Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this bill, but in opposition to this rule. I would first like to talk a little bit about some of the unique history of Head Start that I think is important as…
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this bill, but in opposition to this rule.
I would first like to talk a little bit about some of the unique history of Head Start that I think is important as we move into the discussions of the amendments and the bill itself.
Head Start is a moderately successful program. Because it's a moderately successful program, often it's oversold. It's only moderately successful, but it's very difficult to get any program to succeed in the highest-risk populations of America, as we learned in No Child Left Behind and other programs trying to reach those who have been left behind by the economic growth of America, by the opportunities in America, in the low-income urban communities and the low-income suburban communities.
To have modest success is actually a tremendous accomplishment in Head Start. So how did Head Start perform differently, and what was the concept behind it that made it unique?
On the left and on the right, there would be, for lack of a better word, a populist empowerment faction in both parties. In the sixties, the community action movement said we need to stop the top-down approach and do a more bottom-up approach and involve the communities in poverty themselves in making their own decisions.
That entails certain risks, because they may not, when you let people vote their own decisions and make their own decisions, do what government exactly wants them to do, or what college-educated Ph.D.s come into that community and think is best for that community.
One of the key debates last year when this came to the floor was whether the Head Start policy councils should allow the parents to have a vote. The bill was altered to take that vote away from parents and basically make the parents hood ornaments; say we have parental involvement, but take the breathing lifeblood of those Head Start programs away.
I am very pleased that in this Congress, after seeing the probable defeat on the House floor, had it not been blocked by the leaders of both sides, it is now in this year's bill. Parents will continue to have a vote and continue to make this a grassroots program.
But there is another part of this bill that I oppose, and there is an amendment made in order under this rule that makes it even worse, and that is to require 50 percent of the teachers to have a college degree. That sounds like a great goal, but if you understand that this is preschool, and part of the goal here was to get the parents involved, unlike what's happening in the elementary schools and the high schools in many of these urban and rural areas, the parents don't get involved.
Partly what happens in Head Start councils is parents get involved. Often they get hired as teachers and teachers' aides. They are from the community. There is research suggesting, and no research to the contrary, that the net impact of moving to this 50 percent requirement in 2013 is going to result in less teachers of color in the urban areas. That's the practical net result.
Fewer parents will go to literacy courses and evolve then into getting a GED and helping to teach their own kids. You will miss the magic of this program, which is empowerment and getting the parents involved, which is what we should be looking for in elementary schools. There is an amendment to take the 2013 goal down to 2011, I believe. That makes a bad clause worse. I hope that amendment gets defeated on the floor.
There is one other amendment in this bill that is a bad amendment. There is nothing wrong with the amendment, it's existing law. It's what I would call a fake faith-based amendment. If an organization follows all the secular rules in hiring and in principles, they have always been, always been, eligible for government grants. The dispute that has arisen in faith-based is not whether, if you have a secular board and don't impose any religious principles on your organization, you can't proselytize. That has already been ruled by the courts. You can't pray if you get government funds during the time that any program is funded by government. You can't refuse to cover somebody.
The question is can a faith-based organization that may have church rules, for example, can only males be preachers or priests? Can you have somebody who is homosexual in a church position in your church? Can you fire somebody for adultery, things that many, if not most, major Christian denominations, Orthodox Jews, Muslim organizations have as rules in their denominations? They are not eligible under the Democrat faith-based rule.
This is a legitimate debate. I grant that it's a legitimate debate, and we have had it on the House floor. But we should not pretend that we are protecting faith-based organizations, when we are, in fact, taking away the historic civil rights protection that has always been granted under, quote, faith-based. A religion is exempt from
normal rules in how they hire, because they believe they reflect their faith.
Mr. Speaker, I ask to include into the Record an article by Ron Sider, who has written a book that was much ballyhooed in the last election cycle about the faith-based movement not just being conservative right-wingers.
[From First Things]
The Case for ``Discrimination''
(by Ronald J. Sider)
I'm a long-time Democrat. In 1972, I organized a group
called ``Evangelicals for McGovern/Shriver'' and helped
McGovern sweep--well, the great state of Massachusetts.
As a Democrat, I have been deeply dismayed by how out of
touch with the American mainstream the party has proven to be
on the issue of faith-based initiatives, particularly on the
issue of the so-called hiring exemption. (For a discussion of
other aspects of the initiative, see Joseph Loconte,
``Keeping the Faith,'' FT, May.)
A vast majority of Americans believe that as a society we
have lost our moral moorings and that we must reaffirm the
role of religious faith in nurturing persons of integrity and
fostering a just, stable society. It is in that context that
we must evaluate the Democratic leadership's opposition to
allowing faith-based organizations that accept government
funds to show preference in hiring to those who embrace the
organization's basic religious beliefs and practices.
Democratic President Bill Clinton signed three Charitable
Choice bills that explicitly included this hiring exemption.
Presidential candidate Al Gore embraced Charitable Choice.
But when the Bush Administration's legislation expanding
Charitable Choice moved to the Senate in mid-2001, the
Democratic leadership blocked even the consideration of such
legislation--largely on the charge that the hiring exemption
amounted to employment discrimination.
In other words, the Democratic leadership has come to
believe that religious organizations must give up their long-
recognized right to hire staff who share their faith
commitments in order to receive federal money that provides
needed services to the public. In this, the Democrats are
wrong.
To begin with, a religious organization's decision to hire
staff who share its religious beliefs and practices is not an
example of intolerant discrimination, but rather a positive
act of freedom. In a free society, a wide variety of
organizations--environmental organizations, feminist groups,
unions--are left free to select staff who share their core
commitments and who agree with their agenda. This right does
not disappear if governments choose to request these private
organizations to perform some desired tasks. Planned
Parenthood, for example, does not lose its right not to hire
pro-life staff simply because it has a government contract.
It is precisely the denial of this right to religious
organizations that would amount to intolerant discrimination
instead of the promotion of a free and open society.
To equate this positive good with the evil of
discrimination on the basis of things like race or disability
is pure confusion. Whether we think that religion is a
medieval superstition or a true and good contributor to
social well-being, all who believe in religious freedom
should insist that religious organizations be permitted to
hire staff who share their religious beliefs.
The obvious fact is that the ability to choose staff who
share a religious organization's core beliefs is essential if
that organization wishes to retain its basic identity. As
Justice William Brennan wrote in Corporation of the Presiding
Bishop v. Amos (1987): ``Determining that certain activities
are in furtherance of an organization's religious mission and
that only those committed to that mission should conduct them
is . . . a means by which a religious community defines
itself.'' A Jewish organization forced to hire substantial
numbers of Baptist staffers, for example, will not long
remain a significantly Jewish organization.
Having staff who share a religious organization's essential
religious beliefs shapes the group's identity in a variety of
ways. Shared motivation, common values, a sense of community
and unity of purpose, shared experiences of prayer and
worship (even if they are outside work time in the
organization) all contribute to an esprit de corps and shared
organizational vision. As law professor Ira C. Lupu said in
testimony before a House subcommittee (June 7, 2001), ``The
sense of religious community and spirit on which [the]
success of the group's efforts depend'' may be hampered if it
is forced to hire those who do not share its beliefs.
This is important even when, for example, a faith-centered
organization chooses to separate by location or time (and
fund with private money) sectarian worship, instruction, and
proselytization in a program in order to receive direct
government grants. This is true for several reasons.
First of all, religious activities may be important to the
social service program, even though they are voluntary,
privately funded, and segregated from ``secular'' government-
funded activities. In such programs, holding certain
religious beliefs and practices is a legitimate qualification
for a staff position, equally as valid as having the right
skills and experience.
Second, enforced religious diversity can have the effect of
stifling religious expression of staff within the agency,
creating a climate of fear of offending other staff members
with religious speech or actions. Since personal faith is
very important to many who choose to work in a religious
organization, such a climate can diminish staff motivation
and effectiveness. Forced religious diversity can sap a
program's spiritual vitality and lead to its secularization.
Third, staff often play multiple roles in small
organizations. For example, an agency might seek someone to
work part-time as a youth minister and part-time as a social
worker for its youth mentoring program. Implementing a policy
in which religion could be considered as a factor in hiring
for some job duties but not others would lead to
unnecessarily complicated and impermissibly entangling
regulations.
But even leaving aside the effects of such regulation on
religious organizations themselves, the rationale behind it
makes little sense. The fact that a religious organization
accepts some federal funds does not mean that it ceases to be
an independent, autonomous entity and becomes an arm or agent
of the state. Law, precedent, and common sense all argue that
a private organization that accepts some government funds
still retains its separate identity. This is clearly the case
with colleges and universities that receive government
funding, scholars engaged in federally subsidized research,
and artists and artistic organizations funded by the National
Endowment for the Arts. All of these receive government
funding, and all maintain their autonomy from the government.
Similarly, a religious organization that receives government
funds to provide a public service that serves a public good
would maintain its autonomy and not be co-opted by
government.
Moreover, not only does allowing hiring preferences based
on religious belief within religious organizations pose no
social danger, it is the only way to avoid discrimination and
governmental preference of one religious view over another.
Using the typology of different types of faith-based
organizations recently published by the Working Group on
Human Needs and Faith-Based and Community Initiatives chaired
by former Democratic Senator Harris Wofford helps explain
this point.
``Faith-saturated'' and ``faith-centered'' programs both
include substantial religious content in their programs and
hire (primarily or exclusively) employees who share their
beliefs precisely because their religious beliefs tell them
that persons are spiritual as well as material beings and
therefore the best results follow when spiritual and
material transformation are combined. ``Faith-related,''
``faith-background,'' and ``secular'' providers do not
include significant religious content in their program or
consider religious belief in their staffing because their
worldview tells them that all that is needed to correct
dysfunctional social behavior and social problems is
socio-economic, material transformation. All these
providers, not just the first two, are grounded in an
explicit or implicit religious perspective. Secular
providers work at least implicitly within a naturalistic
worldview (nothing exists except the natural world) that
functions in effect as a religious perspective.
Functionally, faith-related and faith-background providers
operate with deistic religious beliefs (God exists but
never intervenes in the natural world of cause and
effect). Naturalism and deism, however, are just as much
particular religious worldviews as the historic theism
that undergirds most faith-saturated and faith-centered
programs.
Obviously, if government only funds some private providers
of services (i.e., the naturalistic and deistic ones that do
not explicitly use religious criteria for staff), government
clearly discriminates among religions.
Thus far, I have argued that as a matter of principle
religious freedom is such a fundamental right that it ought
to prevail even if on occasion embracing that overriding
principle has the secondary effect of, for example, reducing
the number of job opportunities for a particular group. For
example, the Catholic Church must, as a matter of principle,
be free to live out its religious belief (which I do not
share) that only men should be priests, even if the practice
has the effect of reducing the number of job possibilities
for women.
My last point offers an argument, not about principle, but
about practical effect. The recent suggestion that extending
the hiring exemption to faith-based organizations (FBOs)
would in practice mean that African-Americans or gay
Americans would suffer a loss of job opportunities is simply
wrong.
There is a certain tension between two treasured values: on
the one hand, protecting the religious freedom and identity
of FBOs as they expand their effective services to the most
needy; on the other, our society's conviction that except in
the case of a narrow range of specific situations, employers
should not discriminate on the basis of religion.
But do such hiring preferences really result in job
deprivation? Hardly at all.
First, we are talking about a small percentage of the total
jobs in the society. Second, many FBOs pay almost no
attention to the religious beliefs of staff. Third, in the
case of those evangelical Christian, Orthodox Jewish, and
Muslim FBOs that do, virtually all the different religious
groups have their own FBOs offering a hiring preference to
people who share their own beliefs.
For very understandable historical reasons, African-
Americans have been concerned that racial discrimination
might find
cover under the hiring exemption based on religious belief.
This is extremely unlikely to happen. FBOs working in
minority communities are run either by people of the same
racial group or by whites who have been at the forefront of
fighting racial prejudice.
What about sexual orientation? Few FBOs ask about or select
staff on the basis of sexual orientation. It is true that a
number of FBOs do say that staff should not be sexually
active outside marriage. But is that really so terrible--
especially for FBOs working to overcome poverty in a society
where a child growing up in a single-parent household is
eleven times more likely to be persistently poor than a
child growing up in a two-parent family?
Even if the hiring exemption in Charitable Choice were
expanded to a lot more government funding streams, sexually
(and openly) active gay Americans would face extremely little
job deprivation. The number in that group is very small and
the number of jobs affected is a minuscule fraction of the
total number of jobs. Gay FBOs exist and others can be formed
that give a hiring preference to those who share that
ethical/religious belief. Surely the well-educated gay
community does not want to block an enormously promising way
to overcome poverty and social decay for millions of
desperate Americans to avoid what in practice would at worst
mean only the loss of a handful of possible jobs.
Constitutionally, Charitable Choice strikes the right
balance between the no-establishment and free exercise
clauses of the First Amendment. Morally, it offers promise
for major progress in overcoming some of our most intractable
social problems. Politically, Charitable Choice and the
broader Faith-Based Initiatives have rightly become
identified with the widespread sense that we have lost our
way morally as a society. By remaining steadfastly opposed to
allowing religious organizations to contribute to solving
social problems, the Democrats harm our country as well as
their future electoral prospects. Only at great peril dare
Democrats be on the wrong side of today's widespread embrace
of religious faith's crucial contribution to social
wholeness. If that happens, they will deserve a repetition of
1972.
The fact is whether you are left or right in the faith-based movement, you have to agree that you have to keep the principles of religion if you are going to keep your spiritual vitality. Particularly in urban America and in rural America, the churches and the vitality is what needs to be brought into poverty and reaching out.
We can have a legitimate debate over whether government funds should go in there. I believe it would help the programs. It has been an historic right. But the amendment that is in front of us is not a faith-based amendment. It's only allowing faith-based groups to participate if they secularize and drop their unique faith.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to insert into the Record a statement on the policy councils from Congressman Danny Davis and me.
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, March 9, 2007.
Hon. George Miller,
Chairman, House Committee on Education and Labor, Rayburn
House Office Building, Washington, DC.
Hon. Howard ``Buck'' McKeon,
Ranking Member, House Committee on Education and Labor,
Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Miller and Ranking Member McKeon: For more
than forty years, one of the most unique and important
aspects of the Head Start program has been its emphasis on
parental involvement Head Start has enabled parents, as
representatives on Head Start policy councils, to participate
in making important decisions regarding budget, programming,
and personnel. As the Committee plans to mark up its Head
Start reauthorization bill this coming week, we believe that
preserving this structure of governance is fundamental to the
continued success of the program.
Under current law, Head Start boards of directors and
policy councils share the responsibility of managing a Head
Start program. This partnership helps to ensure that there is
a system of checks and balances in place and that the
important voices of experts in accounting, finance, and early
education are balanced with the equally important voices of
parents who have children in the program. Many of our
constituents who are involved with Head Start have told us
that policy council members, especially parents, often have a
much greater day-to-day knowledge of the program than the
board of directors and are thus better able to provide
accountability. Indeed, a 2005 GAO report found that calls
from parents are often the first signal to Head Start
regional offices that a program is struggling with
mismanagement.
As the Education and Labor Committee prepares for its
markup, we want to ensure that it does not diminish the role
of parent policy councils. We believe this would undermine
the future success of the Head Start program and, in turn,
the success of thousands of at-risk children and their
parents. Like both of you, we believe there should be
stronger accountability within Head Start programs. The 2005
GAO report, for example, cited a lack of oversight from the
HHS regional offices and Head Start boards of directors as
sizable obstacles to improved accountability. However, these
reforms need not come at the expense of parental involvement
in the program. Any Head Start reauthorization bill must
preserve the current oversight role of the policy councils
with regard to board actions in key areas such as budget,
programming, and personnel, if they are to maintain their
current vital role within the program.
Again, we ask that the chairman's mark of the Head Start
reauthorization bill retain the current shared governance
structure of the policy councils and board of directors. The
current structure has helped to successful1y prepare hundreds
of thousands of low-income children to enter kindergarten and
empowered thousands of parents to take greater roles in the
lives of their children and communities. Thank you for your
attention to this matter. If you have any questions, please
contact Jill Hunter-Williams with Rep. Davis at 225-5006 or
Brett Swearingen with Rep. Souder at 225-4436.
Sincerely,
Danny K. Davis; Donald M. Payne; Robert C. Scott; Linda
T. Sanchez; John F. Terney; David Wu; John A. Yarmuth.
Mark Souder; Ric Keller; Todd Russell Platts; Rob Bishop;
Timothy Walberg; Raul M. Grijalva; Virginia Foxx.
