 
     medical, dental, developmental, mental health, social, or 
     behavioral screening.
       ``(2) The term `nonemergency intrusive physical 
     examination' means, with respect to a child, a physical 
     examination that--
       ``(A) is not immediately necessary to protect the health or 
     safety of such child, or the health or safety of another 
     individual; and
       ``(B) includes incision or is otherwise invasive, or 
     includes exposure of private body parts.
       ``(b) Requirement.--Before administering any health care 
     service to a child (or referring a child to obtain such 
     service) in connection with participation in a program under 
     this subchapter, a Head Start agency or an entity that 
     receives assistance under section 645A shall obtain the 
     informed written consent of a parent of such child indicating 
     consent for each specific health care service to be 
     performed.
       ``(c) Rules of Construction.--
       ``(1) Nothing in this section shall be construed to 
     prohibit a Head Start agency or an entity that receives 
     assistance under section 645A from using established methods 
     for handling cases of suspected or known child abuse or 
     neglect that are in compliance with applicable Federal, 
     State, or tribal law.
       ``(2) Nothing in this subchapter shall be construed to 
     permit a Head Start agency, an entity that receives 
     assistance under section 645A, or the personnel of such 
     agency or entity to administer any health care service to a 
     child (or to refer a child to obtain such service) without 
     the informed written consent of a parent of such child 
     indicating consent for each specific health care service to 
     be performed.
       ``(3) Nothing in this section shall be construed to require 
     a Head Start agency or an entity that receives assistance 
     under section 645A to provide separate consent forms for each 
     specific health care service.''.
       Page 106, line 20 through page 108 line 2, strike section 
     17 and insert the following:

     SEC. 17. AUDITS.

       Section 647 of the Head Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9842) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(c)(1) Not later than 270 days after the end of each 
     fiscal year, each Head Start agency and each entity that 
     receives assistance under section 645A shall, with financial 
     assistance provided by this subchapter--
       ``(A) undergo a single audit under the requirements of the 
     Single Audit Act and submit its financial statement audit and 
     compliance audit of Federal assistance to the Secretary and 
     to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse an independent financial 
     audit of the Head Start program if subject to the Single 
     Audit Act Amendments of 1996; or

[[Page 21113]]

       ``(B) undergo a financial statement audit in accordance 
     with the generally accepted government auditing standards 
     issued by the American Institute of Certified Public 
     Accountants and Government Auditing Standards issued by the 
     Comptroller General of the United States, if not subject to 
     the Single Audit Act.
       ``(2) Audits described in subparagraph (A) and (B) shall be 
     carried out by an auditor selected through a competitive 
     process by the board described in section 642(b)(4) except 
     when conducted by the State auditor as required by State law.
       ``(3) No audit partner shall perform audits of such agency 
     for a period exceeding 5 consecutive fiscal years except when 
     such agency notifies the Secretary that rotation is not 
     possible because an alternate audit partner is not available 
     or would present a significant challenge to the agency.
       ``(4) Not later than 60 days after receiving such audit, 
     the Secretary shall provide to such agency or such entity, 
     and to the chief executive officer of the State in which such 
     program is operated, a notice identifying the actions such 
     agency or such entity is required to take to correct all 
     deficiencies identified in such audit.
       ``(d) Each recipient of financial assistance under this 
     subchapter shall--
       ``(1) maintain, and annually submit to the Secretary, a 
     complete accounting of its administrative expenses (including 
     a detailed statement identifying the amount of financial 
     assistance provided under this subchapter used to pay 
     expenses for salaries and compensation and the amount (if 
     any) of other funds used to pay such expenses); and
       ``(2) provide such additional documentation as the 
     Secretary may require.''.
       Page 111, line 5, insert ``and Indian Head Start programs'' 
     after ``programs''.
       Page 111, line 6, insert ``the Indian Head Start 
     Collaboration Director,'' after ``Collaboration,''.
       Page 111, line 7, insert ``, including tribal governments'' 
     after ``appropriate entities''.
       Page 111, line 10, insert ``and Indian'' after 
     ``seasonal''.
       Page 111, line 15, insert ``and Indian'' after 
     ``seasonal''.
       Page 111, line 22, insert ``and American Indian and Alaska 
     Native students'' before the period.
       Page 112, line 14, insert ``American Indian and Alaska 
     Native children'' after ``farmworkers,''.
       Page 112, line 22, insert ``and Indian'' after 
     ``seasonal''.
       Page 113, line 1, insert ``by the Indian Head Start 
     Collaboration Project Director,'' after ``Director,''.
       Page 116, line 20, strike ``(7)'' and insert ``(8)''.
       Page 116, line 22, strike ``(8)'' and insert ``(9)''.
       Page 116, line 24, strike ``(9)'' and insert ``(10)''.
       Page 122, line 22, strike line 21 through page 123, line 6, 
     and insert the following:
       (1) by amending the first sentence to read as follows: ``At 
     least once during every 2-year period, the Secretary shall 
     prepare and submit, to the Committee on Education and the 
     Workforce of the House of Representatives and the Committee 
     on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions of the Senate, a 
     report concerning the status of children (including disabled, 
     homeless, and limited English proficient children) in Head 
     Start programs, including the number of children and the 
     services being provided to such children.''; and

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 455, the gentleman 
from Delaware (Mr. Castle) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle).

                              {time}  1315

  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I am pleased to offer this amendment which I indicated was drafted on 
a bipartisan basis. Specifically, the amendment would revise the 
financial audit language to ensure that financial audit requirements 
for Head Start programs are consistent with those required under the 
Single Audit Act Amendments of 1986; that it builds on parental consent 
requirements included in H.R. 2123 as reported, to further clarify that 
any health service available to children in Head Start may not be 
performed without the prior written consent of the parent; and included 
a number of technical and conforming amendments.
  To the best of our knowledge, there is no dispute about this, and the 
details of it can be discussed at further length if anybody wants.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I want to thank the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from 
Delaware (Mr. Castle), for his hard work on this bill. This language 
has been negotiated, and we have no objections to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Bass). The question is on the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 
printed in House Report 109-229.


                 Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Souder

  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. Souder:
       Strike page 71, line 22 through page 77, line 13, and 
     insert the following:
       ``(4) Implement a system of shared governance for oversight 
     of the Head Start program, which includes the following:
       ``(A) An independent board of directors selected from among 
     eligible individuals who shall serve on the board of 
     directors (or may designate an existing entity whose members 
     are eligible individuals, that shall be such board) for a 
     period not to exceed 5 years, except that board members who 
     oversee a public entity and who are selected by election (or 
     members of a board of a local educational agency or a local 
     council, appointed by an elected official or an official of a 
     general purpose local government), may serve for such period 
     as may be determined by the electing or appointing authority, 
     as the case may be. An individual who has a conflict of 
     interest is ineligible to serve as a member of the board of 
     directors. Members of the board of all nonpublic entities 
     shall include representatives of the local community 
     (including at least 1 member with significant financial 
     management or accounting experience and the chair of the 
     council described in section 642(b)(4)(B)). Additional 
     members shall be selected for their expertise in education, 
     business administration, community affairs, government, legal 
     affairs, and such other areas of expertise as may contribute 
     to effective governance of the Head Start agency. All members 
     of the board of directors shall adopt practices that assure 
     active, independent and informed governance of the Head Start 
     agency, including independent oversight of the financial and 
     management practices of such agency. The board of directors 
     shall provide direction to the executive director of the Head 
     Start agency and shall operate as an entity independent of 
     staff employed by the head Start agency, entity, or applicant 
     and have the following duties and responsibilities:
       ``(i) To provide independent oversight to ensure that the 
     Head Start agency under the direction of the executive 
     director is delivering high quality services to children and 
     families in compliance with all applicable standards in 
     effect under this subchapter and with the applicable 
     performance measures established by the Secretary under 
     section 644.
       ``(ii) To establish 1 or more standing committees to 
     facilitate governance of the Head Start agency which shall 
     include the following: an audit and finance committee whose 
     primary responsibility shall be--

       ``(I) to approve annually the operating budget of the Head 
     Start agency;
       ``(II) to review and recommend to the board of directors 
     the selection of independent auditors who shall report all 
     critical accounting policies and practices to the finance and 
     audit committee;
       ``(III) to review and recommend to the board of directors 
     the termination or extension of the existing audit firm at 
     least once every 5 years;
       ``(IV) to review and advise the board of directors of the 
     audit management letter provided pursuant to the chapter 75 
     of title 31 of the United States Code, and of any audit 
     findings; and
       ``(V) to monitor agency actions to correct any such audit 
     findings or other actions necessary to comply with applicable 
     laws (including regulations) governing financial statements 
     and accounting practices.

       ``(iii) To approve the selection and dismissal of the Head 
     Start director, and to review annually the human resources 
     available to ensure the effective operation of the Head Start 
     agency.
       ``(iv) To consult on a regular basis, with the policy 
     council and to take actions on recommendations submitted by 
     such council.
       ``(v) To review and approve the major operational policies 
     of the Head Start agency, including policies addressing 
     accounting, financial management, procurement, record 
     confidentiality, and personnel (including specific standards 
     governing salaries, salary adjustments, travel and per diem 
     allowances, and other employee benefits)
       ``(vi) To ensure that the Head Start agency is operated in 
     compliance with applicable

[[Page 21114]]

     Federal, State, and local laws (including regulations), and 
     to monitor agency implementation of any corrective action 
     necessary to comply with applicable laws (including 
     regulations);
       ``(vii) To oversee the program planning of the Head Start 
     agency, including adoption of the Head Start agency 
     philosophy and mission statement, adoption of policies for 
     determining community needs, setting long- and short-range 
     goals and objectives, establishment of criteria for selecting 
     families in Head Start programs or Early Head Start programs, 
     and to oversee and approve the agency's applications to 
     receive funds made available under this subchapter; and
       ``(viii) To establish, to adopt, and to periodically update 
     written standards of conduct that establish standards and 
     formal procedures for disclosing, addressing and resolving--

       ``(I) any conflict of interest, and any appearance of a 
     conflict of interest by board members, officers, employees, 
     consultants, and agents who provide services or furnish goods 
     to the Head Start agency; and
       ``(II) complaints, including investigations, when 
     appropriate.

       ``(ix) To develop processes, in consultation with the 
     policy council, to resolve internal disputes in the instance 
     when the board of directors and the policy council have 
     reached an impasse on an issue of dispute relative to matters 
     of joint governance.
       ``(x) In all matters of serious fiscal mismanagement, 
     fraud, or criminal activity, the board of directors will have 
     discretionary authority to act unilaterally without policy 
     council approval.
       ``(B) A policy council, a majority of whose representatives 
     shall be parents of children participating in a Head Start 
     program or in an Early Head Start program, or of children who 
     participated in an Early Head Start program in the then most 
     recent 5-year period preceding the selection of the 
     particular representative involved, and whose primary 
     responsibilities shall be to serve as a link between parents 
     and the board of directors and to share joint 
     responsibilities with the board of directors in making 
     recommendations and approving or disapproving the following 
     program planning and operation activities:
       ``(i) Program planning, including--

       ``(I) program design and management, including long and 
     short-term planning goals, all funding applications and 
     amendments to funding applications and objectives based on 
     the annual community assessment and self-assessment;
       ``(II) program recruitment, selection, and enrollment 
     priorities;
       ``(III) budget planning for program expenditures, including 
     policies for reimbursement and participation in policy 
     council activities; and
       ``(IV) the operating budget of the Head Start agency.

       ``(ii) Program operation policies, including standards of 
     conduct for program staff and volunteers, and policies 
     governing employment and dismissal of program staff.
       ``(iii) Selection and dismissal of the Head Start director 
     and program staff.
       ``(iv) Activities to support the active involvement of 
     parents in supporting program operations.
       ``(v) Classroom activities and staffing.
       ``(vi) Program responsiveness to community and parent 
     needs.
       ``(vii) Processes to resolve internal disputes in the 
     instance when the board of directors and the policy council 
     have reached an impasse on an issue of dispute relative to 
     matters of joint governance.
       ``(vii) Other areas the council identifies as necessary to 
     improve program operations.
       ``(C) Training for all members of the board of directors 
     and policy council in the management responsibilities and 
     obligations, ethics, and financial literacy and 
     management.''.
       Page 78, line 6, strike ``section 642(b)(4)(B)(ii)'' and 
     insert ``section 642(b)(4)(B)''.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 455, the gentleman 
from Indiana (Mr. Souder) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) 
each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder).
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, first I want to again thank the chairman for making my 
amendment in order. Let me give a very short history, and then I will 
elaborate a little further.
  After the Great Society was less than sensitive to many urban areas 
in the United States, empowerment movements developed in America, led 
actually by a leftist named Sal Olinsky, that said local people, when 
they are being displaced, ought to have more input into the decisions 
that are being made in their lives. This happened originally in Chicago 
and it is something that we are looking at doing in New Orleans in the 
name of empowerment.
  We saw, when the Republicans came to power in the 1980s and to the 
Presidency, President Reagan put Jack Kemp in charge of HUD, Housing 
and Urban Development, and we had tenant management and resident 
management moving to homeownership and we said, let the people make the 
decisions themselves. Sometimes it was messy. Sometimes we did not 
really like their decisions, just like sometimes we do not necessarily 
agree with the people who they elect to Congress; but we let the people 
make the decisions.
  Head Start, when it came in the 1970s as part of Richard Nixon's 
efforts to block grant, to give more local empowerment to react to the 
programs of the 1960s, the heart and soul of this program was to say, 
we are going to let the parents, in these preschool situations, in 
these low-income situations, we are going to let them make the 
decisions. It is not going to be like PTAs in schools where often they 
become fund-raising supplements and they are allowed to give their 
opinions, but they have no vote. We are going to let them actually 
vote. When you go into Head Start programs, they get to vote on what 
they are going to serve for lunch, they get to vote on the textbooks, 
they get to hire and fire the teachers.
  This bill, unfortunately, because of a broader concern about how to 
address some of the problems in Head Start, removes the voting rights, 
the actual powers of those parents. Not because of any GAO report. Not 
because the GAO report says there is a problem with the parents. There 
is no reference to the parents in the GAO report, other than one. It 
says the tips of financial mismanagement came from the parents. It is 
not because of the boards because, in the GAO report, the boards are 
only mentioned twice, because they had financial problems.
  The underlying part of the bill addresses the financial difficulties 
that we have, and we have added in our amendment to make sure that 
fraud is actually addressed because there the board has legal liability 
if there is fraud, but not what is being served for lunch or what 
textbook or even who is hired and fired. They have legal liability for 
fraud. That is already granted. But we made it clear that the board has 
the legal liability on fraud and they have the decision-making power on 
fraud.
  I somehow think that we have drifted into this policy that we think 
we know better than the people who are making the decisions themselves. 
How are we going to move ahead in New Orleans with this attitude? We 
cannot one week strip the number one empowerment program in America, 
and the next week say we are going to empower in New Orleans.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the amendment offered by my friend, the 
gentleman from Indiana, a member of our committee. It is over a very 
sensitive issue of how to deal with the parent councils. Under the 
current law, the current practice, these parent advisory councils have 
actually had veto authority over the decisions of the Head Start 
grantee.
  Now, there is no one in this House who believes more in empowering 
parents to be active participants with their children, active and 
empowered parents with Head Start programs. But we have seen a number 
of problems in Head Start programs, from financial abuses to very poor 
results for children; and the gentleman from California (Mr. George 
Miller) and I have worked closely to develop this bill and to develop 
this proposal that continues to allow parents to be actively involved.
  It still requires the grantees to urge parents to be involved; but we 
do it, though, in a strictly advisory capacity. They are still going to 
play a big role. The only difference here is the veto power: whether, 
in fact, the parent councils can veto the decisions of the board or the 
management.
  Now, this bill came out of committee 48 to nothing with the language 
that we are trying to preserve. I appreciate my colleague from Indiana 
coming along at the eleventh hour, wanting to

[[Page 21115]]

change it, but the fact is that the committee endorsed the underlying 
language, and I would ask my colleagues to reject this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, there was no testimony at any hearings about this 
subject. The only reference in the hearings, I believe, was actually on 
the Senate side from the deputy mayor of Memphis who complained that he 
did not have decision-making powers to make some changes that he wanted 
to make, but it was not financial abuse or financial waste. I have 
asked the committee staff, as well as the chairman, to come up with an 
example. There is not an example.
  There are problems in the whole system; but mostly it is the grantees 
and the board that have been the problems. The board is not as engaged 
like the parents. In this case, it is not a question of whether the 
parents have veto power. The parents have the power, the board has 
shared power, and the parents have the primary power, the board has the 
veto power. The parent council is 51 percent parents, 49 percent 
community leaders who are actively engaged. The board tends to be 
leading citizens of the community who come in and review that.
  We are gutting, for a pat on the head, saying we like your opinion, 
but not your vote. You are not good enough to vote, but you are good 
enough to give your opinion.
  This is an empowerment program by the people who are running it, it 
has worked well, and we should not change it.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. George Miller), the ranking Democrat on the committee.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman 
for yielding me this time, and I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  What we tried to do in the committee bill is to make sure that there 
was a clear line of accountability on some of these fiscal matters. We 
struggled long and hard on this committee with the question of fiscal 
management and mismanagement of a number of these programs. While the 
vast majority of Head Start programs are well-run programs that provide 
excellent services, the services that we have come to expect from those 
programs on behalf of these children in Head Start, we have had some 
problems.
  This is not about reducing the parents' role. It is about increasing 
the accountability, increasing the accountability of this board, so 
they will understand the gravity of the situation, which they have. We 
have also strengthened the parent policy council to be involved in all 
aspects of program authorization, and we require that the board act on 
those priorities. Whether they agree or disagree, they must act on it.
  The fact of the matter is, I think many, many people involved in Head 
Start believe that this is a very substantial improvement that will 
avoid the kinds of problems that we have seen in the past that have 
drained resources from this agency, taken away from the services 
provided to these children.
  Parents have been an integral part of this program from the 
beginning, they continue to be, and, in fact, their position is 
strengthened in this legislation. But we must deal in a forthright 
manner with this question of fiscal accountability, and we are making 
those boards more accountable in this legislation; and I hope that we 
would reject the Souder amendment.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Keller), a member of the Committee on Education and the 
Workforce and a leader on education issues.
  Mr. KELLER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, the Head Start bill before us today is a good bill, I 
plan on voting for it, but I also believe that the Souder amendment 
will make it an even better bill by restoring the full authority of the 
parent policy councils in the Head Start program.
  Currently, Head Start programs across the country are jointly 
governed by a board of directors made up of experts and by a policy 
council made up of parents. Regrettably, the Head Start reauthorization 
bill before us fundamentally changes the authority of the parent policy 
councils. Specifically, it removes their ability to vote on program 
policy and instead makes them merely an advisory committee to the 
board. Well, who knows what is best for kids, the parents who are with 
them every day, or the bureaucrats and politicians who live 1,000 miles 
away?
  Clearly, the parents are in the best position to know what is best 
for the children, and I do not have to guess about that. On August 8, 
2005, I personally met with 120 Head Start parents in Orlando, Florida. 
They told me they were concerned about the reduced role of the parent 
policy councils under this bill, and they wanted to restore the voting 
authority. That is what the Souder amendment does. I urge my colleagues 
to vote ``yes.''
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time.
  Let us make this absolutely clear. Advice is nice. We just went 
through this in high-intensity drug trafficking areas where we tried to 
take the voting power away and we resisted that in Congress.
  Power comes from voting, not advise. This strips the parents of their 
power and lets them give their opinions. This is a tremendous reversal 
for either side of the aisle to make of the number one parent advisory 
program in America. There are not financial problems with the parent 
councils. The financial problems were with the agencies that were 
granted to and the boards. For fraud, they need to be held accountable. 
This bill does that. Do not take the power away from the parents.
  I have also received these letters which help explain my concerns.

       Dear Mr. Mark Souder: My name is Chris Wallace Sr. and I am 
     a parent of 3 children. Two of which have been enrolled and 
     ongoing participants in CANI's Headstart program, my third 
     child is going into her 2nd grade year with Adams Elementary, 
     Fort Wayne Community Schools. I am currently the Policy 
     Council President, and the Vice-President of MILC (Males 
     Involved Leading Children), and my wife and I are repeatedly 
     volunteering for CANI (in-kind). I have received the 
     Volunteer of the Year Award from CANI, and I have also 
     received a Certificate of Recognition from the City of Fort 
     Wayne, for my ongoing commitments with CANI. Currently I am 
     looking forward to another successful year with my 
     involvement with CANI, MILC, and introducing MILC along with 
     All Pro Dads into the Fort Wayne Community school system.
       Which brings me to my disappointment with the news that 
     some of these programs, most importantly the parent 
     involvement initiative may be withdrawn from CANI's Headstart 
     programs. I would like for you and those involved with this 
     decision to understand the importance of parent involvement. 
     It has not only allowed for me to be more involved in the 
     decisions that affect my children, it has also allowed me to 
     be involved in some of the decisions that affect my 
     community. These programs allow parents to understand more 
     how important education, family and social development is to 
     their family, and the community around them. I believe that 
     these programs empower parents, and give them leadership 
     skills that they may never learn elsewhere. I can attest to 
     this, for I have learned many leadership, mentoring, and role 
     model skills. I also have learned how important I am to the 
     community and the development of my children, and my peers 
     children.
       I believe it would be an injustice to take this away from 
     so many who are currently involved and those in the future 
     that have yet to benefit. Please pass on our plea, meaning 
     the parents, employees, and even more important our children, 
     that you work for keeping the current programs well 
     established within CANI's Headstart program. This will 
     continue to allow us to provide a good start to our future 
     leaders.
       On behalf of parents of CANI Headstart.
           Sincerely,
                                               Chris Wallace, Sr.,
     Parent, Volunteer.
                                  ____

                                               September 18, 2005.
     Re Head Start reauthorization.

     Hon. Mark Souder,
     E. Ross Adair Federal Building,
     Fort Wayne, IN.
       Dear Congressman Souder: I am writing to urge you to 
     support the restoration of full authority to Parent Policy 
     Councils in Head Start reauthorization legislation. It is my

[[Page 21116]]

     observation that parents provided with a meaningful governing 
     role in their children's Head Start education gain valuable 
     skills that will help them to proactively support their 
     children's education in elementary, middle, high school and 
     beyond.
       The personal growth of parents involved in the Head Start 
     Program is a natural consequence of their participation in 
     Head Start governance. Weakening or eliminating this role 
     will eliminate a valuable training resource for parents and 
     will make them less effective in supporting their children's 
     future education.
       I have been a community representative on the CANI Head 
     Start Policy Council in Fort Wayne for two years. One of the 
     most rewarding benefits of my participation on the Policy 
     Council has been to watch the growth and development of the 
     Male Involvement Committee. This group provides many 
     opportunities for fathers, grandfathers, uncles and other 
     adult males to interact significantly with their children in 
     positive ways. This is particularly significant in low-income 
     communities where children need positive adult male role 
     models.
       Thank you for your consideration of these issues. I hope 
     that my views will be addressed in your vote for the 
     reauthorization of Head Start.
           Sincerely,
     Barbara L. Jones.
                                  ____



                                                  Indiana PTA,

                                       Hammond, IN, July 11, 2005.
       To Whom It May Concern: I am writing about the Head Start 
     Program and its importance to families.
       The Head Start Program is a vital part of the education 
     process. The program offers opportunities early in the lives 
     of children to build skills that will be needed in school and 
     in life. Research shows that the sooner children are in a 
     structured educational environment; the better their 
     performance is throughout their formal education.
       I became involved in Head Start in 1995 when my son entered 
     the program and have continued to volunteer/work with Head 
     Start though the years. I have served as a site chairperson, 
     a member of the Policy Committee and currently serve as a 
     Community Representative. It is because of the parent 
     involvement component of the Head Start Program that parent 
     involvement became so important in my life. It is because of 
     these beginnings that I continue to advocate for children on 
     all levels.
       For many families, access to Head Start is the only way for 
     their children to have any type of educational experience 
     prior to elementary school. Many of these children continue 
     on to Kindergarten because they have a head start in 
     education and their parents realize how important early 
     intervention is. Since kindergarten is not mandated in 
     Indiana, many children come to school for the first time when 
     entering the 1st grade. These children are not ready to work 
     at their grade level and come to school at all developmental 
     levels.
       As president of the Indiana PTA, I know how important the 
     Head Start Program is to children and families. It is 
     critical that services like this continue and be adequately 
     funded for our children. It is important that monies be made 
     available for Early Intervention efforts across the board. If 
     we don't take care of our chi1dren today . . . our children 
     won't take care of us tomorrow. Some of the issues that 
     Indiana PTA will be focusing on are: Early Intervention, 
     Literacy; Parent Involvement, Advocacy and Drug Use.
           Respectfully,
                                                        Dee Jones,
                                                        President.

  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield the balance of my 
time to the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), the chairman of the 
subcommittee and the author of the bill.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I totally oppose this amendment, and I 
oppose the statements which have been made here that it takes away from 
the parents, the rights they may have. Basically, what our bill does is 
reinstate the parents council where it was always supposed to be.
  Dr. Edward Zigler, who is opposed, by the way, to some things that I 
was for in the past, so I do not always quote him, but he is widely 
credited as the Father of Head Start, and many people follow him here, 
and he stated with respect to the policy council: ``I created and 
implemented the policy councils in the early 1970s. The time was past 
due to take a fresh look at the government issue. In fact, I very much 
like that the House bill keeps in place the policy council with the 
role I had in mind for it, while putting above it a board of directors 
with what I see to be some good requirements for membership on this 
board. I like the synergism that you have built between the board and 
the policy council,'' said Zigler's letter.
  I think this is the right governance for our Head Start operations in 
the United States of America. I would encourage everyone here to listen 
carefully, as it is very easy to say, oh, give the authority to the 
parents. The bottom line is they will be involved and engaged, but the 
board will make the decisions. That is the way it should be. I urge the 
defeat of this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Souder) will be postponed.
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 printed in House 
Report 109-229.


                 Amendment No. 3 Offered by Ms. DeLauro

  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 3 offered by Ms. DeLauro:
       Page 87, line 4, strike the close quotation marks and the 
     period at the end.
       Page 87, after line 4, insert the following:
       ``(11) Head Start agencies may develop or maintain 
     partnerships with institutions of higher education and non-
     profit organizations that recruit, train, place, and support 
     college students to serve as mentors and reading coaches to 
     preschool children in Head Start programs.''.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 455, the 
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) and a Member opposed each 
will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, for four decades, Head Start has provided comprehensive 
child development, literacy, family services to more than 18 million 
preschoolers from low-income and working poor families. It is a proven 
success. Head Start graduates are less likely to need special education 
services, to be held back a grade, or to get in trouble with the law. 
They are more likely to go on to college and to have professional 
careers. It is unquestionably the most effective early childhood 
development program ever developed.
  For all the program's success, we know that even the best teachers 
struggle with overwhelming class sizes, particularly with young 
children, and Head Start's 10 to 1 ratio of students to teachers in the 
classroom presents clear challenges in helping Head Start children gain 
the cognitive skills other children have.
  That is why this amendment, allowing Head Start centers to recruit 
and train college students as mentors, reading mentors for preschool 
children, is so needed.

                              {time}  1330

  We all know the benefits of mentoring, whether it is after school, on 
weekends, or during the school day, mentoring programs change young 
peoples' lives. There is a proven link between mentoring and reduced 
substance abuse later in life and improved academic achievement.
  And of course the benefits of mentoring are mutual. Some of the 
college student mentors in this initiative will even become Head Start 
teachers themselves some day. That is what we have seen in one program 
which deploys 2,100 college students who devote 15 hours per week 
during the school year to mentor Head Start students. That program is 
also a proven success.
  I want to be clear, my amendment would not replace the specialized 
work of Head Start teachers. There is no substitute for the work of a 
qualified, trained teacher, nor would anything in this amendment 
require local Head Start centers to offer mentoring programs.

[[Page 21117]]

  Head Start grantees would have the chance whether or not to start a 
mentoring program for Head Start children. Mr. Chairman, with this 
amendment we are simply seeking to supplement the remarkable work of 
our Head Start teachers in a way that allows for children to learn at 
their optimum capacity.
  It allows Head Start teachers to make the greatest impact possible. 
And that is why I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I do not oppose the amendment, but I ask 
unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Bass). Is there objection to the request of 
the gentleman from Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) brings a 
very good amendment to this debate. And I certainly support the good 
work of Jump Start and think that the amendment that she offers makes a 
valuable contribution to the bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Regula), the chairman of the Labor-HHS Subcommittee of the 
Committee on Appropriations, and the Dean of the Ohio Delegation, for 
general remarks on the bill.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the School 
Readiness Act. Let me first begin by recognizing the tremendous efforts 
of my colleagues, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) and the 
gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) in crafting a good bill.
  As a former teacher and elementary principal, I am aware of the 
necessity of a first-rate education and need to ensure that children 
have adequate skills before entering kindergarten.
  As chairman of the Labor-HHS-Education Subcommittee of the Committee 
on Appropriations, funding Head Start in the amount of $6 billion, this 
bill will achieve a better use of those moneys. For over four decades 
the Head Start program has provided comprehensive early childhood 
development services to low-income children.
  By providing educational, health, nutritional, social and other 
services to the most needy in our society, this program prepares 
children to enter kindergarten and to improve the conditions necessary 
for their success in later school and life.
  Head Start strongly emphasizes the involvement of families in the 
local community to ensure that the programs are responsive to the 
unique needs of each community. As you know, in the aftermath of 
Hurricane Katrina, the Head Start Bureau has urged all of its grantees 
to provide Head Start services to any displaced children and families 
now in their communities. Very important, so they do not fall behind.
  As successful as Head Start has been, I believe that the program can 
be even more successful by maintaining the comprehensive services 
already provided and enhancing the academic component. Consistent with 
the goal of strengthening this program, H.R. 2123 will help to 
eliminate financial mismanagement by increasing the competitive nature 
of the current program. The competition requirements are intended to 
help drive program improvement across the board and to ensure that the 
$6 billion we spend is spent constructively and wisely.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to emphasize that a good education is the 
cornerstone for success in life and that it is critical to have the 
basic skills to build the foundation before entering kindergarten. We 
have found a large dropout problem in our inner-city schools, in some 
cases exceeding 50 percent. In fact, the national average is 32 
percent. And this is a terrible waste of human resources.
  In many cases, the students dropping out cannot read at beyond the 
elementary school level, and see no reason to stay in school when they 
cannot keep up with the school work. The problems of dropouts and 
illiteracy do not begin in high school. They manifest themselves in 
high school, but they begin in elementary and pre-elementary.
  These problems begin in the school when the students fall behind 
their classmates in the early years, because they did not start with 
the same skill sets. We need to ensure that these students have an 
equal start, and H.R. 2123 will help us in the mission.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Woolsey).
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Connecticut 
(Ms. DeLauro) for offering this amendment, and the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Boehner) for supporting it.
  Mr. Chairman, helping Head Start centers develop with college 
students, students who will then help young children when they are 
learning to read, certainly will help those children. But also it is 
going to encourage more students at the college level to become and 
remain Head Start teachers.
  Anything that accomplishes both of these goals is worth doing. And I 
support the amendment.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, in closing, let me just say that I am excited about the 
opportunity for this amendment, because I think that we can create a 
partnership with the Head Start program and with our college students. 
And the beneficiaries are our youngsters.
  And we give an opportunity to college students to be stakeholders in 
an education process. It keeps them involved in their community. It 
keeps them involved in public life. And they have so much to offer and 
to give, and then couple that with the tremendous work of the Head 
Start teachers.
  So with that, I would urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong 
support of the amendment offered by my distinguished colleague, the 
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) that would allow Head Start 
centers to partner with colleges, universities and community-based 
organizations to recruit and train college students to serve as mentors 
and reading coaches to preschool children.
  Early childhood is a critical time for children to develop reading, 
language and cognitive skills. For 40 years, Head Start has worked to 
increase the overall school preparedness for the Nation's young 
children in low-income communities. As Congress moves forward to 
reauthorize Head Start and make a number of changes, the 
reauthorization should include meaningful programming to improve the 
offerings of Head Start programs. This amendment, that allows Head 
Start centers to partner with an institution of higher education or a 
community-based organization in order to recruit and train college 
students to serve as mentors and reading coaches to preschool children, 
and would allow children to receive the personal instruction and 
attention they need to be successfully prepared for school.
  One-to-one learning is a proven teaching method that strengthens 
cognitive skills in young children. Mentors provide children with the 
additional support they need to boost comprehension and self-
confidence. Back home in my district in Connecticut, the Jumpstart 
Hartford program is an excellent example of this type of comprehensive 
learning partnership. Jumpstart Hartford, in partnership with the 
University of Hartford, facilitates one-on-one instruction with 
students from the University and young children from low-income 
families in Hartford. The program places special focus on developing 
stronger language, literacy, social and initiative skills. The program 
has made significant gains in narrowing language and literacy gaps with 
its young children.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the DeLauro amendment 
that would allow mentor partnerships in Head Start and make real 
progress towards preparing all children in Head Start for success in 
school and throughout life.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 
printed in House Report 109-229.


                 Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Stearns

  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

[[Page 21118]]

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 4 offered by Mr. Stearns:
       Page 110, line 7, after ``families,'' insert ``families 
     with one or more children with disabilities,''.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 455, the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Stearns) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns).
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the Individuals with Disabilities Act and the 1998 Head 
Start Act simply required Head Start programs to reach out to families 
who have children with disabilities. Including children with 
disabilities in Head Start programs can be a rewarding experience for 
all involved: children, parents, and of course Head Start employees.
  But the linchpin for success with inclusion is proper training of 
employees to care for the children's unique needs. However, the 
underlying legislation I think perhaps can be strengthened in this 
area.
  My amendment would simply do that. How? Include families who have one 
or more children with disabilities in the list of training course 
subjects the Secretary is directed to provide for Head Start training 
employees so they can cope with that. I know firsthand, personally, 
both the victories and pitfalls of families who have dealt with 
children with learning disabilities.
  I know the worry and concern parents feel when they entrust the most 
precious being in their lives to the care of a stranger. Head Start 
personnel need to be trained, my colleagues, to mitigate these many 
concerns, and of course to provide meaningful guidance when a family 
faces a new challenge.
  So families with children with disabilities need support. Proper 
training of Head Start employees will enable them to anticipate 
possible challenges, evaluate the current difficulties that they may or 
may not have, and will educate the employees in current strategies and 
resources which are available to parents.
  For parents' piece of mind, it is imperative that those individuals 
caring for their children are simply equipped to handle any situation 
that may arise in that classroom. If not convinced, they will not send 
their child to the Head Start program, which would deprive the child 
from needed preparation for school.
  Now, for Head Start teachers, training will equip them with the 
necessary tools, of course, to be successful. Many human resources 
studies show the most common cause for dissatisfaction with a job is 
when employees feel ill equipped to meet the goals that are expected of 
them.
  Now this dissatisfaction is compounded for educational professionals, 
because when they fail to meet their goals, they feel they have failed 
the child. With proper training, teachers will feel empowered. They 
will have greater understanding of the underlying issues causing 
difficulty for that child and will be armed with a strategy to help 
them so they can ultimately succeed.
  Training can make that experience teaching children with disabilities 
a positive one instead of a negative one. Now, there was a teacher who 
did not feel properly trained, for example, to teach a child with 
disabilities. When required to include a student with disabilities in 
her classroom, she then received the necessary training to do it. As a 
result, and this is a good clear example, this is what she said. 
``Ronnie is truly my most favorite student and my greatest 
accomplishment.'' Now that is a learning disability student. Bear with 
me here. ``Thanks to him, I cannot wait to get to school every morning 
to see what he has learned today. Thanks to him I feel proud to be a 
teacher again. On November 3, 2001, I never thought anything good could 
come out from having him in my class. Little did I know that he would 
be a great blessing for which I will always be thankful.''
  Our children deserve effective teachers. Children with a disability 
generally do not respond well to change. We all know that. School is an 
enormous change that needs to be adequately prepared for. When starting 
school, they enter that simple, unknown world that scares them.
  Many of the expectations are new. Directions from the teachers do not 
make sense. They feel out of control themselves and they feel sort of 
helpless. Teachers can ease that child's anxiety, see when they are 
feeling overwhelmed, and simply provide support, and, more importantly, 
guidance.
  They are also able to give children specific strategies to handle 
these feelings, their feelings on their own, so that they in turn will 
feel more in control.
  By attending Head Start programs staffed with trained professionals, 
children will experience less stress, be more comfortable with their 
peers, accustom themselves with the behavioral expectations of 
classrooms, and learn strategies to deal with the inevitable 
distractions that are in a school setting.
  These are vital skills for them to learn at any time. And by learning 
them before beginning school, they will be better focused, more and 
better equipped to learn.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support my amendment. Provide 
Head Start employees with the training they need to support families 
and children with disabilities.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I do not oppose the amendment, but I ask 
unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Delaware?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to say how strongly I personally, and I 
hope all of us would support the Stearns amendment. I think it makes a 
tremendous amount of sense.
  This amendment, the one before it, and a couple of others we have I 
think actually truly improve the bill. They are not just amendments we 
are accepting, but they are amendments which indeed make the bill 
better.
  The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) has pointed out, in my 
judgment, a significant problem in education. I think it is greater as 
you deal with lower-income children, to even a greater extent than 
perhaps it is with other children, and as a result of that, I think 
such training is absolutely in order.
  So I would like to thank the gentleman for that and I would like to 
congratulate him for thinking of the idea. Certainly I am in support of 
the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns.)
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Stearns) will be postponed.

                              {time}  1345

  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Bass). It is now in order to consider 
amendment No. 5 printed in House Report 109-229.


            Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Davis of Illinois

  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 5 offered by Mr. Davis of Illinois:
       Page 110, after line 19, insert the following new 
     subsection (and redesignate subsequent subsections proposed 
     to be added by the relevant provision accordingly):
       ``(h) The Secretary shall develop and implement an outreach 
     program to train and

[[Page 21119]]

     recruit African-American and Latino-American men to become 
     Head Start teachers in order to increase the provision of 
     quality services and instruction to children with diverse 
     backgrounds.''.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 455, the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Davis) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I know that there are many people who believe that good 
teachers are good teachers and wherever good teaching takes place 
learning will also occur. And I believe that teaching is the most noble 
of all professions that exists on the face of the Earth, because when 
you teach, you bind yourself to someone else and they often bond and 
bind themselves to you and a transference of learning often takes place 
that way.
  My amendment addresses the fact that there are so few African 
American and Latino males teaching Head Start and we need to do 
something about that. My amendment instructs the Secretary of HHS to 
develop a recruitment and training program to help get rid of this 
absence of male African American and Latino teachers.
  I have observed that many African American and Latino boys go through 
all of elementary school never having access to a male black or Latino 
teacher. As a result of that, many of them grow up with the idea that 
education is not for them, that it is a female thing, that it is a 
woman thing, that it is a girl thing. And they drop out at third and 
fourth grades because psychologically and emotionally and 
experientially they have decided that this is not the way to go.
  This amendment need not cost a great deal of money at its onset; but 
it will, in fact, prevent a rise in drop-out rates. It will, in fact, 
prevent many of the ills and social problems that we encounter today as 
a result of the high number of boys who drop out of school.
  I would urge support for this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I do not oppose the amendment, but I ask 
unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Delaware?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I do rise in support of the Davis amendment. I believe 
this is one that improves our legislation.
  The amendment supports outreach efforts to train and recruit African 
American and Latino American men to become Head Start teachers. Any 
such teachers would still be required to meet teacher qualification 
requirements, of course, which are in the School Readiness Act.
  The amendment would help to ensure African American and Latino 
American men are encouraged to become teachers, Head Start teachers. I 
think that is a goal that is very laudable, teachers in general, as a 
matter of fact.
  This amendment supports these men to provide quality services and 
instruction to the many children with diverse backgrounds and 
participate in the Head Start program. That is absolutely true. That 
there are many people with diverse backgrounds in the Head Start 
program. It is important to understand this amendment does not create a 
new program. Instead, it directs the Secretary of HHS to support 
outreach to minorities. That is only correct and right, and for that 
reason I hope we would all support the Davis amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may 
consume time to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend, the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Davis), for offering this amendment and the gentleman 
from Delaware (Mr. Castle) for his support.
  Approximately two-thirds of Head Start children are African American 
or Hispanic, but not nearly so many of their teachers are. The more 
diverse our teachers are, the better they will be able to understand 
the experiences of children in our evermore diverse society, and the 
better they will be able to help those children learn. And the children 
will also learn better because they will have models that they are 
missing in their lives right now.
  I want to caution, however, any Member that cares about teacher 
diversity not to vote for the Boustany amendment because religious 
discrimination bears a direct relationship to race and ethnicity. It 
goes hand in hand. Think about that if you want diversity with your 
teachers.
  This is an excellent amendment that is provided by the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Davis) and I support it.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for supporting this amendment. We 
have had a very good process I think in the Committee on Education and 
the Workforce in moving toward the reauthorization of Head Start. It is 
a good group of people to work with. It is a committee that I enjoy 
working with.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois 
(Mr. Davis) will be postponed.
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 6 printed in House 
Report 109-229.


                  Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Kind

  Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 6 offered by Mr. Kind:
       Page 122, after line 17, insert the following (and make 
     such technical and conforming changes as may be appropriate):
       (e) National Assessmenet System.--Section 649 of the Head 
     Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9834), as amended by subsection (d), is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(j) National Reporting System.--The Secretary shall 
     temporarily suspend the implementation of the National 
     Reporting System pending the completion of the 
     recommendations required by subsection (h), and shall 
     integrate such recommendations to develop a national 
     assessment system, as appropriate, that will inform improving 
     Head Start program success.''.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 455, the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment is very simple and straightforward. It 
would suspend the use and implementation of the National Reporting 
Service until the National Research Council of the National Academy of 
Sciences has an opportunity to conduct their study to determine what 
would be the proper measurements, standards, and assessments to be used 
with children at this age with different developmental stages in their 
life.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe this is a very important issue because there 
has been a lot of outside expertise devoted to early childhood 
learning, and we are going to be taking measurements that they are done 
appropriately so we do not do any harm to them; and that is why I 
believe that what is in the bill right now calling for a National 
Academy study to be conducted so that the National Reporting System can 
use those recommendations for measurements and standards as we move 
forward will improve the quality of Head Start.
  It was not so long ago, Mr. Chairman, when the National Research 
Council of

[[Page 21120]]

the academy published a book called ``Eager to Learn, Educating Our 
Preschoolers.'' And in that publication they indicated why it is 
important for us to take the time and the energy to make sure that we 
get the measurements done correctly rather than wrongly.
  In that book I quote their summary: ``All assessments, and 
particularly assessments for accountability, must be used carefully and 
appropriately if they are to resolve and not create educational 
problems. Assessments of young children pose greater challenges than 
people generally realize. The first five years of life are a time of 
incredible growth and learning. But the course of development is uneven 
and sporadic. The status of a child's development, as of any given day, 
can change very rapidly. Consequently, assessment results, in 
particular, standardized test scores that reflect a given point in 
time, can easily misrepresent children's learning.''
  Now, when the National Reporting System was created, it was done 
internally. I do not believe that there was any consultation with us 
members of the committee, nor were any outside experts brought in for 
advice or consent or what standards and assessments should be used.
  Shortly after the National Reporting System was implemented, the 
President then appointed his technical working group for the NRS. This 
was a group of outside experts. Even the technical working group trying 
to work with the National Reporting System has highlighted a lot of 
problems and deficiencies with the current system and is recommending 
changes to it.
  That advice from the technical working group was recently backed up 
and supported by a May GAO report which found, among other things: ``If 
the test is to be used as a measure of program performance or assess 
changes in child outcomes, it is important to ensure that it is 
sensitive to the range of development typically demonstrated in Head 
Start. Based on our analysis and that of the technical working group 
and independent experts, we continue to believe that further study is 
necessary to ensure that the NRS results are reliable and valid and the 
results are appropriate for intended purposes.''
  Mr. Chairman, we have had a lot of discussions in this committee. We 
have had a discussion during the hearings and markup of this bill. I 
have enjoyed working with the chairman of the committee and the ranking 
members of the appropriate committees in trying to resolve this issue. 
I think we can resolve it. I think it is the right direction to go with 
the amendment that I am offering. I hope my colleagues will support it.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I do not oppose the amendment, but I ask 
unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).
  The amendment would temporarily suspend a large-scale assessment of 
Head Start children while needed work is done to ensure that the test 
is suitable for Head Start children and until we have greater 
assurances that the results are accurate and used for appropriate 
purposes.
  The Head Start National Reporting System developed by the Department 
of Health and Human Services is a standardized assessment administered 
at the beginning to all 4- and 5-year-olds enrolled in Head Start.
  During the first year's administration, the National Reporting System 
was completed by nearly 437,000 preschool children participating in 
Head Start, including 35,000 children with disabilities and 125,000 
children with limited English proficiency.
  The NRS was developed with limited congressional authority and input 
and has been the subject of great concern by many child development and 
early childhood advocates. There was general agreement by early 
childhood experts on the value of the assessment, and I tend to agree 
with that; and children are assessed regularly in nearly every 
preschool program across the country, including all Head Start 
classrooms.
  I, too, recognize that early childhood assessments play an important 
role in measuring children's progress in key areas such as vocabulary, 
letter recognition, and early math, as well as other aspects of early 
childhood development.
  I also agree with this administration that better data is needed on 
how well individual Head Start programs are doing in preparing children 
for kindergarten. However, we have a responsibility to ensure that 
assessments are conducted appropriately and effectively. And if we are 
going to do this, we need to make sure we get it right.
  I want to commend the Secretary for convening panels to review and 
take steps to improve the National Reporting System, but I also believe 
that more time should be taken to make sure we get it right before its 
data are used to evaluate the progress of children participating in 
individual Head Start programs.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy).
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, the most important people 
in a child's life are their parents. The success of Head Start has been 
that the parents have been involved at the earliest of ages in their 
child's development.
  The amendment by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind), which I 
rise to support, is an amendment that simply says let us take the 
evidence based on how we should approach education for children and let 
us apply what we know is the best way to include measurements of a 
child in their formative years of life.
  What I think all of us saw in the expeditious movement to put in 
place these tests was the fact that we rushed into it without taking 
enough time to take a look at it. All of my Head Start teachers have 
told me that the testing that is currently in place is testing that is 
not effective and that what would be more effective would be finding 
out through the National Academy of Sciences what they recommend in 
terms of the evaluation of those children.

                              {time}  1400

  So I want to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) and I want 
to join him in saying that learning, as we know and as the chairman 
knows so well, does not begin in first grade. It begins at birth, and 
the parents need to be involved in their child's life. Head Start is 
about the emotional and social development of a child which can guide 
their ability to learn literacy all the way down their educational 
life.
  They will not learn unless they have the best emotional and social 
development from early on because they will not be able to sit still; 
they will not be able to focus; they will not be able to do those 
things that we are going to be testing them for down the line.
  With that, I thank the chairman of the Committee on Education and the 
Workforce for this time.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I suggest to my colleagues that the 
amendment the gentleman from Wisconsin offers, he and I have worked 
together on this closely over the course of this year. I think it is a 
good amendment and would urge my colleagues to adopt it.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman of the committee for his 
support of the amendment and for working with us in order to get this 
accomplished. I also want to thank the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. 
Kennedy), my good friend, for helping to elevate this issue and educate 
other Members in this place about the importance of the measurements 
and the assessments that are being used, especially for these children 
at this early age.

[[Page 21121]]

  Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent 
request to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), the ranking 
member of the subcommittee, and thank her for her support.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Kind) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my friend, Mr. Kind, for offering this 
important amendment.
  It is one thing to assess children to understand how best to help 
them learn.
  But, this Administration rushed to test hundreds of thousands of 
children, and in so doing, used tests that are invalid and unreliable.
  Moreover, in its rush, the Administration also seems to have 
virtually no idea how to use this unreliable data. Had the data been 
reliable, it would still have been virtually useless.
  This amendment will bring a critically needed scientific perspective 
to bear on the Administration and keep them from implementing this 
program until they do it right. It is an important amendment and I 
support it.
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Bass). The question is on the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 7 
printed in House Report 109-229.


                  Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Mica

  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 7 offered by Mr. Mica:
       At the end of the bill, insert the following new sections:

     SECTION ___. QUALITY STANDARDS; MONITORING OF HEAD START 
                   AGENCIES AND PROGRAMS.

       Section 641A of the Head Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9836a) is 
     further amended by adding at the end the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(g) In carrying out the provisions of section 641A, and 
     in addition to the use of whatever other resources the 
     Secretary deems appropriate, the Secretary shall--
       ``(1) contract with an intermediary organization which, in 
     the determination of the Secretary, meets each of the 
     following criteria--
       ``(A) focuses on improving the performance management and 
     the use of technology for non-profit, educational, and social 
     service organizations;
       ``(B) has demonstrated experience in providing a range of 
     assistance, including but not limited to--
       ``(i) assessing performance metrics;
       ``(ii) the use of technology;
       ``(iii) improving financial management; and
       ``(iv) developing recommendations to improve performance 
     and the use of technology;
       ``(C) has a proven methodology for systemic change in the 
     not-for-profit sector, including governmental and 
     nongovernmental entities;
       ``(D) has demonstrated results in providing performance 
     management support to small-, mid- and large-size not-for-
     profit organizations annually on a pro bono basis;
       ``(E) has demonstrated the ability to identify areas for 
     program improvement related to--
       ``(i) accomplishing the goals and objectives as outlined in 
     Head Start regulations, reporting criteria and measurement of 
     program outcomes;
       ``(ii) meeting reporting requirements
       ``(iii) using technology in classrooms and enabling its use 
     by administrators;
       ``(F) has demonstrated the ability to develop an 
     implementation plan for recommended improvements by the 
     organizations it assists;
       ``(G) has demonstrated the ability to assist with and 
     provide on-site, hands-on guidance with the implementation of 
     the recommendations;
       ``(H) has demonstrated the ability to tailor the assessment 
     and implementation process to the children and communities 
     served (where appropriate); and
       ``(I) has demonstrated the ability to create an online 
     community that allows Head Start administrators, teachers, 
     service providers, parents, policy makers, and other 
     stakeholders to communicate and provide support during and 
     following the assessment and subsequent implementation 
     process;
       ``(2) utilize the intermediary organization selected in 
     paragraph (1) not later than 90 days from the date of 
     enactment of this Act to--
       ``(A) assess the performance of the Secretary in overseeing 
     the Head Start Bureau and ensuring the effective management 
     of the Head Start program in the areas of finance, 
     operations, human capital, and customer service;
       ``(B) evaluate the Department's organizational structure, 
     policies, and procedures for managing Head Start grant 
     recipients, make recommendations to improve national program 
     quality and maximize the efficiency in the use of program 
     dollars, and support implementation of the recommendations;
       ``(C) evaluate the Secretary's administrative resource 
     allocations to determine if investment is properly targeted 
     based on risk assessment to address the program's most 
     significant national and local challenges, and propose 
     adjustments as appropriate;
       ``(D) evaluate and identify best practice Head Start models 
     and build process models to enable their replication;
       ``(E) develop early warning systems to identify Head Start 
     programs that need intervention;
       ``(F) evaluate processes to assist Head Start programs that 
     need intervention in implementing necessary program 
     improvements;
       ``(G) evaluate the effectiveness of the current process for 
     selecting Head Start organizations and develop and implement 
     improvements to ensure that performance metrics emerge as a 
     key criteria for evaluating successful Head Start applicants, 
     including the creation of evaluation criteria that ensure the 
     selection of quality Head Start applicants;
       ``(H) evaluate how the Department targets resources to 
     remedy ongoing problems or deficiencies in the program's 
     management or governance, and propose solutions as 
     appropriate; and
       ``(I) conduct a detailed assessment of the Secretary's 
     ability to monitor grantees.''.

     SEC. ___. ALLOTMENT OF FUNDS.

       Section 640(a)(2) of the Head Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9835) is 
     further amended by adding at the end the following new 
     clause:
       ``(v) not less than $7,500,000 of the amount in clause 
     (iii) appropriated for fiscal years 2006 and 2007 shall be 
     made available to carry out activities described in section 
     641A(g).''.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 455, the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Mica) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica).
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  First, I want to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Boehner), 
also the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis), the gentleman from 
Delaware (Mr. Castle), the subcommittee chairman, and others who have 
worked on this legislation. There is probably no piece of legislation 
in this Congress that is more important to the future of this country 
and our children and our students than this piece of legislation.
  I have educated as an educator and have worked over the years to try 
to get improvement in the quality of Head Start, and I commend all of 
those involved and also the President of the United States for 
emphasizing improving the quality of Head Start.
  We spend $7,222 per student for some 900,000 students involved in 
Head Start and improving the quality. These young people can learn, and 
they should have an academic component, and we should have the best 
personnel in these Head Start programs, and we have gone a long way in 
that regard.
  Unfortunately, over the course of the last years, we have had 
incidents of waste, fraud, abuse, mismanagement, even financial abuse 
of taxpayer dollars in the Head Start programs, and again, we have 
limited taxpayer dollars to expend, and we want them expended in the 
most efficient and proper manner.
  While a large majority of Head Start programs have very responsible 
management and organization in place, I think Congress has an 
obligation to improve known problems before they get worse and also 
insist on correction.
  Weak or failing Head Start programs are unfair to taxpayers, but 
mostly, and most importantly, they are unfair to the children who need 
assistance in these programs, not to mention they are unfair to the 
taxpayers.
  So this amendment directs the Secretary of HHS to undertake a 
management reform initiative, and I want to thank the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Boehner) for crafting this amendment, and he has my strong 
support, and I am pleased to offer it because we want this to be the 
best program possible.
  In conclusion, I just want to give a couple of examples. I have one 
Head Start program I looked at that has 135 students, 17 teachers, and 
none of the teachers are certified in the program. That should be 
corrected by this legislation. But the cost for the program is 
$900,000, and we are spending $72,000 per

[[Page 21122]]

student on this one Head Start program.
  I have other Head Start programs, one in my district, where we have 
526 students, and we reviewed what other preschool programs were 
paying. Right now, it is costing us about $8,439 per student. The most 
expensive private prep school in the district costs $8,400 a year. The 
private Catholic school costs $2,160 a year, and the private Christian 
academy costs $4,400 a year.
  We need to look at what the management, what the waste and 
inefficiencies are in the programs that we have with Head Start, make 
certain that we are expending this money properly, that we eliminate 
bureaucracy, wasteful mismanagement and, unfortunately, in some 
instances, fraud and abuse.
  This amendment will go a long way towards achieving that goal and 
making certain that every one of these taxpayer dollars are spent in 
the best way to benefit these children and give them truly a head 
start.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I do not oppose the amendment, but I ask 
unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I rise in support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Mica) which makes further improvements to the management 
of the Head Start program. This has been a particular concern of mine 
as we have held hearings and taken a comprehensive look at how we can 
improve the effectiveness of the program on behalf of children and 
families. As we have heard here today, there are many great things 
happening in Head Start, but many of my colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle share my view that not everything is working as well as it 
should.
  When approaching this reauthorization, I took my job seriously to 
take a hard look at every aspect of the Head Start program and work 
toward the reforms that were necessary to make this program the very 
best that it can be. And to be perfectly frank, I did not like 
everything that I saw.
  Over the course of the last several years, incidents of waste, fraud, 
program mismanagement, and even financial abuse of taxpayer dollars 
have been reported in at least two dozen Head Start programs across the 
country. While a large majority of the Head Start programs have 
responsible management organizations in place, I think this Congress 
has an obligation to improve known problems before they get worse. I 
think it is unfair to taxpayers, but most importantly, it is unfair to 
children and their parents who count on the Head Start program.
  The underlying bill contains meaningful program reforms, focused 
primarily on improving program oversight and accountability at the 
local level, but in my assessment, additional reforms are needed to 
ensure effective program management at the top. In fact, as a recent 
General Accountability Office report reveals, there are systemic flaws 
in the program's Federal management, and these systemic flaws have been 
there for many, many years.
  There is no need no question that we need to fix the problems at the 
local level. However, addressing issues locally is not enough, and I 
believe weaknesses in the Federal oversight mechanisms have contributed 
to the rash of financial mismanagement that we have seen in recent 
years because Head Start lacks the fundamental management standards and 
risk-based assessment tools necessary to prevent these types of abuses.
  This amendment offers reforms that will lead to more efficient and 
effective Federal management of the Head Start program. In my view, the 
best way to accomplish this goal is for the department to contract with 
an experienced, independent organization to conduct a wholesale review, 
and support the implementation of reforms to the system of Federal 
management of Head Start grants. The amendment would task the 
intermediary organization to evaluate all systems affecting program 
quality, including grant selection, resource allocation, and processes 
to ensure the early identification of programs in need of intervention.
  This amendment I think is a commonsense opportunity to inject 
accountability and sound management principles into the upper levels of 
the Head Start program. This bill seeks excellence from local Head 
Start programs, and I believe the same standard should be applied to 
the Federal Head Start structure as well.
  Mr. Chairman, passage of the underlying bill will mark an important 
step toward enactment of the most far-reaching reforms to Head Start 
since the program first began 40 years ago, and this amendment could 
greatly improve the national program quality and maximize the use of 
taxpayer dollars. I want to thank my colleague from Florida, once 
again, for offering this amendment and ask my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  In conclusion, I know we all saw the pictures that were quite 
shocking in New Orleans, and many people were stunned by the level of 
poverty that we saw when the dikes and the levees broke. Much more was 
broken in that community and our communities, and that is, the 
education of our poorest children. No piece of legislation will do 
more, I think, in advancing the interests and the educational 
opportunities for our children than this legislation.
  So I thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), I thank the 
gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Boehner), the gentleman from Delaware 
(Mr. Castle), and others involved in moving this important piece of 
legislation forward, improving the quality and also improving the 
management, making certain with this amendment that every dollar goes 
towards the betterment of those disadvantaged in our society.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 8 
printed in House Report 109-229.


                 Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Filner

  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 8 offered by Mr. Filner:
       At the end of the bill, add the following new section:

     SEC. ___. TEACHER RETENTION REPORT.

       Not later than one year after implementation of the Head 
     Start teacher qualifications and development under amendments 
     made by this Act, the Secretary of Health and Human Services 
     shall submit to Congress a report on Head Start teacher 
     retention levels.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 455, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Filner) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner).
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I just would read the amendment: ``Not later than one year after 
implementation of the Head Start teacher qualifications and development 
under amendments made by this Act, the Secretary of Health and Human 
Services shall submit to Congress a report on Head Start teacher 
retention levels.''
  I rise to support this amendment, and I want to thank the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Woolsey), my good friend, who for the 13 years she 
has been here has been a tireless advocate for Head Start and all other 
education programs that provide access of all our country's children to 
the quality education that they deserve. I know she looks forward to 
the day, as I do, that we do get full funding for the Head Start 
program for all children who are eligible in this Nation, and we will 
work with the gentlewoman toward that end.

[[Page 21123]]

  We all know and we have heard today from both sides of the aisle 
about the importance and quality of Head Start. It has played, for four 
decades now, a vital role in the lives of thousands of children and 
parents across the country, and certainly in my home area of San Diego 
and Imperial Counties of California.
  The government gets it right on Head Start. We are providing 
opportunities for children in underserved areas where parents may not 
be able to afford preschool so they can begin their schooling with a 
running or Head Start.
  I have witnessed Head Start's benefits firsthand at different levels. 
Before entering Congress, I taught for 20 years as a history professor 
at San Diego State University, and I will tell my colleagues that, even 
at that level, the students who had been through Head Start as children 
owe that program a great deal for their getting through college, and 
they may not even have been able to get through high school without it.
  I was on the San Diego school board for 4 years, where I watched 
children successfully matriculate into elementary schools from Head 
Start programs from all around our city. It was clear then, and remains 
equally clear today, that the work of Head Start plays an enormously 
significant role within our education community.

                              {time}  1415

  Now, as we know, in this year's reauthorization, Congress is 
implementing the strongest requirements for teacher qualifications and 
development in Head Start's history. Teachers will have to have more 
incoming experience and face more on-the-job professional development 
than ever before.
  I commend the committee and I commend this Congress for taking that 
action, but we have to remember that, as we add these more stringent 
requirements and more accountability and more professional development, 
we are going to have to fund the resources necessary to achieve that.
  In fact, we have to answer the question: Might we be pricing Head 
Start right out of the teaching market? Right now, teaching is a 
profession that has more openings than can be filled. When we 
drastically increase the work requirements without increasing the 
salary levels, there is a risk of running many successful and 
experienced teachers right out of the program. If we narrow Head 
Start's hiring pool, it may be forced to compete with institutions that 
have greater funding and resources to hire. So without providing far 
more funding than this bill offers, hiring may become difficult as 
prospective teachers may go elsewhere.
  We have seen that, in another unfunded mandate, the so-called No 
Child Left Behind Act, which created tougher standards, and we all 
support that, but Congress did not provide the money to attract and 
hire the best teachers. So since there is a real possibility of 
increased teacher requirements leading to a dropoff in the number of 
experienced Head Start teachers, I hope the House will accept my 
amendment, which calls for the Secretary of Health and Human Services 
to submit to Congress a study reporting on Head Start's teacher 
retention levels. This study will be completed within 1 year of the 
enactment of the new regulations.
  With this study, we will have an early look at the impact of these 
regulations. It will paint a picture of whether Head Start teachers are 
staying and meeting the new requirements or whether these new 
requirements are inadvertently driving experienced teachers from such 
an important program as Head Start. These early results will tell us if 
we are on the correct path or if we need to modify some of the rules 
before there is more damage.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I do not oppose the amendment, but I ask 
unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Bass). Is there objection to the request of 
the gentleman from Delaware?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  First, let me just say that I strongly support the Filner amendment. 
Actually, it is interesting to hear some of these amendments, because 
they would apply to education in general and not just to Head Start, 
and I think this is one that falls into that category.
  It is very important to understand qualifications, retention, and 
what is happening in that particular area. I think, as I know the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Filner) is aware, but I think everybody 
needs to be aware of the fact that the underlying bill requires that at 
least 50 percent of all Head Start teachers nationwide have a 
baccalaureate or advanced degree in early childhood education or 
related field by September 30, 2011. And it also requires that within 3 
years all Head Start teachers hired after the date of enactment of this 
act must have at least an associate degree in early childhood education 
or related field, or be enrolled in a program of study leading to an 
associate degree in early childhood education or related field within 3 
years.
  These are significant steps. They will enhance the educational 
progress as far as Head Start is concerned. We also need to worry about 
the retention. It is going to raise economic issues in terms of being 
able to pay for this. We are clearly going to have to look at that in 
terms of our future appropriations. So I think all this melds together 
in what in my mind would be a dramatic improvement in Head Start.
  Again, we retain all of the services presently provided. It is just 
that there is an added emphasis on the educational side of it, which I 
think we all agree is needed. So I am strongly in support of the 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman both for his support 
and for his commitment to Head Start. I also have fond remembrance of 
being a graduate student at the University of Delaware, which the 
gentleman knows very well, and appreciate the education in his State of 
Delaware.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Woolsey).
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Filner) for offering this amendment and the chairman, 
the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) for supporting it.
  We know the base bill increases teacher quality requirements, and we 
also know that we are not doing nearly enough to help Head Start 
programs hire and keep these more qualified teachers. So I support my 
colleague's interests and understanding on making this happen.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Filner).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Committee will rise informally.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Terry) assumed the Chair.

                          ____________________