[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.

                          ____________________