Head Start advocacy group sues government over lobbying dispute

The National Head Start Association Wednesday took its campaign against President Bush and House Republicans up a notch, filing suit in D.C. federal court to bar the Health and Human Services Department from taking any action to prevent lobbying by local Head Start directors. The Virginia-based association represents the directors in Washington.

The dispute stems from a May 8 letter sent by HHS Associate Commissioner for Head Start Windy Hill to local Head Start directors warning them that they may not use staff time or funds to lobby against legislation now in Congress to reauthorize the 38-year-old federal preschool program for impoverished children.

The reauthorization legislation, now pending before the House Education and the Workforce Committee, has sparked a heated debate over a provision that would allow some state governments to administer federal Head Start funding directly. The Head Start association argues that states, most of which are strapped with massive budget deficits, would not be able to maintain the same level of program quality. The Bush administration and some House Republicans argue that allowing states to administer the federal funding would increase program efficiency because the states could then combine Head Start with their own state-funded preschool programs.

Rep. Michael Castle, R-Del., the sponsor of the House reauthorization legislation, told The New York Times on Wednesday that he was planning to scale back the provision, tightening rules requiring states to maintain program quality, and limiting to eight the number of states eligible to administer the federal funding.

Hill told Government Executive that the May 8 letter was meant merely to remind Head Start directors of existing law barring them from lobbying on staff time or with federal funds. The directors can lobby when they are not working, and with other sources of funding, she said.

But the association, in late May, demanded that Hill either clarify or retract her letter, arguing that it was aimed at chilling free speech and limiting debate over the reauthorization bill.