Improving Head Start Act Of 2007
Floor Speech
IMPROVING HEAD START ACT OF 2007 -- (House of Representatives - May 02, 2007)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, we have just heard the suggestion that some programs might be better if only the program sponsors could discriminate in employment. We hadn't heard those arguments for over 40 years before this administration came in.
Let's talk about when you say ``protect civil liberties,'' what liberties you are protecting? If you are protecting somebody's right to tell somebody they can't get a job because of their religion, if you can discriminate against someone because of their religion, racial discrimination laws essentially cannot be enforced. So who are you protecting? You are protecting the one trying to discriminate; the victim of discrimination loses all protection.
The children of families of unpopular religions will ask their parents why they couldn't get a job in the Head Start program, and they will have to be told they are not hiring people of our religion. Just what kind of Head Start is that?
Proponents are saying we lose opportunities. We have plenty of opportunities in Head Start. All we have to do is fund it more, and there will be plenty of opportunities for Head Start programs.
There has also been a suggestion you may have to take icons off the wall. If icons have to be taken down, it is because of a violation of the establishment clause of the Constitution. Let me tell you, passing a motion to recommit will not solve a violation of the establishment clause.
Forty years ago race and religious discrimination was found to be so reprehensible that we made it illegal even with your private funds. Now we have a plea to protect the people trying to discriminate and not the victims of discrimination. We need to leave the law the way it has been for the last 40 years. We can keep the antidiscrimination laws and those programs. Any program that can get funded with this faith-based initiative amendment could be funded anyway if you just comply with the antidiscrimination laws that have been in effect for the last 40 years.
We ought not to have to tell our children why certain parents can't get a job in a program because we are failing to protect the civil rights of the victim of discrimination because all of a sudden we are interested in the civil rights of the person trying to discriminate.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, as we discuss this faith-based amendment, I think we need to seriously consider the long-term societal implications of that amendment, allowing discrimination in the Head Start program.
Our Nation just went through quite a conversation when Don Imus made his remarks, and I would hope that that was just talking. We are actually going to do something in considering whether or not a program can deny an employment opportunity solely because of religion, and if you happen to go to an all-black or all-white church, the decision made on religion will deny you based on race as well.
We should have this conversation here on the floor, considering what we are doing long-term, similar to the conversation we had when Don Imus embarrassed himself. We should not embarrass ourselves here on the floor of the House of Representatives. We need to maintain the civil rights protections for prospective employees that we have had for the last 40 years.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, a few weeks ago, Don Imus provoked a national discussion about race, but that was just talk. If we pass this motion, we will take action and turn the clock back before 1965.
This amendment doesn't allow faith-based programs to get funded. The Shuler amendment that we passed reminds us that faith-based organizations can and do sponsor Head Start programs.
The fact is that any program that can be funded under this amendment could be funded anyway if they would agree not to discriminate in employment. It has nothing to do with symbols. It is absurd to suggest that this has anything to do with symbols. Whatever problem there is with symbols is a constitutional problem that cannot be solved with a motion to recommit.
This is all about discrimination. And if you can discriminate based on religion, it has racial implications. So since the 1960s, for 40 years, when you talk about civil liberties, you are talking about the victims of discrimination. We decided 40 years ago that it was so reprehensible to discriminate in employment that we made it illegal, even with your own private money. And today, as we talk about discrimination, we ought to think about the victims, not the right of the person to discriminate against the victim.
The present law allows the church to use its own church money, as the gentleman from Missouri said, to hire whom they want. But with Federal money, just with the Federal money, you have not been able to discriminate. So for 40 years, all children in Head Start programs have learned that their parents are eligible to be hired by the Head Start program regardless of the race or religion of the program. They have known that for over 40 years. This amendment will determine what the next generation of Head Start students will learn.
We need to defeat this amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source