[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 58 (Thursday, May 12, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[Congressional Record: May 12, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
CONFERENCE REPORT ON S. 2000, HUMAN SERVICES AMENDMENTS OF 1994
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on
Rules, I call up House Resolution 421 and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 421
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider the conference report to accompany the
bill (S. 2000) to authorize appropriations for fiscal years
1995 through 1998 to carry out the Head Start Act and the
Community Services Block Grant Act, and for other purposes.
All points of order against the conference report and against
its consideration are waived.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Serrano). The gentleman from Ohio [Mr.
Hall] is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield the customary 30 minutes to
the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Quillen] for purposes of debate only,
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose
of debate only.
(Mr. HALL of Ohio asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 421 is the rule
providing for the consideration of the conference report on S. 2000,
the Human Services Amendments of 1994. The rule waives all points of
order against the conference report and against its consideration.
Because there are several amendments that were agreed to by House and
Senate conferees, but are technically outside of the scope of the
conference, it was necessary to waive points of order. This rule will
allow us to bring this important legislation to the floor.
Mr. Speaker, the agreements reached on the human services legislation
pertain to critical issues that directly affect the lives of millions
of children, low-income citizens and families having difficulty making
ends meet. The measure reauthorizes the Head Start Program through
fiscal year 1998. I have personally visited many Head Start Programs in
my home town of Dayton, OH, and I am impressed with the opportunity the
program gives to our children at an early age. Included in this measure
are provisions to create a new infant and toddler initiative for
children up to age 3.
The legislation also reauthorizes the Low Income Home Energy
Assistance Program [LIHEAP] through fiscal year 1999. This program
helps families pay their energy bills in the winter which is especially
important in cold States like Ohio. It targets households with low
incomes and high heating costs. Many other worthwhile antipoverty
programs are funded in this initiative including the Community Food and
Nutrition Program, the Community Services Block Grant, the McKinney
Homeless Grant Program, and the National Youth Sports Program.
Mr. Speaker, this conference report is a carefully crafted
compromise. I urge my colleagues to join me in adopting the rule.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. QUILLEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hall] has
described, this rule provides for the consideration of the conference
report on S. 2000, which reauthorizes the Head Start Act, the Community
Services Block Grant Act, and the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance
Program. I am a strong supporter of all of these programs, and I
support the conference report.
It has become so customary to grant a rule waiving all points of
order against conference reports that the House just accepts this
process as noncontroversial and routine. Even those of us who do not
particularly support these blanket waivers have allowed these rules to
be debated and adopted without putting up much of a fight. But not this
time, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against this rule.
The rule waives all points of order, but it does not specify which
rules are being waived and for what purpose. We discussed this matter
at some length in the Rules Committee yesterday, and we know that there
are scope violations in the conference report. A list of those
violations was provided to us, and we understand that the conferees all
agreed to these provisions. So there is an obvious need for a waiver of
clause 3 of rule 28 to protect these scope violations.
No member of the Rules Committee seemed to be aware of any other
rules violation, and the minority members of the committee wanted to
know why it was necessary to waive all points of order. The response
was something along the lines of ``just in case there's something in
the conference report that we don't know about that needs protection.''
That is not a direct quote, Mr. Speaker, but I think it accurately
describes the answer we were given.
The Rules Committee and the Committees of jurisdiction of any
legislation that comes to this floor have an obligation to make sure
all Members are aware of any rules violations contained in any bill or
conference report.
An amendment was offered in the Rules Committee to waive only the
scope rule, but it was defeated on a party-line vote and the rule was
adopted on a party line vote.
Mr. Speaker, I have said over and over again that we need to put a
stop to this trend of granting blanket waivers. Let us stop it today, I
strongly urge my colleagues to vote down this rule.
Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the following information:
Roll Call Votes in the Rules Committee on the Rule for Human Services
Act Conference Report (S. 2000), Wednesday, May 11, 1994
1. Specify Rule Waivers--Motion to strike the waiver of all
points of order against the conference report and its
consideration and substitute a specific waiver only of clause
3, rule XXVIII (the scope rule). Rejected: 3-4. Yeas:
Solomon, Quillen, and Dreier. Nays: Moakley, Derrick,
Beilenson, and Gordon. Not voting: Frost, Bonior, Hall,
Wheat, Slaughter, and Goss.
2. Report Role--Motion to order rule reported as moved.
Adopted: 4-3. Yeas: Moakley, Derrick, Beilenson, and Gordon.
Nays: Solomon, Quillen, and Dreier. Not Voting: Frost,
Bonior, Hall, Wheat, Slaughter, and Goss.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr.
Cunningham].
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, a lot of us do not support rules that
are not open, but I would like to speak on behalf of Head Start.
As an original cosponsor of the Head Start Quality Improvement Act, I
am very happy to see that most of those recommendations went into the
Head Start reauthorization within the Committee on Education and Labor.
I am pleased to see an increase in the recognition of the crucial
role that parents play in the education and development of their
children, and most of us have seen that any school program that works
enforces the involvement of parents.
{time} 1510
We would like to see stronger language to enforce that parents take
part in this, but at least the bill is going in the right direction.
Secondly, this bill requires programs to actively seek parental
participation, and while I would like to see even stronger language
regarding the parental involvement in Head Start programs, the language
addressing family literacy and parental skills training takes the right
direction. It is important to recognize and establish parents as their
children's primary teachers.
Raising the quality of all Head Start programs throughout the country
has long been a concern, and I am pleased to see the strengthened
program accountability, and that is a strange word around this body,
but believe it or not, this Head Start program enforces accountability
for providing high-quality services included in this reauthorization.
The key to a successful Head Start program is ensuring quality over
quantity. We should serve as many eligible children as possible with
the highest quality services possible, instead of just striving to
serve all eligible children with mediocre or poor services. If we look
at parental involvement, accountability, and the quality of the
program, that is what we need to support in a program.
I would also like to state, Mr. Speaker, that both this program,
children's immunization, and other things belong in the committee
itself, where we have a budget to work with budget-agreed caps. They do
not belong on emergency spending bills. I am happy to see this come out
of the committee with hearings and support to make it a good bill.
Mr. Chairman, I do not support everything in the bill, but it is a
good bill, and I ask support from my colleagues.
Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I urge a no vote on the rule. I have no
further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time,
and I move the previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Mr. FORD of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the rule, I call up
the conference report on the Senate bill (S. 2000) to authorize
appropriations for fiscal years 1995 through 1998 to carry out the Head
Start Act and the Community Services Block Grant Act, and for other
purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the Senate bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the conference report
is considered as having been read.
(For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of
Monday, May 9, 1994, at page H. 3159).
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Ford] will
be recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentlewoman from New York [Ms.
Molinari] will be recognized for 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlemen from Michigan [Mr. Ford]
Mr. FORD of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, on February 10, 1994, H.R. 3842--to reauthorize the Head
Start program for another 4 years--was introduced in the House of
Representatives. The bill has cosponsors from both sides of the aisle.
Measures to reauthorize the Community Services Block Grant Program
[CSBG] (H.R. 4084) and the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program
[LIHEAP] (H.R. 4085) were introduced shortly thereafter. The bills were
eventually merged into a single measure (H.R. 4250).
In 3 short months from the day the Head Start reauthorization bill
was first introduced, hearings on the legislation were completed, the
Committee on Education and Labor amended and reported the bill, the
House of Representatives overwhelming approved the bill, and today I am
pleased to bring back to the House of Representatives the conference
report on the Human Services Amendments of 1994. The Senate passed the
conference report last night by a vote of 98 to 1.
The speed with which this legislation has progressed through the
Congress is a testament to the vitality of the Head Start program and
is an affirmation of the ability of Republicans and Democrats to work
together for the sake of improving the lives of young children and
their parents living in poverty in this country.
I am indeed honored that in my last year serving in the U.S. Congress
I will have had the opportunity to help extend the Head Start program
into the 21st century. For it was 29 years ago, within the first few
months of my first term as a freshman Member of Congress, that I heard
President Lyndon Johnson speak these words at a Rose Garden ceremony:
Today we are able to announce that we will have open, and
we believe operating this summer coast-to-coast, some 2,000
child development centers serving as many as possibly a half
million children.
This means that nearly half the preschool children of
poverty will get a head start on their future. These children
will receive preschool training to prepare them for regular
school in September. They will get medical and dental
attention that they badly need and their parents will receive
counseling on improving the home environment.
This is a most remarkable accomplishment and it has been
done in a very short time. It would not be possible except
for the willing and the enthusiastic cooperation of Americans
throughout the country.
Five and six year old children are inheritors of poverty's
curse and not its creators. Unless we act, these children
will pass it on to the next generation, like a family
birthmark.
In the 29 years since its inception, Head Start has provided hope and
support to more than 13 million low-income families. It has become our
country's premier child care model, offering health, nutrition,
education, mental, and social services to poor children and their
families in each and every county in the Nation. It has grown from a
$350 million summer initiative to a year-round program funded at $3.3
billion serving approximately 750,000 children and their families. The
wisdom in which Head Start was conceived enables this program to
endure. It continues to enjoy broad bipartisan support and is just as
viable today as it was some 30 years ago.
Yet, the world of Head Start today is drastically different than it
was 30 years ago. Children are faced with challenges and influences
which affect their development at an earlier age. Families suffering
from homelessness, substance abuse, unemployment, and lack of education
and training hold little promise for children born into poverty through
no fault of their own.
Head Start today, as it was 30 years ago, is a beacon of hope for
children in poverty and their families. Community-based, community-
governed, community- and family-responsive Head Start programs afford
comprehensive services to children and their low-income families in the
place of futility.
The conference report to S. 2000 builds upon the successes of Head
Start, responds to its critics, and extends the Head Start Program for
another 4 years. The bill incorporates improvements to respond to the
changing needs of children and their families as recommended by
Secretary Shalala's Advisory Committee on Head Start Quality and
Expansion. I would like to highlight several of these improvements.
For the first time, Head Start programs will be required to
coordinate with local schools. The provisions complement similar
language incorporated into H.R. 6, a bill to reauthorize the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act programs, approved by the House of
Representatives on March 24.
The bill retains the 1990 statutory requirement that 25 percent of
all Head Start funds be used to improve the quality of existing
programs, such as ensuring sufficient staffing and ensuring adequate
compensation of Head Start staff.
The legislation establishes a new initiative to extend Head Start
type services to children from birth to 3 and their families.
The bill permits Head Start programs, for the first time, to
construct their own facilities where the Secretary determines suitable
facilities are not otherwise available or where construction would be
more cost-effective than purchase or renovation.
This conference report does more than reauthorize Head Start--it also
renews our commitment to a number of worthy programs addressing the
needs of individuals living in poverty.
The conference report reauthorizes the Community Services Block Grant
Act through fiscal year 1998. Since its creation in 1981 as a
continuation of work begun in the Office of Economic Opportunity, CSBG
funds have been used to leverage other resources to operate programs
addressing the problems caused by poverty and providing advocacy
services for the poor.
The conference report also continues through fiscal year 1999, the
Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program [LIHEAP]--an initiative of
particular importance to low-income individuals who find their lives
threatened by harsh weather. Recent budget cuts have caused a fall-off
in the number of households served to the point where today only one-
quarter of the eligible households are able to participate in the
program. The action we take today is intended to sustain the program
and provide a suitable response to critical life-threatening situations
which have far too often resulted in injury or death.
Finally, the conference report consolidates several existing programs
into an expanded community-based family resource program which will
help build networks of comprehensive family resource centers and
services and promote a systematic approach to prevention.
The conference report represents a significant effort to maintain
bipartisan support for social service programs which answer critical
needs of American families and communities.
I am proud to have chaired the House conferees in this effort and
congratulate Chairman Martinez on his good work and applaud all of the
House conferees who signed the conference report--Mr. Kildee, Mr.
Owens, Mr. Andrews of New Jersey, Mr. Scott, Ms. Woolsey, Mr. Romero-
Barcelo, Mr. Baesler, Mr. Goodling, Ms. Molinari, Mr. Barrett, and Mr.
Castle--and their respective staffs for the collegial effort which has
brought us here today. I also thank Chairman Dingell and Energy and
Power Subcommittee Chairman Sharp and Members from both parties on the
Committee on Energy and Commerce for their cooperation in this effort.
In closing, I congratulate President Clinton for his vision,
Secretary Shalala for her determination, and the staff of the
Department of Health and Human Services for their hard work in what I
view as an unprecedented effort to forge a truly bipartisan product
renewing these important human service programs.
I would also like to thank our Senate counterparts for their
cooperation and commitment in this endeavor. Senator Kennedy, Senator
Dodd, Senator Kassebaum, and Senator Coats offered bipartisan
cooperation without which we could not have achieved this great
success.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this
conference agreement on these important human services programs and
creating a 21st century Head Start.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. MOLINARI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I thank the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Ford], the chairman of the
Committee on Education and Labor, for his kind remarks. It has been a
tremendous opportunity to work alongside him on the committee, equally
as it has been to work with the ranking Republican, the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling].
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania
[Mr. Goodling].
(Mr. GOODLING asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report
accompanying S. 2000, the Human Services Amendments of 1994. This
important legislation contains separate reauthorization for Head Start,
CSBG, LIHEAP, and other programs.
The Human Services Amendments of 1994 is the product of lengthy
negotiations, the early stages of which actually began over a year ago.
While the conference report is not a perfect bill, is contains
important provisions of which I am particularly proud, provisions which
I believe move these programs in the right direction.
First of all, Mr. Speaker, contained in title I, which reauthorizes
Head Start, are several mechanisms which will improve the quality of
services provided to needy children under the Head Start program. Many
of these ideas we had incorporated in the Goodling-Molinari-Kassebaum
Head Start Quality Improvement Act.
As I have been saying for many years, we have to ask ourselves the
question, when we say we need more money to cover more children, we
have to ask the question, ``To cover them with what? The answer has to
be ``to cover them with excellence.''
{time} 1520
Since the beginning of Head Start, Congress has spent over $27
billion of taxpayers' money to fund the program. Our reports thus far
are not the most glowing reports in relationship to how long these
benefits last. It is our hope that with this reauthorization, the
answer will be they will last a lifetime. It is not enough for us just
to fund more Head Start programs and serve greater numbers of children.
We have to be confident that the services provided produce measurable
improvements for these children. For Head Start programs to make a
positive impact on children's lives, the programs must provide the
highest quality services possible. The improvements we have included in
the legislation move Head Start in the direction of greater and more
consistent quality and excellence.
Mr. Speaker, also contained in the Head Start section of the bill are
provisions to improve parental involvement in Head Start. These
programs will now offer all Head Start parents the opportunity to
participate in family literacy programs and parenting skills training.
It took this country an awful long time, and I do not understand why,
to understand that the only way we will be successful is if we deal
with the entire family. Family literacy now is the program that is
going to get us where we want to go and, that is, to make sure that not
only all children are literate and have the best skills possible but
also their parents have the same.
Mr. Speaker, the bill we are considering today includes a provision
requiring Head Start programs to coordinate their services with the
Even Start program. This provision matches up nicely with the same kind
of coordination requirements that we already put in the Even Start law.
All of these changes strengthen the Head Start program and bring
needed accountability to a program that potentially can offer so much
more to the future of disadvantaged children.
Mr. Speaker, I do have some concerns about an addition by our Members
in the other body where they get into the business of having prevailing
wages for construction workers. I get concerned simply because we do
not seem to have enough money at the present time to give quality
programs to these children that are eligible and if we spread it
thinner and we get into the business of how much somebody might spend
on construction, now, some will argue, ``Well, the rent they save will
somehow or other make up for this.'' I would question that seriously.
Mr. Speaker, in the reauthorization of LIHEAP the Low Income Home
Energy Assistance Program, I am pleased that the conferees maintained
House language that sends a strong bipartisan message to the
administration regarding the importance of this program and that
Congress is unwilling to accept the funding cuts the administration has
requested.
Mr. Speaker, I am also pleased that the conferees dropped the
unnecessary program performance goals and measurements in the House
bill and maintained the existing prohibition against the Secretary
issuing program regulations for LIHEAP. Each State participating in the
LIHEAP programs is very unique geographically, demographically and in
its governance structure. The conferees have recognized that States
need continued flexibility to ensure that energy assistance is
distributed in the method that makes the most sense for each individual
State.
Mr. Speaker, in the Community Service Block Grant Program, conferees
also avoided giving the Secretary unfettered regulatory authority,
although they did allow the Secretary to prescribe procedures for the
States to determine the effectiveness of CSBG programs.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank all on both sides of the aisle. I am
particularly pleased that our retiring chairman has an opportunity to
play a leading role in making sure that Head Start programs in the
future will be even better than they have been in the past, and that
his grandchildren and great grandchildren may also benefit greatly from
these early childhood programs that we are putting forth and in which
we are improving the quality.
Mr. Speaker, I also want to thank the gentleman from North Carolina
[Mr. Ballenger], the gentleman from California [Mr. Martinez], the
gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Molinari], and the staffs on both sides,
and also the relationship we had with the other body, because I think
in working together we have truly produced not a perfect bill, we have
never produced one of those, but a bill that will go a long way to
improve all of these programs in which the Federal Government has some
responsibility.
Mr. FORD of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, before yielding to the gentleman from California, the
subcommittee chairman, it should be noted that we owe a debt of
gratitude to the Committee on Energy and Commerce and particularly to
the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell], the chairman of that
committee, for their cooperation in being able to work out the low
income energy assistance portion of the bill and include it in a single
package.
Mr. Speaker, it should be noted that building on the experience we
had last winter when we had record cold spells and periods of cold in
the United States and a great deal of suffering as a result thereof,
this bill carries forward a $600 million a year emergency authorization
that will be there available for appropriation if we hit another winter
like last year sometime in the future. It is the kind of forward
thinking that we were very happy to work out across jurisdictional
lines with the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is also important to denote for the record
that there was an extraordinary amount of staff cooperation in putting
all these pieces together into the final product and working out the
multitude of differences between the House and Senate so that our job
as members at the Senate-House conference was really sort of routine.
They were led by on the majority side Alan Lopatin and, of course, the
staff of the gentleman from California [Mr. Martinez] and the staff of
the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling], and I put into the
Record the names of the people who worked on this:
Kris Gilbert, Les Sweeting, Terry Deshler, Dennis Glavin and Leslie
Harris. On the Republican side, Lee Collin.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from that little town on the west coast, Los Angeles, CA [Mr.
Martinez], the fellow who did the heavy hitting on this legislation,
one of the most productive and competent subcommittee chairmen we have
on the committee and one who really deserves to take the bows when the
President signs this at the White House next week.
Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in complete support of the conference agreement
and urge all Members to vote in favor of this bipartisan agreement.
I would like, first, to take this opportunity to publicly thank the
hundreds of Head Start parents, teachers, administrators, and graduates
who met with me, wrote to me and called to express their continued
support for the Head Start Program and our Head Start bill.
I want to thank Sarah Greene, executive Director, and Ron Herndon,
president of the National Head Start Association, and Linda Likens,
director of government relations for the association for their
willingness to frame and discuss significant issues arising in the
reauthorization of Head Start.
We were very successful in addressing all of those concerns, and the
conference agreement embodies their suggestions on: Construction of
Head Start facilities, modifications and improvements to both the
Indian and Migrant Head Start Programs, recognition of the importance
of full-day and full-year services, mentor teachers, additional support
of family service workers, enhanced parent involvement, improvement and
renewed support for the Head Start transition project and the State
collaboration projects, and an expansion of the work that Head Start
has been doing with younger children.
I would like to assure them that we have listened to their concerns
about the Infants and Toddler Program and have included language that
requires a secretarial panel designing the new zero to three effort to
report its findings by December 31, 1994.
I am assured by Secretary Shalala and her staff that this panel is
already working and will be reporting on time.
We also heard from a significant number of Americans across the
country in connection with title 2 of the bill, the Community Services
Block Grant Program reauthorization, and have heeded their requests to
ensure continued authorization of the Community Food and Nutrition
Program and the National Youth Sports Program.
I appreciate the dedication and hard work that those programs have
done over the years and am happy to say that our proposal to
reauthorize those programs was agreed to in conference, in full
consultation and with the support of the administration.
I want to acknowledge the leadership of my chairman, Bill Ford, and
Chairman Edward M. Kennedy of the other body, in shepherding this
important legislation through the legislative process in a very
expeditious manner.
This is a truly bipartisan bill, thanks to the efforts of ranking
member Bill Goodling, Ms. Molinari, Mr. Barrett and Mr. Castle, each of
whom offered important suggestions to enhance the bill throughout.
The Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program [LIHEAP] serves
millions of needy Americans nationwide, providing low-income and other
vulnerable households with assistance for home heating, cooling, crisis
intervention and low cost weatherization.
The conference agreement contains modifications that increase State
flexibility--as it encourages targeting of low-income households with
high energy burdens.
The bill encourages new approaches in services and service delivery
and promotes a collaborative relationship between States and the
Department of Health and Human Services.
I would like to thank Chairman Dingell of the Committee on Energy and
Commerce for his leadership, and Chairman Sharp of the Subcommittee on
Energy and Power for his cooperation and assistance in getting this
important legislation to the floor.
I would also like to thank my colleague from Michigan, Mr. Kildee,
for his continued support of LIHEAP and his contribution to our bill.
I am confident that the changes made will strengthen and improve the
overall effectiveness of the program.
Again, this is a very good conference bill, one that is truly
bipartisan, and I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote
in favor of the agreement.
{time} 1530
Ms. MOLINARI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Nebraska [Mr. Barrett], who was a tremendous asset to the construction
of this legislation, and most importantly during the conference period
he substituted for all of us with his energy, and we appreciate that.
(Mr. BARRETT of Nebraska asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. BARRETT of Nebraska. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her
kind remarks; I thank the chairman, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr.
Ford], for his kind remarks as well. I also want to recognize the chair
of the subcommittee, the gentleman from California [Mr. Martinez], who
also did an excellent job with the report, as well as the gentlewoman
from New York.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report on S. 2000,
which would reauthorize the Head Start, Community Services Block Grant,
and the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance programs.
I do, however, have some concerns with a couple of provisions in the
conference report. I am concerned with expanding Head Start to serve
children from 0 to 3 years of age.
The conference report, I fear, takes a head strong plunge into
providing more services to infants and toddlers without first taking a
cautious and realistic review of how this expansion may affect current
Head Start programs.
It would be a shame that in the rush to provide more services to
needy children and families, we may be jeopardizing other needy
families that may benefit from excellent Head Start programs today.
Mr. Speaker, I will be requesting the General Accounting Office [GAO]
to study the impact that the 0 to 3 initiative might have on current
programs, and what factors should be considered by the Department of
Health and Human Services, as it implements the initiative.
I urge my colleagues to join me in requesting a GAO study, because it
may make Congress and the administration aware of the pitfalls of
providing Head Start services to needy families.
A concern has also been raised that the conference report may
infringe upon English literacy programs by requiring Head Start centers
to provide services to non-English speaking individuals.
Americans, and new immigrants to our country, should be fluent in
English in order to fully participate in our society. I hope that when
the Department of Health and Human Services issues its regulations to
cover these matters, it will keep firmly in mind the need to place a
priority on providing more English literacy programs in Head Start, and
not endanger these vital programs with an overzealous expansion of
required activities.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I believe that a number of other positive
features in the conference report outweigh my reservations. Namely, the
compromise enhances family literacy programs and insures that Head
Start programs are providing quality programs.
I urge my colleagues to support the conference report.
Mr. FORD of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro].
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, this past winter was devastatingly cold
across a large swath of our country. So cold, that many States were on
the verge of running out of funding for their Low Income Home Energy
Assistance Programs [LIHEAP] long before the end of the cold weather.
The LIHEAP program provides critical assistance for our elderly,
disabled, and low-income working families so they can keep their homes
adequately heated. That is why I strongly support the reauthorization
of LIHEAP and wholeheartedly agree with the language in the LIHEAP
reauthorization conference report before us that expresses the sense of
Congress that maintaining LIHEAP should be a high priority, and that
all fiscal year 1995 appropriations for LIHEAP should be expended.
I also want to express my strong support for the Head Start
reauthorization contained in the conference report. This program, whose
father, Dr. Ed Zigler, hails from my congressional district, enjoys
broad support within Congress--and for good reason. It provides our
most vulnerable preschool children with a chance to begin their
education ready and able to learn. I am pleased the conference report
makes needed improvements in Head Start, such as staff improvements and
program quality, expansion, and review initiatives. We must strive not
only to serve more eligible children, but we must also carefully
monitor how effective our increased investment in Head Start is. This
bill will make sure that we have performance and quality standards, and
that every Head Start agency will be fully reviewed.
Mr. Speaker. I urge my colleagues to support the LIHEAP, Head Start,
Community Services Block Grant reauthorization conference report.
Ms. MOLINARI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida [Mr. Miller], also a member of the subcommittee.
(Mr. MILLER of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the
Head Start Amendments Act of 1994.
As a member of both the Education and Labor Committee and the
Subcommittee on Human Resources, I do so with some regret, because I
strongly support the concept of Head Start, a program that attempts to
help low-income children in their formative learning years.
In an age of falling test scores and rising illiteracy, we need to
invest more in our children to help them prepare to succeed both in
school and in life. We could do even better if we got the Federal
Government out of the administration of Head Start, block granting the
needed funds to the States.
But the rest of this conference report is unacceptable. It undermines
legitimate programs like Head Start by authorizing massive increases in
funding for Community Service Block Grants and the Low Income Home
Energy Assistance Program--two programs filled with pork barrel and
unnecessary spending. Instead of increasing their funding, we should be
talking about eliminating CSBG and LIHEAP outright.
When the President presented his proposal to reauthorize the programs
included in this bill, Head Start, CSBG and LIHEAP, he focused on
quality and efficiency. He proposed funding the CSBG Program at $434
million and the LIHEAP Program at $730 million. This conference report,
however, increases CSBG to $595 million--a 40-percent increase. LIHEAP,
is increased to $2 billion--over a 100-percent increase of the
President's proposal.
What are we thinking? While asking the American people to tighten
their belts to pay for one tax hike after another, Congress continues
to refuse to make even modest reductions in Federal spending.
We cannot even maintain the status quo, but continue to increase the
funding for unnecessary programs even beyond the President's own
request.
The uphill battle we are fighting to balance the budget is getting
steeper every time we mark up a bill in the Education and Labor
Committee. We saw H.R. 6 grow by $1.6 billion during the committee
mark, and now CSBG has grown by $161 million and LIHEAP has grown by
$1.2 billion. If we can not make even a small step toward reducing
spending and working together with the President, how will we ever be
able to move toward fiscal sanity?
This conference report also bugs me because many of the changes made
to the Head Start Program in both the committee and the conference are
improvements on the program. I commend the improvements, including
enhanced parental involvement provisions, set-asides for quality
improvement, and attempts to expand the impact of the program.
But I cannot allow the bloated CSBG and LIHEAP programs to get a free
ride on the backs of the American taxpayers. This is just one more
example of a broken Federal budget process that allows massive omnibus
spending authorizations to sail through the House untouched. Time and
again, I watch wasteful, duplicative and unnecessary spending
boondoggles ride piggy-back on otherwise-constructive programs. It
happened several weeks ago on the crime bill, and it is happening again
today.
In the name of fiscal sanity, join me in voting against this
conference report. We can do much better.
{time} 1540
Mr. FORD of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Indiana [Mr. Roemer].
Mr. ROEMER. I thank the chairman for yielding this time to me.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by rising and thanking a number of
people who are responsible for maybe one of the wisest and smartest
investments that we will make in our Nation's children in this session
of Congress. I would like to thank the gentleman from Michigan [Mr.
Ford], the gentleman from California, [Mr. Martinez], the gentleman
from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling], and the gentlewoman from New York
[Ms. Molinari], and staff members like Carole Stringer and Alan Lopatin
for their hard work on this bill.
This is smart and wise because it is proactive, it is preventive, and
it invests in education for our children.
When 30 years ago, Mr. Speaker, when we first came up with Head
Start, we crafted what we thought was a good bipartisan bill to solve
problems for at-risk children. We ran into a number of significant
problems over the last 30 years; trends have changed, times have
changed, families and children have changed.
We have now brought this bill up to these trends to deal with the
problems in our families and with our children and respond to the need
to reform our welfare children. This invests in and anticipates those
changes. It also is reflective of the good job that Congress is trying
to do with its oversight function.
Here we worked in a bipartisan way to try to anticipate these trends
and try to expand the programs, 0 to 3, try to improve recordkeeping
for immunizations and academic records, try to improve the quality of
teachers and teachers aides that we get; that is one of the best
investments we can make with the problems that our children are running
into these days.
I would also like to commend the inclusion in this particular bill of
the National Youth Sports Program. Here is a program that brings at-
risk children to college campuses. Many children never get this
experience in their entire lives. When I visited the program at Notre
Dame, children told me that, ``This school, Notre Dame, isn't just for
rich or white people, this is for everybody.''
So the National Youth Sports Program does give the exposure and the
exposure and the experience to young people to learn academically, to
get physicals, to learn about the dangers of drugs and to live on a
college campus for a few weeks and know with confidence that they can
go to that school some day.
So I applaud the committee's inclusion of the community Services
Block Grant and the National Youth Sports Program, and I highly applaud
this bipartisan Head Start bill.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the conference report on S.
2000, the Head Start Act Amendments of 1994.
Title I of the bill, which reauthorizes Head Start for 4 years,
responds to the recommendations of Secretary Shalala's Advisory
Committee on Head Start Quality and Expansion. This legislation moves
toward ensuring that a 21st century Head Start Program is more
responsive to the changing needs of American families. The agreement
also establishes a new infant and toddler program which promises to
build upon the successes of Head Start to give families with very young
children a chance at breaking the cycle of poverty.
The agreement also includes provisions to enhance the linkages
between Head Start and schools to help secure the gains made by Head
Start youngsters as they enter elementary school.
The agreement also reauthorizes the community services block grant
which sustains the good work of community action agencies. Also
reauthorized under this act is the National Youth Sports Program [NYSP]
which brings thousands of economically disadvantaged youth, aged 10 to
16, onto college and university campuses nationwide. For most of these
participants, NYSP is their first exposure to a college campus. For
more than a quarter of a century, NYSP has provided sports instruction
and a host of other enrichments, such as education and career
counseling, math and science instruction and medical examinations for
our Nation's under-privileged youth.
I believe that both Head Start and National Youth Sports represent
successful intervention programs for economically disadvantaged youth
that reaffirm our commitment to invest in our Nation's children. I urge
my colleagues to support the conference agreement.
Ms. MOLINARI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
New York [Mr. Gilman].
(Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GILMAN. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of S. 2000, the Head Start Act
Amendments of 1994. I would like to commend all of the conferees for
their diligent work on this important measure and particularly the
gentleman from Michigan, the commission's distinguished chairman, Mr.
Ford, and the ranking minority member, the gentleman from Pennsylvania
[Mr. Goodling] and the staunch supporters of Head Start, the
gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Molinari] and the gentleman from
California [Mr. Martinez] the distinguished subcommittee chairman.
This conference report improves program quality and management
accountability at Head Start centers around our Nation. In addition,
and more importantly, this measure extends Head Start services to
families with infants and toddlers, reserves funds for teachers'
salaries and facility upgrades, and requires Department of Health and
Human Services [HHS] to consider a grant recipient's past performance
when allocating funds. Moreover, an important aspect of this bill,
allows Head Start agencies to construct sorely needed new facilities.
Mr. Speaker, we all recognize that our Nation's children are our most
precious resource. Head Start has enjoyed bipartisan support since its
inception some 29 years ago and has proven to be an invaluable program
for our entire Nation.
Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to fully support this conference
report.
Mr. FORD of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Massachusetts [Mr. Meehan].
Mr. MEEHAN. I thank the chairman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, the Head Start Program is one of the few programs that
directly helps children and demonstrably improves their chances to live
and learn to their full potential. Head Start provides more than just
early education. It give poor children a shot at decent health care,
nutrition, and social services, at a critical stage in their
development.
We cannot talk about solving the crime problem, ending welfare
dependency, or improving the quality of life for ourselves and our
children without addressing the simple fact that our kids need help.
Too many children come from disadvantaged backgrounds and will never be
able to overcome the barriers they face, unless we help provide them a
level playing field. Head Start is one way to give children a chance.
Children who are abused, children who do not get adequate medical
care, and children who are simply neglected are children who fail in
life. Their growing numbers threaten to undermine our economic
competitiveness and destroy our social fabric while condemning millions
to a lifetime of dysfunction and underachievement.
Some people say we should not expand Head Start. I say we should not
expand any Government program without thinking about how to make it
work better, and that is what this reauthorization does. It makes
children eligible for Head Start earlier to reflect emerging evidence
about the importance of reaching children before preschool. It builds
on proven success stories to reform the existing program.
A lot of Government programs begin with good intentions but never
work as planned. This is a program that deserves support because we
know it works and because we know it is desperately needed to give poor
children a future with jobs, families, and hope rather than poverty,
prison, and despair, Let us pass the conference report.
Ms. MOLINARI. Mr. Speaker, I am extremely honored and delighted and
privileged to yield 1 minute to the wonderful gentleman from Wisconsin
[Mr. Gunderson].
(Mr. GUNDERSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. GUNDERSON. Mr. Speaker, we spend a lot of time in this House
talking about crime, anticrime legislation. I would like to suggest to
my colleagues the bill in front of you now will do more to prevent
crime in this country than anything we did during that 3 weeks'
marathon, because the most important thing we can do at the Federal
Government level is get to children at risk at an early age. That is
why I encourage you to support this conference report. Head Start will
get to literally thousands, if not millions, of children at risk before
they begin school so that they can be a full partner in that school.
In Wisconsin, 9,000 kids alone are going to benefit from this
program. This conference report connects it more to education than the
system of Head Start has been in the past.
Second, in the community services block grant we have included a
number of programs, such as the National Youth Sports Program, which
goes to the same children at risk during their elementary school years,
during the summer, making sure they are not only busy doing good things
but that they have not only an athletic component but an educational
component as well.
{time} 1550
I say to my colleagues, ``So, when you vote today on this conference
report, remember this is the real way we at the Federal Government can
truly fight crime.''
Mr. FORD of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer], chairman of the
Democratic Caucus.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Michigan
[Mr. Ford] for his generosity and say that I rise in strong support of
all three of the components of this legislation. I think this
conference report makes some key improvements in the Head Start
Program, and I agree with the previous speaker, the gentleman from
Wisconsin [Mr. Gunderson], who has been so eloquently described by the
gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Molinari].
But, Mr. Speaker, I rise to say a few cautionary words about a
provision in the conference report that we did not include in the House
bill. I am referring to the section authorizing the Secretary to
approve construction of Head Start facilities where other alternatives
are unavailable.
I do appreciate that this section of the conference report says that,
in using this new authority, the Secretary shall promote collocation of
Head Start with other programs serving low-income children and
families. But I remain convinced, and I would urge the committee
members to focus on this issue, that construction of new buildings to
house Head Start may well act as a centrifugal force, decentralizing
services for disadvantaged families at a time when education, social
service, and health care programs should be brought together in one
easily accessible location for those who need them most.
Mr. Speaker, in an excellent speech at Georgetown University in
February, Secretary Riley mentioned just such a model, which he
referred to as and I quote, ``early childhood family centers.''
We need early childhood family centers. That is the goal we should be
working toward, and it is one of my major priorities as a member of the
Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and
Education.
If we can renovate public school buildings to include Head Start
centers, that is money well spent. If we can construct Head Start
facilities that will include a maternal and child health center and
after-school programs, that is money well spent. And, in my opinion;
and this is the key they should be collocated on public school grounds
whenever possible, not so the public schools can have ownership of all
the programs, but so that the people who so desperately need these
services to become effective, productive, taxpaying citizens will have
the ability to access them in a comprehensive way.
The language in the conference report allows the Secretary to use
Head Start construction authority in just that way. I would urge the
Secretary, and hope to encourage this in the appropriations bill as
well, to use the authority only in that way, and to use it sparingly,
since quality improvement and expansion to full-day, full-year programs
should be the first priority for Head Start right now.
Again, Mr. Speaker, this conference report is a good blueprint for
taking Head Start into the 21st century, and I commend it to my
colleagues.
Let me say to those colleagues who say that Head Start works well
that it does in most instances, but let us not fool ourselves. By just
saying we support Head Start it does not mean that we are giving
quality services to young children. There are some programs that are
not working well, and I commend the chairman of the subcommittee and
the ranking member for also making sure that this conference report
includes significant oversight and incentives for performance, and
where performance is failing; that is to say we are failing young
children, that we will take appropriate action.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Ford] for
having yielded so generously of his time.
Ms. MOLINARI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
North Carolina [Mr. Ballenger].
Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to address my remarks to
title IV of the conference report which authorizes the community-based
family resource programs.
The conference report incorporates what was best about the House and
Senate's respective versions of title IV. It adopts the House's
language to ensure that all families are eligible to be served--
including families of children with disabilities, and it adopts the
Senate's program consolidations that combine differing resources into a
single funding stream that will help States pursue systemic reforms in
the way they deliver family resource services.
The title IV provisions that originally passed the Senate had several
positive components. However, I felt that the Senate legislation did
not clearly include families of children with disabilities and did not
ensure that States would address the unique needs that these families
experience.
To improve the legislation, we called upon many of the ideas that are
being generated from the family support movement--ideas like strategic
planning to break down statutory and bureaucratic barriers that make it
difficult to provide services tailored to a family's needs, and
bringing the family to the center of the decisionmaking process.
I believe that this legislation has the potential to break the long
tradition in Congress of creating separate programs for the disabled
and the nondisabled. Instead, this program creates a single approach to
statewide systems change and coordination of existing resources that
can help all families--including families of children that are
disabled.
I know that many families of children with disabilities are naturally
skeptical. They fear that, in the statewide and community-wide planning
process, their unique needs will be overlooked. I encourage these
families not to be skeptical observers, but to become active
participants in the planning process and to try to create positive
change. I would note that this program will provide seed money to every
State to begin the systems change process, and that families must be
alert to take advantage of this opportunity.
For my part, I plan to continue working in Congress to include the
themes of systems integration and family-centeredness in other
legislation under the committee's jurisdiction, and to ensure that
legislation is responsive to the needs of all individuals, including
individuals with disabilities.
I would like to express my appreciation to Subcommittee Chairman
Owens and Senator Kassebaum and Dodd for working cooperatively to
develop an excellent compromise that can help meet the diverse needs of
all families.
Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
New York [Mr. Owens].
(Mr. OWENS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, I would also like to add my congratulations
to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Ford], and the gentleman from
California [Mr. Martinez] and all my colleagues on both sides of the
aisle who helped to make this legislation possible. I would like to
express my appreciation for the additional money for LIHEAP and the
recognition of the fact that LIHEAP is an emergency program, a program
giving funds to victims of emergencies, and to recognize that in the
future we have to have that more flexible and increase the funding. We
have witnessed the passage of an $8-billion program for earthquake
relief for California, a $6-billion program for relief for the victims
of the Midwest floods, a $6-billion program before that for relief of
the hurricane victims in Florida. We recognize natural disasters, and
we rally to the aid of victims, everybody except in the Northeast when
they have massive snow storms, and nobody wants to recognize that those
victims also deserve the help of their Government. Government should
come to the aid of victims, certainly people who are victimized by
natural disasters. LIHEAP, as inadequate as it is, at least moved a few
inches forward, and we praise the conference for that. Community
services block grant is contained in this program. As a former
community action director I regret the fact that community action
agencies are still the most underrated agencies receiving Federal
funds.
{time} 1600
Most of the community activist agencies in this Nation receive only
about 10 to 15 percent of their total funding from the community
services block grant. The other funds come from money that they are
able to acquire from other sources.
They get the biggest bang for the buck of any social program funded
by the Government. Yet that is not recognized. They are held at a
stable across-the-board rate, and no rewards are there for the great
job that the community action agencies are doing.
Head Start, of course, everybody recognizes is a great program. The
quality of Head Start has been eroded as a result of cutbacks in
funding. We are replacing those funds now and insisting that the
quality of Head Start be restored to what it was in its early days.
Most important in the Head Start Program, in this particular package,
is the fact it has flexibility which allows for facilities to be
renovated and even for facilities to be constructed.
Ms. MOLINARI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Rohrabacher].
(Mr. ROHRABACHER asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the conference
report on S. 2000, the Head Start Act Amendments of 1994. I would like
to note that I have always supported the Head Start.
Head Start has been successful because it is a specially targeted
program which prepares disadvantaged children for their first years of
school. It provides these children with the tools they will need to
help them achieve educational success.
Many immigrant families depend on Head Start to give their children a
chance to learn English. The Head Start Program currently meets the
needs of non-English speaking children through bilingual programs. This
is questionable enough. I don't need to state the importance of
ensuring that these children become fluent in English in order to
assimilate successfully in our society.
This particular bill, however, goes beyond the current scope of the
Head Start Program. Currently, Head Start must provide special services
for ``non-English language children.'' This bill strikes this
particular language and replaces it with ``non-English language
background children and their families.''
Under this bill, children who already speak English will also receive
instruction in their families' native languages. Mr. Speaker, it is
absurd to think that we are going to use the Head Start Program to
provide foreign language instruction to children who already speak
English!
Liberals are so intent on ``balkanizing'' this country, it is no
longer enough to provide special bilingual programs through Head Start.
Now, this bill requires that we must also provide instruction in the
language of their parents' homeland to English-speaking children.
It is often said that Head Start only reaches half of those children
who are eligible. Perhaps that's because we are including millions of
illegal aliens and their children as being eligible for Head Start.
Under current law, which is continued in this bill, illegal aliens and
their children qualify for all the services provided by Head Start. I
would also note that illegal aliens are fully eligible for the energy
assistance provisions of this bill, as well.
Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, I have always been a strong supporter
of Head Start. For the last several decades Head Start has provided
disadvantaged children with the tools they need to succeed in our
society. I must, however, question the wisdom of enacting an unlimited
authorization for services which go beyond the traditional scope of
Head Start. The Head Start Program was designed to help disadvantaged
students successfully assimilate into society. I simply do not
understand how providing instruction to English-speaking children in
their parents' language will further the legitimate goals of the Head
Start Program. Therefore, I oppose S. 2000 and ask my colleagues to do
the same.
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ROHRABACHER. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to make sure Members knew, in the
conference statement of the managers, we stated the conferees wish to
emphasize the importance of assisting non-English speaking families in
becoming literate in English.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I support bilingual
education programs that are aimed at teaching non-English speakers to
speak English. I have supported that consistently. I think that is a
worthy and necessary goal. But this is not the segment of the bill
which I am opposing now. I believe the expenditure of funds to teach
young children who already speak English to speak the native language
of their parents, to teach them in Spanish or French or whatever that
language is, I think that is a waste of money.
Mr. GOODLING. If the gentleman would yield further, I would think
that would be stretching one's imagination greatly. As I said, the
whole emphasis is to get the parent and the child to speak English. I
cannot imagine that anyone could possibly use funds to do anything
other than that.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I had a conversation with a teacher
last night that said that is exactly the purpose. My staff has
researched this. Unfortunately, that is the purpose of the change in
language of this bill.
Mr. FORD of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to reassure the gentleman, who touched my
heart with his plaintive words that he has always supported Head Start,
and he knows it is a good program, and he knows it is good for
preparing children to go to school, and he is now bothered by an
interpretation of the language of this legislation that is totally
erroneous. And I can assure the gentleman that there is no change in
the mission of teaching non-English-speaking children to be able to
speak it and be literate in English. That is the primary purpose of the
language of the bill, and nothing is different in that regard in this
reauthorization from all of the years it has been on the books, more
than 29 years, except a piece of literature that the gentleman
apparently read, instead of reading the bill and the committee report.
That is the only group in this country that says that the language in
the bill means what it means. As the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr.
Goodling] said, it requires an extreme stretch of the imagination to
read that kind of interpretation into it.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. If the gentleman would yield for a question, why
then was the language changed in the bill this year? If the purpose was
not to change the way the procedure on how children are taught and what
they are taught, why was the language changed in this authorization?
Mr. FORD of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, because there
is a change to the extent that we ask the Head Start people to spend
more time working with the family and the child, and that called for a
clear explanation that we wanted them to break with what happens in
some places, where they deal with only the child. And, very frankly,
that amendment was very strongly supported from your side of the aisle.
It is only fair to tell you that your representatives on the committee
brought our attention to the fact that if we are trying to extend this
to family involvement, we had better do something to make it
consistent.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the following staff for their hard
work in helping to ensure a strong bill was crafted and moved through
the Congress expeditiously:
On the Education and Labor Committee staff, Alan Lopatin and Kris
Gilbert;
On the Human Resources Subcommittee, Les Sweeting, Terry Deschler,
Dennis Glavin, and Leslie Harris;
On the minority staff of the Education and Labor Committee, Lee
Cowen, Hans Meeder, Vic Klatt, and Mary Ann Fitzgerald;
On the Subcommittee for Select Education and Civil Rights staff,
Braden Goetz and Rob MacDonald;
On the Subcommittee on Elementary, Secondary and Vocational
Education, Tom Kelly and Jeff MacFarland; and
On the Energy and Commerce Committee, Lisa Kountoupas, Tom Runge, and
Karen Hunsicker.
We owe them a debt of gratitide for a job well done.
english language head start concerns
Some have argued that the conference report would chart a new course
for bilingual or non-English language Head Start programs. I offer the
following observations:
Since 1965, Head Start has been serving children from low income
families as diverse as the American population. In fiscal year 1993,
Head Start enrollment included children from a broad group of home
language backgrounds including: English (553,000); Spanish (123,000);
Native American and related (14,000); Vietnamese (2,700); Chinese
(2,500); Hmong (2,400); Haitian (2,200); Cambodian (1,100); and French
(242).
While Head Start children come from families where English is not
their home language, Head Start is virtually the only program which
teaches preschoolers English.
The current Head Start statute requires the Secretary, in designating
Head Start agencies to take into account, the plan of an applicant to
meet the needs of non-English language children in the community.
Section 641(d)(7). This has been the law for more than 2 decades. The
only change in S. 2000 is to note that families are a part of Head
Start.
The conference report on S. 2000 retains a number of provisions which
were part of the House-passed Human Services Amendments of 1994 which
deal with the sensitivity of programs to the needs of non-English
language background children and their families; 21 of 22 House
conferees--14 Democrats, 7 Republicans--signed the conference
agreement, along with all Senate conferees.
The joint statement of managers illuminates the intent of the
conference report: The conferees wish to emphasize the importance of
assisting non-English language families in becoming literate in
English. However, this is not intended to prevent programs from
utilizing a bilingual approach or from assisting the large number of
Hispanic families who receive services under this act from becoming
literate in Spanish, nor to prevent efforts by Indian, or Native
Alaskan, or Hawaiian programs to promote literacy in indigenous
languages.
Critics have suggested that under the terms of the conference report,
the Secretary could terminate a program for failing to be bilingual.
The Secretary has discretion in establishing standards and would be
expected to establish standards consistent with 29 years of program
experience to address community needs, as appropriate.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington
[Mrs. Unsoeld].
(Mrs. UNSOELD asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Mrs. UNSOELD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the Chairman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment the chairman, the chairman of the
subcommittee, and the ranking member of the Committee on Education and
Labor. This is a super bill, and I rise to give it all the support I
have. I am so delighted with the administration, with President
Clinton, for making an emphasis for Head Start, and particularly the
birth to 3-years-of-age.
Last month I held forums in my district on early childhood education
and violence prevention. The overwhelming testimony expressed by expert
panelists and attendees alike was that antisocial behavior begins from
failed human relations at a very early age, when conscience and
compassion have not been taught.
{time} 1610
We must help families with young children and more must be done to
help children and families avoid the problems that lead our youth to
gangs, drugs, and senseless violence. If we assist struggling families
with young children, we help all families and all children.
Parents will be given the opportunity to interact with other parents,
learn more about basic child development, positive discipline
techniques, and parent-child communication skills.
The foundation of antisocial behavior is laid in those very early
years of childhood so it is not only wise to invest in children and
families, it is incumbent on us as elected officials to do so. That is
why I am very pleased that provisions from my bill, H.R. 4270, were
incorporated into the final version of the reauthorization.
A few weeks ago, the Carnegie Foundation released a landmark study
focusing on our Nation's 12 million children under the age of 3. This
report concluded that we have got to give more weight to programs that
serve these families with very young children. The report also outlines
the risks associated with not supporting these families. By supporting
them, we save money that can be spent in other ways.
This is a great bill. I urge everyone to support it.
Ms. MOLINARI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Cunningham] for an interesting reaction that I am sure
the Chair will enjoy.
(Mr. CUNNINGHAM asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to say that
this is one Member that will miss the gentleman from Michigan, Chairman
Ford. He has been a tough, old bird at the chairmanship, but I have
found that also when a Member works with the chairman, he will work
with them. I appreciate that.
I would ask my friend, the gentleman from California [Mr.
Rohrabacher], who is a good, close friend, and he is a good
conservative, I would ask him, as a conservative, to support this
conference report.
First of all, Dan Quayle does not have a limit on family values. This
bill supports family values. As a mechanic used to say, ``It is pay me
now or pay me later.'' Without this bill, the payment later is tenfold.
That is a conservative position, especially on the economy.
I am concerned about illegal aliens, especially in the State of
California, as my friend. We both support English as a first language.
We are not talking about that here as a bill.
Believe it or not, in some areas of our country we have English-
speaking students that do not have the literary skills to succeed in
school. Are Members going to tell me that I cannot improve their
English so that they can succeed in school? No. And we do not do the
same thing with other language as well.
The bill supports family involvement. That is what Dan Quayle wanted.
That is what most of us want, as conservatives.
The minorities, up to 45 percent of many of the minorities do not
complete high school. If that is the case, what at best are they going
to do? They are going to get a low-income paying job.
We are going to have to pay them welfare, or they are going to be on
unemployment, which we extend in this body many, many times. And think
of the cost of that. And think, as my friend, the gentleman from
Wisconsin [Mr. Gunderson] mentioned, the application to crime.
So this is a conservative position to support this conference report.
I would also like to thank, besides the chairman, I would like to
thank a fellow San Diegon, Dr. Pasant and Secretary Riley. I think they
are bright stars in the Clinton administration.
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I just want to correct part of the
gentleman's opening statement. He is a young bird, not an old bird.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I accept the correction.
Mr. GOODLING. But bird he is.
Ms. MOLINARI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Ms. MOLINARI asked and was given permission to review and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. MOLINARI. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to consider and to have taken
part in the development of legislation to authorize the Human Services
Act.
As many of my colleagues know, and we have heard, Head Start is
approaching its 30th anniversary. This program clearly has an
impressive history, but is also has a whole new set of challenges for
the future.
One of those challenges is to address, in response to recent reports,
the disparities in the quality of services provided by Head Start
programs and to eliminate the fade-out effect in children once they
leave Head Start.
We have aggressively confronted these problems in this bill by
including measures to assure greater and more consistent quality, by
putting poor performance programs on notice that the status quo is over
and enhancing services to help parents become full partners in the
education of their children.
By making a Head Start center's continued funding contingent upon
quality service, this legislation will inject new levels of
accountability and responsibility into this program. By providing
parents with a greater voice and an enhanced role in these programs and
by providing necessary family literary services and parenting skills
training, this legislation truly empowers the most important people in
a child's life, their parents.
Let me just say, relative to the discussion that just took place, one
of the changes we do make is to require as part of the family, a new
part of the family literacy requirements, English as a second language
service to help teach parents English and enable them to further engage
in the development and the education of their children.
I am also encouraged to see a renewal of all these ideas that were
originally presented in Republican legislation. It was an honor to take
the lead from Members like the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr.
Goodling] and Senator Kassebaum, who talked about taking courageous but
necessary steps to make a good program a great program.
Naturally, I am encouraged to see a renewal of the LIHEAP program in
this legislation. The LIHEAP program, as the Speaker knows, is
important to the whole country but especially to colder states.
My State of New York is the largest recipient of LIHEAP funds and
would be one of the hardest hit by the proposed budget cuts. This bill
and conference report helps to restore that.
Mr. Speaker, it has been my pleasure to work with the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling], the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Ford] and
the gentleman from California [Mr. Martinez] to develop this
comprehensive bipartisan reauthorization package. I want to thank them
for their leadership on these issues.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. FORD of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to
the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Kennelly].
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Serrano). The gentlewoman from
Connecticut [Mrs. Kennelly] is recognized for a 1\1/2\ minutes.
(Mrs. KENNELLY asked and was given permission to revise and extend
her remarks.)
Mrs. KENNELLY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the conference
report on S. 2000, to authorize appropriations for Head Start, the Low-
Income Home Energy Assistance Program and the Community Services Block
Grant.
I would like to comment just briefly on two programs that have
enormous impact in my State. Head Start is one of the most successful
Federal programs to date and one I have consistently supported. Last
year's appropriation served more than 730,000 children across this
country. And while that may seem like a large number, it represents
only 40 percent of those children eligible for Head Start.
S. 2000 would reauthorize Head Start through fiscal year 1998 and
would strengthen and improve the quality of existing programs. Child
development services would also be expanded. A particular highlight of
Head Start is the ``Initiative on Families with Infants and Toddlers''
which would provide early, continuous and comprehensive child
development and family services to low-income families with very young
children. Pregnant women and families with children under age three,
who meet the low-income standards under the regular Head Start program,
would be eligible to participate in this initiative.
Another important piece of S. 2000 is the reauthorization of the Low-
Income Home Energy Assistance Program. LIHEAP has been highly
successful in serving the needs of low-income elderly, disabled and
working poor in Connecticut and is particularly important in light of
the harsh winter the Northeast just experienced. I am pleased that the
agreement includes Senate language to authorize $2 billion in each of
fiscal years 1995 through 1999, $1.27 billion more than the
administration's request for fiscal year 1995.
The core purpose of providing heating assistance to low-income
households based on total household income has been maintained. States,
within existing eligibility standards, may give priority to households
with the highest energy costs or needs in relation to their income.
The agreement would also make permanent the authorization to
appropriate $600 million each year in emergency funds to meet the needs
of residents in States that have suffered natural disasters. Under
current law, the process of seeking release of these funds created
difficulty in terms of timing for States trying to meet immediate
crisis situations. Permanent authorization of emergency funds is a
significant step to facilitating better and more timely action.
I am also pleased that the language of House Concurrency Resolution
202 was included in this agreement expressing that LIHEAP should be a
priority to enable the working poor, the disabled, and the low-income
elderly meet their energy costs and needs.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support passage of the
conference report on S. 2000 to preserve services like Head Start and
LIHEAP that are vital to thousands of Americans.
Mr. EWING. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to
express my strong support for S. 2000, the conference report which
reauthorizes Head Start funding through fiscal year 1998.
Since its inception in 1968, the Head Start Program has played a
significant part in the lives of millions of America's children. The
benefits of early intervention are well known, especially when it comes
to making better futures for low-income children. The Head Start
conference report guarantees that this important program will continue.
The conference report also addresses the important issues of program
quality improvement, management accountability of Head Start centers,
and allows agencies to construct new Head Start facilities if adequate
facilities are not available.
The conference report also reauthorizes for 1 year the State
Dependent Care Development Grants Act. The administration's proposed
1995 budget would consolidate this program with the Child Care and
Development Block Grant. The Temporary Care and Crisis Nurseries, and
the Child Development Associate Scholarship programs are also to be
included in this consolidation.
Many of my constituents whom are involved in providing child care
have expressed concern about the redtape and State bureaucracy which
might prevent the moneys from going to important programs which have
received funding in the past. I hope that the preservation of separate
funding for these programs will be seriously considered for fiscal year
1995. It would ensure continuation of these important services, many of
which work in conjunction with Head Start in helping to make better
futures for our Nation's children.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 2000, the Human
Services Amendments of 1994. This important legislation reauthorizes
for 4 years the widely acclaimed Head Start Act as well as the
Community Services Block Grant Act, and reauthorizes for 5 years the
low-income Home Energy Assistance Program.
head start act
The Head Start Act Amendments of 1994 fulfill the commitment of the
Congress and the Clinton administration to the American people to
expand and strengthen this extraordinarily successful program for the
development of children 3 and 4 years of age. Funded primarily by the
Federal Government, Head Start programs are community based. Local
agencies and program sponsors respond to local needs and coordinate the
delivery of services with local organizations in communities throughout
America.
Mr. Speaker, few among us deny the exemplary record of Head Start in
enriching the lives of the most vulnerable members of our society--our
children. The legislation under consideration today builds on the
illustrious educational achievements of Head Start by: Strengthening
the specific performance standards Head Start programs must need in
order to continue to be funded; Expanding Head Start programs in
increased areas and in areas of greatest need; and funding a much-
needed and long-awaited initiative to serve low-income children before
they reach their third birthday.
Performance standards
Critical to the continued success of Head Start is the requirement
that individual programs meet specific performance standards in each of
the five major services provided: Physical and mental health;
nutrition; education; social services; and parent involvement. The
legislation we consider today reserves at least twenty five percent of
Head Start funding to enhance program quality and to enable local
programs to meet their specific performance standards. Such funds may
be spent not only to add teachers, social workers, and other
professionals but also to fund in-service professional development
programs and other activities.
A growing body of evidence suggests that Head Start eligible families
are facing greater and more complex problems as a result of the drugs
and violence that plague far too many of our committees. As a result,
the legislation also makes funds available to augment the capacity of
Head Start programs to coordinate with other community based
organizations the services that make Head Start programs so successful.
program expansion
Currently, only fewer than 40 percent of eligible 3- and 4-year-olds
are served by the Head Start Program. The legislation makes funds
available to continue to expand the availability of such programs in an
orderly fashion. Funds for program expansion are critical because the
Nation's population for poor children eligible and in need of Head
Start programs far exceeds the availability of programs.
infant and toddler programs
Mr. Speaker, perhaps the most exciting aspect of the legislation we
are considering today is the recognition that healthy child development
for many of the children served by Head Start must begin before
children reach 3 and 4 years of age. Accordingly, the legislation
reserves funds for the initiation or extension of Head Start programs
for infants and toddlers younger than 3 years of age. These family
centered programs will offer the full range of Head Start services in
order to promote family self-sufficiency, ensure good health, and
enhance child educational achievement.
liheap
The human services amendments of 1994 also reauthorize the Low-Income
Home Energy Assistance Act of 1981 [LIHEAP]. Mr. Speaker, it is beyond
peradventure that many of the working poor, the disabled, and low-
income elderly have trouble paying for their energy needs because they
live in communities with high energy costs that consume a
disproportionate share of their income. Indeed, in fiscal year 1990,
LIHEAP assisted over 6 million low-income households to meet the costs
of their energy needs. However, the programs currently serve less than
24 percent of eligible households. Nevertheless, the Administration
proposed a 51 percent cut in appropriated funds for LIHEAP.
I strongly support not only the continuation of LIHEAP but also the
expenditure of all funds appropriated in fiscal year 1995 as well as an
increase in such expenditures in fiscal year 1996. The legislation
before us today continues and strengthens LIHEAP. For example, over 7
million eligible households have energy bills that exceed 15 percent of
their annual income. Accordingly, States will be able to target their
assistance to households with the highest energy costs in relation to
household income. In addition, funds may be used to subsidize low-cost
weatherization and cost-effective energy-related home repairs. The
legislation also authorizes the President to request funds in response
to truly unusual energy emergencies, such as the prolonged and bitter
cold weather many communities experienced during the winter of 1993, or
natural disasters experienced in many other communities in 1993.
Mr. Speaker, in the past, many perceived that LIHEAP failed to
establish sufficiently precise and uniform goals to assist State
agencies in the administration and implementation of the program. As a
result, during the full committee markup of this bill, I offered and
the committee accepted an amendment that directed the Secretary of
Health and Human Services to develop performance goals and measurements
in consultation with LIHEAP grantees in order to assist States in
evaluating their success in achieving the purposes of the program. As a
result of this amendment, State and local agencies will know what is
expected. The development of such statements of program goals together
with the collection of specific performance data should strengthen the
administration of LIHEAP and assure the achievement of its goals.
I urge my colleagues to support S. 2000.
Mr. TUCKER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support for the Head
Start Act amendments conference report. This conference report not only
reauthorizes the very important and successful Head Start Program, it
also reauthorizes the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program and the
Community Services Block Grant Program, and It consolidates several
programs into a new community-based Family Resource Program.
While all these programs are important, I want speak for a moment
about the Head Start Program. For the past 20 years or so there have
been a number of experimental polices and programs intended to address
students who are considered to be at-risk. Unfortunately, over half of
the minority children in this Nation's large inner city and poor rural
school districts are destined to drop out of school because they are
not adequately prepared to begin their education. One of the major
obstacles preventing inner city children from success in achieving
their educational goals is the pervasive poverty in their communities
that they must deal with every day. Head Start, a program that was
developed in the 1960's when the Federal Government declared its ``war
on poverty'' addresses this issue directly. The program provides
services in comprehensive early childhood development, education,
health, nutrition, and other related social services to preschool
children and their families. The goal is to improve the conditions
surrounding a child so that he or she is prepared succeed in later
school and life. To this day, in the 1990's the battle continues and
Head Start has been and will continue to be one of the most potent
weapons we have in our arsenal in the war against poverty. It is
becoming clearer every day that young children in inner city schools
are the victims of isolation from broader educational opportunities and
the doors that those opportunities open in job market. These kinds need
to get the schooling that will enable them to proceed to advanced
education and ultimately to enter the economic and cultural mainstream
of this Nation. The consequences of not giving these children an
adequate chance for a good education are: unemployment, crime,
violence, drug problems, teenage pregnancy and increasing school drop
out rates.
Without the programs reauthorized in this conference report, we as a
society will end up paying for the consequences in one way or another,
therefore it is imperative that we approve this conference report and
give these kids the opportunity to get the most out of their education
and provide for better living conditions for them and their families.
Mr. MINETA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the conference
report on S. 2000, the Head Start Act amendments. Specifically, I would
like to comment on the necessity of mandatory funding for Head Start
and the inclusion of multilingual programs reflective of the needs of a
Head Start community.
If our Nation is to provide for our future leadership in the global
market, we must invest in the education of our children. Head Start
puts our words into action by providing services for children most at-
risk and in need, at a time in their lives that is crucial to their
progress in developing to their full potential. Providing for the
education of non-English-speaking children, and ensuring services for
their parents, plays an important role in the mission of Head Start to
prepare all participating children for the challenges of school.
There are some people who would have us believe that this bill
requires that Head Start applicants teach children in a language other
than English. Let me be clear when I say that non-English instruction
is not required in this act. However, with one-fourth of Head Start
participants having a non-English background, a background where
children live in homes where English is not the language used for the
majority of conversation, it is important for Head Start applicants to
develop a plan to meet the needs of these eligible participants. To do
otherwise would be to base Head Start educational programming on
exclusion, rather than inclusion.
Four-year-old children living in low-income families face an uphill
battle in acquiring an education. Four-year-old children without an
understanding of English, or even a proficiency in their own language,
have an even more difficult time. Without some help in their native
language these children could be left behind, intimated by their
teachers and not understood by their peers, left to start again the
circle of poverty that brought them into the Head Start situation. It
is necessary for Head Start applicants to reach out to these non-
English background children with staff that can communicate with them
and help them on their way to mastering English.
The basis for Head Start, and the very reason for its success, is
that it is based on the development of a family. As low-income children
learn, their parents are also encouraged to complete GED's, participate
in job counseling and are encouraged to attend ESL--English as a second
language--courses. Advocating the use of local multilingual
organizations in the development of a Head Start plan encourages the
participation of parents in the Head Start program and provides a
stable support structure for participating children's education. This
act codifies past practices of Head Start organizations and serves as a
reminder that inclusion of all types of local organizations in the
planning stages of a Head Start strategy leads to the full inclusion of
children from non-English backgrounds.
A Head Start program that plans for full inclusion of all students
and parents better meets the needs of the participants and their
community and helps fulfill the requirement that children be prepared
for the transition to elementary school. It must be acknowledged that
the family language is the basis for communication between parent and
child and is a part of the family's culture. Head Start has done this
over time, and time has shown that children leaving Head Start use
English. Studies have proven that Head Start provides the jump start
which better prepares children for the challenges of school.
In order to lead internationally, we must devote time, energy, and
money to the education of our children. Head Start has been a proven
mechanism for ensuring that children who are often left behind in this
society are given the chance to become contributing members of our
society. Support for this conference report translates into an
endorsement of our children, and will be an investment reaped tenfold
in the future.
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report
to accompany S. 2000, the Human Services Amendment of 1994.
This conference agreement provides for a 4-year extension and
improvement of Head Start, the community services block grant, low-
income home energy assistance, and community-based family resources
programs.
These are programs which, over the years, I have enthusiastically
supported. They help and they work well because they give a hand up
instead of a hand out.
Thus, in providing preschool services, critical community services,
and energy assistance, they successfully promote, protect, defend, and
enhance human dignity.
I would like to thank the subcommittee chairman, Mr. Martinez, and
the ranking republican, Ms. Molinari for their leadership in developing
an excellent bill which has moved quickly and smoothly through the
process. I would also like to thank them for their support and
assistance for in including in this conference agreement several
improvements which I sponsored.
The first improvement is language related to Head Start to elementary
school transition. Research indicates that the smooth transition of
children from preschool through the early elementary grades is
important, yet not very prevalent.
Consequently, I have worked, in this bill and H.R. 6, the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act reauthorization bill, to improve the
transition efforts and activities of both public elementary schools and
Head Start Programs.
It is my hope that as both preschools and elementary schools reach
out to help, disadvantaged children will increasingly build upon the
gains they received in programs like Head Start. The second improvement
I sponsored is the authorization of a new activity in low-income home
energy assistance called REACH, [residential energy assistance
challenge option].
REACH is a discretionary activity which will enable community-based
organizations to help the poor stay current on energy bills and, at the
same time, improve their energy conservation and bill management.
Mr. Speaker, this is an excellent agreement and I urge its adoption.
Mr. FRANKS of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 2000,
a bill to reauthorize the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program and
the Head Start Programs. These programs have been effective in helping
those in poverty, especially children, to get through difficult
economic times. My constituents in Connecticut have not shared in the
economic recovery taking place in the rest of the country, and this
bill is very important to us.
I am pleased to see that this bill does not make cuts to the Low-
Income Home Energy Assistance Program, or LIHEAP. LIHEAP provides
Federal heating assistance to over 75,000 low-income households in
Connecticut. These households are mainly made up of elderly, disabled,
or working poor individuals and families. LIHEAP was especially
important to them this past winter, when my State experienced
exceptionally cold weather.
Considering the importance of LIHEAP to my State, I was disturbed
when President Clinton released his budget earlier this year with major
cuts in LIHEAP funding. Even though many frivolous programs appear in
this year's budget, President Clinton instead chose LIHEAP as a program
to be cut by 50 percent. President Clinton spent three winters in
Connecticut. He should have remembered the cold winters we experience
in the Northeast and thought about how LIHEAP dollars have been dollars
well spent. LIHEAP has probably saved lives.
Earlier this year I cosponsored a bill calling for LIHEAP to provide
an equal or better level of services in the coming years. Program cuts
have forced the State to significantly cut back on LIHEAP benefits to
households during the past 3 years. I am pleased to report that the
language in the bill I cosponsored has been included in the bill before
us today.
I also support allowing States to set eligibility standards which
best meet the needs of recipients. Because of my State's relatively
high cost of living, it is important that the State determine the
guidelines under which a household would be available for heating
assistance. This bill today maintains current law prohibiting the
Federal Government from regulating the State use of LIHEAP funds.
If the President's proposal had become law, the State of Connecticut
would have lost over $14 million in energy assistance this year alone.
I support this bill, because it rejects the President's proposal and
provides the funds the entire Northeast needs to keep low-income
residents warm next winter.
This bill also reauthorizes Head Start Programs. During the past 30
years, Head Start has been an important part of our efforts to help
disadvantaged children prepare for learning. Connecticut resident
Edward Zigler, one of the founders of Head Start, states accurately
that the program's approach and commitment to involving parents and
strengthening families have come to define the components of effective
intervention. During my time serving in Congress, my constituents have
attested to the value of the Head Start Programs.
Earlier this Congress, I voted for the Goals 2000: Educate America
Act, which established eight national education goals. The first goal
is that by the year 2000, all children in America will start school
ready to learn. Head Start plays an important role in achieving that
goal. It allows disadvantaged children to have access to high-quality
and developmentally appropriate preschool programs. Over 13 million
poor children have entered school healthier and ready to learn because
of Head Start.
Even successful programs such as Head Start need improvements. I am
pleased that Republicans were able to play an important role in
developing quality assurance mechanisms and parental involvement
components in this bill. As Head Start expands to embrace more
children, there are likely to be growing pains. This bill allows Head
Start Programs to use Federal funds in the most effective way.
Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise this afternoon in
strong support of the conference report on S. 2000, the Head Start Act
Amendments of 1994.
As you know, Head Start is a proven program designed to ensure that
America's most underprivileged children receive the proper nourishment,
medical care, and educational opportunities to enable them to lead
healthier, happier, and more productive lives. I have long been an
outspoken advocate of the numerous benefits provided to children
involved in this program and am very pleased that, under this
legislation, Head Start will be expanded and strengthened.
Over the past decade, focused attention upon and comprehensive
resources for the troubles affecting a large number of America's
underprivileged youngsters and their families was lacking. As a result,
all too many of our children have become increasingly exposed to the
problems of poverty, hunger, and illness. Head Start has proven
extremely effective in combating the struggles faced by individuals
living in less fortunate environments and we must utilize its well-
developed resources to their full potential.
This conference report contains provisions that will do just that. It
will create a new infant and toddler initiative, finally recognizing
that, during the most formative years of a child's life, ages 0-3, we
must pay close attention to the developmental needs of these
youngsters. In addition, this bill will get parents more directly
involved in their children's education through family-focused teaching
and literacy initiatives. Most importantly, the measure targets those
areas must in need of Head Start services and directs the Secretary of
HHS to work to provide such services swiftly and effectively.
This legislation will also reauthorize the National Youth Sports
Program [NYSP] that has given thousands of disadvantaged and minority
youth across the country a chance to experience both the thrill of
athletic competition and the many benefits of teamwork. This valuable
program provides these youngsters with a positive outlet through which
to develop their skills and channel their energy.
Today, with the problems of violence and drug abuse continuing to
plague many of our communities, it is imperative that we lend our
utmost support to all programs with proven records of steering youth
down productive avenues. NYSP is indeed one of these valuable
initiatives.
In addition, this conference report recognizes that high priority
must be given to aiding the working poor, the disabled, and the low-
income elderly in paying their energy bills through the Low-Income Home
Energy Assistance Program [LIHEAP].
LIHEAP annually serves over 6 million low- and fixed-income
households in the Nation, including over 650,000 in the State of
Illinois. This vital program keeps poor families, as well as older
Americans, from having to choose each winter between essential energy
services and other daily necessities.
Recently, the amount of LIHEAP funds that have gone to each household
eligible for assistance has declined while fuel costs have continued to
rise. Today, the States are being forced to turn away a growing number
of eligible recipients as lower-income households continue to spend
three times more of their income on energy than the average American
family.
The fair and efficient provision of basic utilities such as winter
heating is of utmost importance to low-income Americans, especially
those battling with a bitter cold winter season such as that in my City
of Chicago. In Illinois last year, over 35,000 households, a large
majority of them in Chicago, applied for LIHEAP assistance and were
denied for lack of funds. This conference report will work to reverse
this unfortunate trend.
Passage of this vital legislation will signal that this Congress is
fully committed to putting people first and helping all Americans
better provide for themselves and their families and achieve their
personal goals. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this conference
report.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time has expired.
Without objection, the previous question is ordered on the conference
report.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the conference report.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. FORD of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground
that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum
is not present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 393,
nays 20, answered not voting 19, as follows
[Roll No. 170]
YEAS--393
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews (ME)
Andrews (NJ)
Andrews (TX)
Applegate
Bacchus (FL)
Bachus (AL)
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barca
Barcia
Barlow
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bateman
Beilenson
Bentley
Bereuter
Berman
Bevill
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Brewster
Brooks
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Bunning
Buyer
Byrne
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cantwell
Cardin
Carr
Castle
Chapman
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clinger
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Combest
Condit
Conyers
Cooper
Coppersmith
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crapo
Cunningham
Danner
Darden
de la Garza
Deal
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Derrick
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Dooley
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Durbin
Edwards (CA)
Edwards (TX)
Ehlers
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fawell
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Fields (TX)
Filner
Fingerhut
Fish
Foglietta
Ford (MI)
Ford (TN)
Fowler
Frank (MA)
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frost
Furse
Gallo
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Geren
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gingrich
Glickman
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Grams
Greenwood
Gunderson
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamburg
Hamilton
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hayes
Hefner
Herger
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hobson
Hochbrueckner
Hoekstra
Hoke
Holden
Horn
Houghton
Hoyer
Huffington
Hughes
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Inhofe
Inslee
Istook
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kennedy
Kennelly
Kildee
Kim
King
Kingston
Kleczka
Klein
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kopetski
Kreidler
Kyl
LaFalce
Lambert
Lancaster
Lantos
LaRocco
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Lehman
Levin
Levy
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (FL)
Lightfoot
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
Lloyd
Long
Lowey
Machtley
Maloney
Mann
Manton
Manzullo
Margolies-Mezvinsky
Markey
Martinez
Matsui
Mazzoli
McCandless
McCloskey
McCollum
McCrery
McCurdy
McDade
McDermott
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
McKinney
McMillan
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Meyers
Mfume
Mica
Michel
Miller (CA)
Mineta
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Molinari
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moorhead
Moran
Morella
Murphy
Murtha
Myers
Nadler
Neal (MA)
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Orton
Owens
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Pastor
Paxon
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Penny
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickett
Pickle
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quillen
Quinn
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Ravenel
Reed
Regula
Reynolds
Richardson
Roberts
Roemer
Rogers
Ros-Lehtinen
Rose
Rostenkowski
Roth
Roukema
Rowland
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sangmeister
Sarpalius
Sawyer
Saxton
Schaefer
Schenk
Schiff
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Shaw
Shays
Shepherd
Shuster
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Slattery
Slaughter
Smith (IA)
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Snowe
Solomon
Spence
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Stokes
Strickland
Studds
Stupak
Sundquist
Swett
Swift
Synar
Talent
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thomas (WY)
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Torkildsen
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Traficant
Tucker
Unsoeld
Upton
Valentine
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Vucanovich
Walsh
Washington
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Weldon
Wheat
Whitten
Williams
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn
Yates
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NAYS--20
Allard
Archer
Armey
Burton
Callahan
Coble
Collins (GA)
Crane
DeLay
Doolittle
Dornan
Hancock
Hunter
Johnson, Sam
Miller (FL)
Rohrabacher
Royce
Sensenbrenner
Stump
Walker
NOT VOTING--19
Becerra
Blackwell
Cox
Flake
Gallegly
Grandy
Green
Gutierrez
Hastings
Hefley
Hoagland
Hutto
Lewis (GA)
Neal (NC)
Parker
Ridge
Santorum
Sharp
Thomas (CA)
{time} 1639
Mr. MILLER of Florida changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the conference report was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________