Date: 2007-05-02
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Chairman. Members of the House. we are here today to authorize the Head Start program. What this amendment would do would simply end Head Start in those eight States as we know it. There would be no requirement that those States would take the money that we have set aside. that we have worked hard to provide within the budget for the Head Start program and use it to implement a program that is anything like Head Start. because there would simply be no requirements on that money to provide the kind of comprehensive prograils that are now required under the Head Start program that have demonstrated the success that we just spent an hour with speakers from both sides of the aisle attesting to in their own districts or on a national basis as members of the committee have talked about what we are doing in this reauthorization. These States would be eligible for these funds without demonstrating any expertise or commitment to the high quality of this proven preschool program. Essentially thats the end of it in those eight States. Now. maybe one of those States will have a strong commitment to Head Start and all the rest of it. Thats what Head Start is. Thats what Head Start is. Why are we running this money through another filter system to recreate the Head Start program? We already require. and we went through a series of hearings about coordination with the States to make sure that Head Start coordinates with other State programs and State agencies. But we also know that because of what we have done with Heaf Start over the years. where we have provided reauthorization after reauthorization. the continuous improvement of the programs that are integral to the success of Head Start and to the success of the children. where we have used. scientificbased educational and performance standards. where we have provided for accountability and oversight and evaluation of the program. where we have provided for the parent policy councils. all of these things that have been integral to this program over this time to bring it to a point now where we can see that it demonstrates a marked impact on these young children in closing the achievement gap for. these children and getting them ready and the skills that they will need for early reading. for early math. for early writing. that is what this program does. There are not many States that do any of that. They have a lot of early childhood programs. They have a lot of child care programs. they have a lot of it. But they dont have this comprehensive program. Thats why this is considered the premier program in the Nation for the education and the development of these young ehildren. That is why we should not support this block grant amendment. I daresay that we have watched over the last decades effort after effort be made to block grant programs. Generally. where they have been successful. they have been the first step to the budget cuts. to the loss of quality. Thats whats involved here. Again. when we structured this legislation. and in consideration of the budget and the increases in the money. we are putting 60 percent of the money into quality. into teacher and professional development. into salaries. because we recognize that we have to have that continuous update and that improvement of the Head Start program. Voting for this amendment is not to vote for Head Start. its to vote for something. but its not to vote for Head Start. Its. in fact.. detrimental because that money. then.tis out of the Head Start system to be used for whatever purposes. In fact. you Can take this Federal money and then withdraw the local money. There is no requirement in this amendment that there be a maintenance of effort by a State to do this. What have you really done? You have taken money for the Federal taxpayers that paid into this program that we have decided on a bipartisan basis should go for the Head Start program. You said. oh. you can give it to a State. and they can draw their money out the bottom. So we put the taxpayers money in at the top. and the State takes the money out of the bottom. That is not going to improve quality. That is not going to improve access. Now. you can argue that maybe you can add a lot of children to a program. a program. not the Head Start program. because the Head Start program is expensive because we do it the way we should be doing. the way it has been scientifically analyzed and supported by the data. You can put a lot of kids in lowquality programs. but that is not what we H4358 CO are trying to achieve. We are trying to achieve high.quality so we get the results that Head Start gets and most other Stateg dont get. Mr. Speaker. I reserve the balance of my time.