School Readiness Act of 2005
Floor Speech
SCHOOL READINESS ACT OF 2005 -- (House of Representatives - September 22, 2005)
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Pursuant to House Resolution 455 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 2123.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I strongly supported this bill as it came out of the committee. I was proud of the product the committee passed out. I was pleased to join with many of my colleagues on the other side in offering amendments that were supported on a bipartisan basis that I think strengthen the Head Start program.
I am very sorry that that bipartisan consensus may be shattered, and it will be shattered if we later adopt the Boustany amendment because, make no mistake about it, the Boustany amendment is, in fact, an attack on religious liberty in this country. It takes us down a very dangerous road of taxpayer-financed religious bigotry.
It is important to understand what the Boustany amendment does and does not do. This is not a debate about whether or not faith-based institutions play a valuable role. Of course they do. We have seen it in response to Hurricane Katrina. We have seen it elsewhere. Nor is it about whether faith-based Head Start programs should receive Federal funds. They are receiving those today.
The issue is very simple. The question is whether we should eliminate the protections in current law against discrimination based upon religion or whether we should preserve those protections. The Boustany amendment would give a green light to religious discrimination.
Just imagine if you are a highly qualified early education teacher, who is applying for a Head Start program that is expanding to take care of children who are victims of Hurricane Katrina. You go down and they say, I am sorry, you are the wrong religion. Only Catholics need apply, only Jews need apply, only Baptists need apply. That is a terrible message to be sending to our children. And does it not violate someone's religious liberty to take someone's tax dollars, give them to an organization and then say to that person, you cannot have a job with this organization?
In all of the hearings that we have held in our committee on this issue, no faith-based organization has ever come up and said, gee, we could do a better job of teaching children if only we were allowed to discriminate in hiring teachers.
I must say, one of the puzzling things, they concede that you cannot proselytize, yet they say you can discriminate.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, in solidarity with the National Head Start Association, the Children's Defense Fund and countless other lifelong advocates of the Head Start program, it is with a heavy heart that I must oppose this final, amended version of the Head Start reauthorization on the floor today.
It did not have to be this way.
I sit on the Education and Workforce Committee, which reported a genuinely bipartisan Head Start bill to this House. It wasn't perfect, and it did not reflect in every respect the Head Start reauthorization I would have written. For example, an amendment I offered to fully fund the program so that every eligible child could reap its benefits was defeated on a party line vote. Moreover, a second amendment I proposed to offset the significant costs faced by Head Start grantees working to comply with the Department of Health and Human Services' transportation safety requirements so that program dollars weren't diverted from serving kids was similarly not included.
But, unlike failed initiatives in the recent past, the committee reported bill did not walk down the misguided path of block granting the Head Start program. Additionally, it took very positive steps towards establishing high standards for teacher quality and strengthening accountability for underperforming programs. It even included an amendment I offered on a bipartisan basis with Representatives PLATTS and BIGGERT to provide grantees new flexibility to serve additional needy children when program slots became available.
That is why I am so disappointed to vote against this bill today. With the inclusion of the Boustany amendment, this bill for the first time seeks to legitimize publicly funded religious discrimination in the Head Start program. It takes money from taxpayers and then turns around and tells those same taxpayers they can be excluded from federally funded jobs in a Head Start center solely on the basis of their religious beliefs. In effect, it is a green light for religious bigotry.
It has no place in the Head Start program, and it is precisely the wrong message to be sending to our nation's children. I will continue to support Head Start. But I must forcefully oppose this legislation.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
http://thomas.loc.gov
Source