John Boehner

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murphy).

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Carter), a new member of our committee.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time. I think there are is some misunderstanding. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act says that religious organizations can discriminate in their hiring based on religion. That is what it says. Look at Federal laws that provide grants to community-based organizations. Some of those require these organizations to give up their title VII protections, like the Head Start program we have before us. We have other programs, dozens of them, where they can maintain their title VII protections, and as I have told the Members on the other side over the last several months, as we bring these reauthorizations through our committee, like the Workforce Investment Act, like Head Start, I am going to provide some consistency. President Clinton signed five programs into law that allowed faith- based organizations to have their title VII exemption with Federal funds, and all we want to do is to say if you take Federal funds and you provide Head Start services, you do not have to give up your title VII protections that are granted to you, plain and simple. I urge my colleagues to defeat the gentlewoman's amendment.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers), the gentleman who has led our efforts with Members on both sides of the aisle to help seasonal migrant workers.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of our time.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Musgrave).

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne), a member of our committee.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), the author of the bill, and the chairman of the Subcommittee on Education Reform. (Mr. CASTLE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of our time. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the author of this bill, the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), the subcommittee chairman, for the brilliant job that he did with the subcommittee to bring this bill together and to bring it to this point. Also, I want to thank the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne) for all of his efforts, and all of the members of our committee who have worked hard and come together from the right wing to the more moderate wing to help craft a bill that will help poor children get a better start in life. I also want to thank the staff of the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), including Sara Rittling and Paul Leonard. I want to thank the committee staff: Kate Houston, Amanda Farris, Melanie Looney, Julian Baer, Parker Hamilton, Krisann Pearce, Dave Schnittger, Jo-Marie St. Martin, and Sally Lovejoy and others who were so helpful in putting this bill together. Head Start has done a lot for a lot of children all across the country. There is not one Member in this room, not one, who does not believe that Head Start cannot be improved. Now, the question is, how do we improve it? In title I of the bill, there is basic agreement on the changes that will bring a more academic component to Head Start. The big issue was over title II, the eight-State pilot project. We have heard it called a block grant, we have heard it described as the dismantling of Head Start. Please. There are some States out there who are doing magnificent things, and to give them the opportunity to better coordinate Head Start with their own pre-kindergarten programs, their own early childhood development programs, their own child care programs, States can, in fact, provide a comprehensive package that we believe could be of great help to poor children and their parents in terms of helping improve this program. And to just say ``no,'' we are not going to try it, we are never going to go there, frankly, is not fair. It is not fair to the 3- and 4-year-olds in America who need our help. So we have in this bill this eight-state demonstration project, but only for those States who would hold themselves to high standards, only those States who will make a big commitment to early childhood development, and only States who really want to take this project on. I believe that we have got a good bill before us. I want to ask my colleagues to reject the Miller substitute and to vote ``yes'' on final passage.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder), a former member of our committee. (Mr. SOUDER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman for his commitment to these quality programs and look forward to continuing to work with him as we move this bill through the conference.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn), a member of our committee.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green).

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment and any attempt to deny organizations their long-standing civil rights protections. The amendment before us is a direct attack on faith-based service providers seeking to participate in the Head Start program, where they can make a valuable difference in the lives of disadvantaged children. Make no mistake, the amendment before us would not only be stripping faith-based organizations of their rights, but worse, will eliminate an entire category of potential Head Start service providers simply because they choose to maintain their legally protected right to make staffing decisions consistent with their organizational character and with the protections provided them under title VII of the Civil Rights Act. This debate must be understood in real terms. Let us take the Catholic church, for example. Often these churches have strong roots in the community and a vast network of volunteers and employees who work together to make a difference for those who need a helping hand. They participate in many activities that are not about religion, but simply about making a difference in the lives of those in need. These organizations are a natural choice to participate in the Head Start program. After all, the infrastructure is in place, the members of the community already consider church a resource for social services, and workers are ready and willing to take in these needy children and give them the comprehensive support they need to get ready to enter school. So what is the catch? Catholic churches have a tendency to hire Catholics. The Supreme Court does not see a problem with this. In fact, the Supreme Court has unanimously upheld the right of religious organizations to be religious and make staffing decisions based on that decision. There is no debate about that right. Until today, that is, when we consider this amendment that would make it illegal for these churches to continue to hire Catholics if they choose to participate in the Head Start program. That is what we are talking about here, a double standard applying only to faith-based organizations, which tells them that they cannot serve disadvantaged children in Head Start unless they relinquish their identity, especially when it comes to hiring. Faith-based organizations are a priceless national resource, providing help and hope to communities across America. And by their very nature, faith-based organizations often reach out to those in need when others may turn a blind eye. Improving lives is all in a day's work for faith-based organizations. That is why the President has called on Congress to level the playing field when these compassionate service providers are seeking to play a role in Federal initiatives like the Head Start program, to serve those who need our help. Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat this amendment. We should not ask religious groups to forfeit their religious character and identity as a condition of participating in Head Start. If we have discourage faith-based organizations from participating, we will be giving Head Start children less than we are capable of giving them. I think we must stand firm to protected the civil rights exemption for faith-based organizations so they can do their good works and community all across the Nation. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of our time. Mr. Chairman, if we look at the proposal that we have before us, in title I, the main part of the program, there is quite a bit of unanimity about the changes that need to be made to help improve Head Start if, in fact, we are going to improve the futures for many poor children in America. I think there is a recognition that more of an education component to Head Start is absolutely necessary. And so if we look at title I of the bill, there is no amount of disagreement over it. The real disagreement is over title II which would set up an eight-State demonstration program, only for the States who have made big commitments to early childhood development, only States that would agree to meet or exceed Federal standards, only for States that are willing to make a big commitment and are already doing it, and they will have to add more money. And if that is not enough, we guarantee that the local grantees that are there today in those eight States will continue to receive their money for 5 years. How anybody could ever refer to this as a block grant is beyond me. Why are we doing this? Very simply this: Some States are making big commitments to help poor kids, and if they are able to take their pre- kindergarten programs, their early childhood development programs, their child care programs, they can work with poor children in their States and their families to create a more seamless system to help prepare children for school. Why should we not see if it works? Why should we not take the chance to help these children? Because I do believe that some States will be better able to prepare these children to be ready for school.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), the author of the bill and the chairman of the Subcommittee on Education Reform.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton), a member of our committee and a real leader on this issue.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, as we progress through the conference, I do intend to explore this issue further. Quality research relies on valid and reliable data, and I believe that we must have quality research to drive the real improvements that are necessary in Head Start. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murphy) is a leader on these issues, and I appreciate his interest and his advice on this matter.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 2210.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), the author of the bill and the chairman of the Subcommittee on Education Reform.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise tonight in support of H.R. 2210, the School Readiness Act, legislation that will improve the Federal Head Start program by increasing its focus on academics and helping to close the readiness gap. We believe that the bill that we have before us will close the readiness gap that exists between Head Start graduates and their more affluent peers. I want to thank the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Education Reform and the author of this bill, for his dedication on behalf of disadvantaged children. We would not be here today without his hard work. The measure before us reflects a consensus agreement amongst Members of this House who believe that disadvantaged children in our country are getting the best this Nation can possibly give them. In opposing our efforts to strengthen Head Start, my friends on the other side of the aisle have repeatedly said, ``If it ain't broke, don't fix it,'' but the evidence suggests this is a system that badly needs fixing. Too many studies show Head Start children are entering kindergarten behind their peers. Improving school readiness standards for Head Start grantees in all States will help close this readiness gap. Worse, in many parts of the country, Head Start centers are not getting the job done. Data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services shows most Head Start grantees across the country are actually falling far short of Federal standards, the very standards that the congressional Democrats say would be undermined by the School Readiness Act. In fiscal year 2002, a total of 559 Head Start grantees were reviewed. Only 9 percent were found to be in compliance, 9 percent, with our Head Start performance standards. The remaining 509 grantees, 91 percent, had one or more areas of noncompliance. In fiscal year 2001, nearly 600 Head Start grantees were reviewed by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Only 11 percent of those grantees were found to be in compliance with all Head Start performance standards; 89 percent were out of compliance. These statistics are nothing short of shocking, and I would ask my friends on both sides of the aisle, do not our children deserve better? We think they do. The measure before us meets the President's goal to strengthen the overall quality of Head Start, especially the academic standards, by emphasizing cognitive development and the results of scientifically based research. It requires all new Head Start teachers to have at least an associate degree by 2005 and half of all Head Start teachers nationwide to have a bachelor's degree by 2008. It restores civil rights protections to faith-based organizations, removing barriers that discourage some of America's most talented and compassionate groups from providing services to children in need. It gives up to eight States with an existing commitment to early childhood education the opportunity to coordinate Head Start with their own preschool programs; and we recognize that offering highly qualified States the opportunity to coordinate programs will result in better outcomes for parents and children than what Head Start serves today. The bill guarantees that children in these demonstration States have access to pre-kindergarten programs that are at least as strong, if not stronger, than what is currently offered by Head Start. States are required to have strong standards for school readiness already in place to increase their already substantial funding of early childhood education and maintain or improve all comprehensive services, including health, nutrition and parental involvement. The bill ensures that no State or local funds can be supplanted and that all Head Start funds must be spent on Head Start uses. Additionally, the bill increases authorized funding for Head Start by more than $202 million for the upcoming year, as originally proposed, while setting specific spending levels for the remaining spending years of the bill. It also includes a 5-year hold harmless that guarantees funding for all Head Start centers in the pilot States, instead of the 3 years that were originally proposed. I am grateful to everyone who played a part in helping us to reach this agreement, and I do believe it has helped pave the way for this legislation that could dramatically improve school readiness for disadvantaged children. In his remarks on Head Start earlier this month, President Bush said, Head Start is ``working okay. We want better than 'okay' in America. We want excellence.'' The children in Head Start deserve the very best that this Nation can give them, nothing less. Mr. Chairman, these reforms will not dismantle the Head Start program as some of my colleagues have claimed, and I am sure will claim as the evening goes on. They will strengthen the Head Start program. This debate is about protecting children, not about protecting turf. Instead of clinging jealously to the status quo, these lobbyists should join us in bringing real improvement to the Head Start system that needs to do better for our children. I want to urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' tonight on H.R. 2210. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Ohio for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule for H.R. 2210, the School Readiness Act, important legislation that will help close the readiness gap that exists between Head Start children and their more affluent peers. This rule clears the way for consideration of a consensus agreement reached among Members who believe children in Head Start deserve the very best that our Nation can give them. It clears the way for steps supported by the President that will strengthen the academic components of Head Start, ensure that well-qualified teachers are helping Head Start children get ready for school, and encourage coordination between Head Start and other successful State programs. These changes are badly needed. Children in Head Start are learning, but they are not learning as much as they deserve to be learning. There is still a significant school readiness gap between children in Head Start and their peers when they enter kindergarten, and that is simply not acceptable. Children in Head Start deserve the same shot at a good education as every other child in America. These children are capable of achieving the same things, and they deserve that chance and nothing less. When Head Start was a new program in 1964, it aimed to give disadvantaged children a ``head start'' by allowing them to begin learning earlier than everyone else who started in school in the first grade. Now, most States run their own pre-kindergarten programs and virtually every child attends kindergarten. Unfortunately, Head Start has not changed with the times. As this chart shows, Head Start's graduates beginning kindergarten are more than 25 percentile points below in average skills like recognizing letters, numbers, shapes, and colors. And when compared to what other children are learning before they start school, disadvantaged children are not getting an even start, much less a head start. Too many children in Head Start are being left behind. The average child entering kindergarten today is right here, at the 50 percentile, and if we look at the numbers across the bottom of this chart, we can begin to see where Head Start children are in each of these subject areas. We can do better and we must do better. And it is not because there is a lack of funding. We have almost doubled funding for Head Start since 1995. What is holding Head Start back is that it has become isolated from change and improvement. It has been walled off from other good programs that it should be coordinated with. Today, States administer the vast majority of programs that provide early childhood care and education. Even programs funded by the Federal Government, such as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, child care and development block grant funds are administered by State governments. Head Start is the only program that lies outside of this network. If we are going to ensure children in Head Start get the best our Nation can give them, qualified States need more freedom to coordinate Head Start with these programs. There is an agreement on this across the ideological spectrum, from the Brookings Institution to the Heritage Foundation, from the Wall Street Journal to the Washington Post, from faith-based organizations to State school leaders. The rule would allow for consideration of the bill that will strengthen Head Start by addressing this need in up to eight States, so long as those eight States meet tough new rigorous standards. The bill also ensures that Head Start children can benefit from the full talents and compassion of America's faith-based organizations by restoring civil rights protections for such groups and removing barriers that discourage them from participating in the Head Start program. The 1964 Civil Rights Act established that faith-based organizations have the right to hire workers on a religious basis; for example, a Catholic organization can intentionally hire Catholic individuals under the law. Over the years, though, many Federal programs have trampled on this right, including Head Start. It is just wrong; it is just as wrong to deny any civil right to any other group or individual. If a Catholic group operating Head Start intentionally hires Catholic individuals, that organization should not have to worry that it may be breaking the law. The rule allows consideration of the measure that would restore this protection to faith-based organizations and ensure that they are full participants in the effort to prepare disadvantaged children for school. The rule allows for consideration of a base bill that will address these pressing needs. President Clinton signed four different bills during his Presidency that do exactly the same thing that the faith-based provision in this underlying bill does. Yet, some of our friends on the other side of the aisle disagree with that proposal. The rule accommodates their concerns by allowing for an open debate on an amendment that would strike this provision from the bill. It also allows for a substitute offered by our colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller). I would urge my colleagues to support the rule and to support the underlying bill.