Date: 2003-07-24
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Chairman. I yield myself 4 minutes. Mr. Chairman. there has been a lot of discussion tonight about those who do not want to see change or are somehow suggesting that those who oppose the block grants are against change. This amendment is an amendment to strike the block grant and to retain title I of the legislation as it has been reported from committee. Many Members on this side of the aisle worked with our colleagues on the other side of the aisle in committee on title 1. We had numerous discussions. and we all believe. as I said. that there can be continuous improvement. and this is the purpose of the reauthorization of Head Start. to provide for that continuous improvement. to take the evaluations. to take th3 studies. to take the things that we have learned and apply them to make this an even better program for Americas poorest children so that. in fact. they will have a better opportunity at achieving an education that will allow them to fully participate in American society and the American economic system. The fly in the ointment to that continuous improvement is the block grant. because as many times as my colleagues will say it. that the block grant requires the adherence with the quality standards and performance standards in Head Start. the very quality standards and performance standards that have made this the best program in the Nation with room for improvement. that the States need not adhere to that. There is no requirement that they do so. They can generally meet or exceed those standards. That is the beginning of the end. That is the reason we have so carefully evaluated this program. because you are not going to find those standards in the States. They do not exist. They do not have the achievement standards that we have in this program. and they do not have the success that we have in this program. What they really do is. they say if the States put up some additional money and the States have a preK program somewhere in the State. they can make application and that application is deemed to be accepted. Then the State is on its way. It can serve a different population of children. It can serve more children. It just cannot lhave more money. So by the end of the third year.. we see that for the first time children who were otherwise eligible to be served will be cut back from this program. They talk about how they are going to meet or exceed the commitment to comprehensive services. but when we read the legislation. we find out that that is not true. Again. they must generally meet or exceed. but in this case. they can provide the services or they can provide a referral to services. Well. it will not take the governor long. unlike the State of Delaware. it will not take a lot of other governors long to figure out that they do not have to provide those services or all of those services or the comprehensive nature of those services. and they can then serve more children. and we start to see the dilution of the program. the dilution of the quality of the program. and that is the concern. A great effort has been made by this Nation to maintain the integrity and the quality of the Head Start program. and that is what is threatened by the block grant. This is not a question of whether one is for improving or against improving Head Start. This is not a question of whether or not you think we can do it better or not. This is a question of setting in motion a process that. just as sure as rain. will bring about a diminution in the integrity and the high quality of this program. This amendment provides for striking that block grant program. They can say. well. it is justa demonstration. it is just an experiment. It conceivably could be as high as 30 to 40 percent of the children in the Head Start program. I appreciate that they say. we are going to fund the program for 5years and they ran around and told. their moderates and others. this program will be funded for 5 years. but there is a huge loophole. If that program does not comply with the State plan in any fashion. there is no guarantee of that funding taking place. What you read and what you they say turn out to be two different things. Mr. Chairman. I reserve the balance of my time.