mr. chairman , i thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time , and i rise in opposition to this amendment . 
i think it is a bad amendment . 
the fact of the matter is , if there are these kinds of savings to be had , either the grant is not right or the money should be put back into the services . 
when we have a program here that is failing to meet the demand for head start , it would seem to me if this is a high-quality program and it has the difference between 13 percent and 13.5 percent and 15 percent , which could be a couple hundred thousand dollars on a $ 10 million grant , which is not that unusual , that ought to be plowed into the program to extend the opportunity of this high-quality program to these children . 
this program does not exist to create a profit . 
that does not mean that people can not bring profit-making ideals and principles to these programs for efficiencies , but we ought to plow it into the unserved population or to improve quality programs . 
when we look at the low pay and the profit-making in the nonprofit sector of head start , you would think that we would put that into quality to try to raise the pay so we can attract teachers with more education and child development experience and all of the rest of those issues . 
this is what we have been arguing and discussing and trying to improve . 
to now suggest , because somebody has put in some efficiencies , that money should now go to the for-profits , instead of services and extension of the benefits of head start to this population that is in so much need of these services , just does not make sense . 
one could argue if we were meeting the need and the demand all across the country , maybe there is some argument for this . 
but when we know how programs struggle , and we see programs with utilities and gas going up , that is going to cause even more difficulties . 
and to suggest that you can somehow eke out a profit that is not returned to the benefit of the program , that just does not make any sense . 
i appreciate vendors are dealing with a government grant and very low-income children and it is very difficult to make a profit , but i do not think that we should eke out the means by which that profit can be taken out of the services rendered to those children . 
i know these are called administrative costs , and we have been debating administrative costs for a long time . 
administrative costs also go with other concerns , the question of accountability and auditing and structuring of these facilities , all of which are part of that , too . 
i think this is an ill-considered amendment , and i would hope that we would reject the musgrave amendment . 
