George Miller

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Honda). (Mr. HONDA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes), a long awaited appearance. (Mr. REYES asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green). (Mr. GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the distinguished minority leader.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez). Announcement by the Chairman pro tempore

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop), a member of the committee.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. Majette). (Ms. MAJETTE asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. The gentleman from Georgia is right, we should look it up, because when it says at least as extensive, what it does is it exempts you from the regulation. So you offer health care services because health care is provided under the law. But what you are exempt from is the legislation that requires screening for all the children in 45 days. So what happens in my district? Some 150 Head Start children are diagnosed with speech and language impairments, and with this knowledge we can immediately provide the services because those are the regulations and that is the screening that is required. But it is not required under the block grant. My colleagues can use euphemisms, they can play with the language; but the fact of the matter is there is a huge credibility gap between what they say the bill does and what the bill does. That is what we all have to understand. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva), a member of the committee.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum).

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield a minute and a half to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt), a member of the committee. (Mr. HOLT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Chairman, it is rather remarkable that the other side has discovered that the poorest children in the Nation do not do as well as the average children in the Nation, but what they ought to tell you is, these children do better than their peers that do not have an opportunity, and by the time they finish kindergarten, they are in the 50th percentile. That was the job, to try to get them ready for school, and they are accelerating as they go through kindergarten; but they somehow seem astonished that they cannot compete with the average child the first year in Head Start, when they are the most impoverished children in the Nation. Yes, we are dedicated to all of the changes in title I of this legislation. We are just not dedicated to the eradication of the Head Start program in title II. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis), a member of the committee. (Mrs. DAVIS of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin). (Mr. LANGEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa), a member of the committee. (Mr. HINOJOSA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne).

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar). (Mr. OBERSTAR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen), a member of the committee.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds just to say to my colleague, we do not know whether this bill will improve the education of the children, but we do know that the language contained in this bill will weaken the education standards, will weaken the comprehensive services available to these children and will weaken the accountability of this program. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee), subcommittee ranking member.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this unfair rule. Just yesterday a very contrite leader in the Republican Party acknowledged a chronic mistreatment of members of the minority of this House. On Monday, the former Republican leader talked about an emerging theme in this House. The theme is 10 years of one-party rule is enough. The Republicans have had control for 10 years. They have gotten arrogant. They demean the institution. They demean democracy by virtue of their heavy-handed way they run the House, minority rights are downtrodden, and it is time for a change. The rule we have here today is a perfect example of the arrogant and abusive treatment that is directed not just at Democrats but 140 million Americans who sent us here to represent them and look out for their interests and particularly the children. Many of those Americans feel very strongly about Head Start programs. Many of their children participate in it, and they would like to know this program is going to be improved. But we have the same old arrogance we saw last week with the pension bill. Last minute changes were made in this legislation at 11 o'clock last night. When we asked the right to change our substitute to take into account those changes, we were told we would not be given the opportunity. So instead we will not be able to offer the amendments that people came before the Committee on Rules and asked for. So what is the result? The result is for the first time in the history of this program, for the first time in the history of this program, where we had Republican Presidents, Republican Congresses, Democratic Congress, we have always sought to improve this program. For the first time in history we have a partisan attack on Head Start, and for the first time in history we are undermining the performance standards, the quality standards in this program. And for the first time in history, we will be limiting the participation of children in Head Start. In the third year of this bill because of the caps on funding for the first time in history under any administration in any Congress, we will reduce the number of Head Start children that will be able to participate from the current population. No Republican President in the past has ever done that. No Congress has ever done that. No Democratic President has done that because we have had a national consensus, because this is the best program we have in the Nation, with the best results. You may want to do a lot of things with this program, but you cannot put it somewhere where a program has better results than Head Start. This attack should be rejected and this rule should be rejected.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 432, which was the passage of the Singapore Trade Agreement, I inadvertently missed that vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''