[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 120 (Thursday, September 22, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H8253-H8263]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2123, SCHOOL READINESS ACT OF 2005
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on
Rules, I call up House Resolution 455 and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 455
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 2123) to reauthorize the Head Start Act to
improve the school readiness of disadvantaged children, and
for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be
dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of
the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the
bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Education and the Workforce. After general
debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the
five-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider as an
original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-
minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute
recommended by the Committee on Education and the Workforce
now printed in the bill. The committee amendment in the
nature of a substitute shall be considered as read.
Notwithstanding clause 11 of rule XVIII, no amendment to the
committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in
order except those printed in the report of the Committee on
Rules accompanying this resolution. Each such amendment may
be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be
offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be
considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified
in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent
and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall
not be subject to a demand for division of the question in
the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of
order against such amendments are waived. At the conclusion
of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee
shall rise and report the bill to the House with such
amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a
separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted in the
Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the committee
amendment in the nature of a substitute. The previous
question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and
amendments thereto to final passage without intervening
motion except one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Duncan). The gentleman from Utah (Mr.
Bishop) is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I
yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Hastings), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the
purpose of debate only.
The resolution before us provides for a structured rule for the
consideration of H.R. 2123, the School Readiness Act of 2005, and makes
a good number of important amendments in order and will provide for a
full and wide-ranging debate on all the aspects of the Head Start
program.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2123 was passed out of the Committee on Education
and the Workforce unanimously. It reauthorizes the Head Start program
for fiscal 2011. At the same time, the bill incorporates a number of
wide-ranging and widely supported commonsense improvements to Head
Start which will improve teacher education standards, increase the
accountability for the use of funds, and enhance outreach to the most
deserving students.
The underlying bill does not include provisions which were deemed by
some controversial in the base text, such as providing hiring
protection for faith-based Head Start providers. Instead, the rule does
provide for this and other items to be debated and voted upon
separately so that the House may work its will and the final outcome
will reflect the views of the majority of the Members, which is an
understandable approach.
The Head Start program has provided comprehensive early childhood
development services to low-income and disadvantaged children since the
mid-1960s. Today, almost 1 million students are involved in Head Start.
The Head Start program is good. In some places the Head Start program
is great.
I do not want to be a little bit parochial here, but being well
acquainted with those involved in Head Start in my particular area,
they do a great job and I am very proud of my association with them.
But in each of these situations, the program still could be better. For
that purpose, this bill focuses or attempts to focus the academic
program more clearly in particular areas. They put greater emphasis on
language skills, prereading, premath, and cognitive skills. They insist
that any new money above and beyond the funding skills, 60 percent of
that be tendered only to teacher quality, which is where that emphasis
needs to be.
The Head Start program is administered by the Department of Health
and Human Services and is accomplished through grants that directly go
to applying entities.
The Head Start program has been largely successful because the Head
Start program is locally designed and they are administered by a
network of 1,600 public and private nonprofit and forprofit agencies at
the local level. Because of this local emphasis, educators can tailor
their approaches to fill the specific needs of the populations they
serve, instead of a one-size-fits-all approach that too many other
Federal programs, including other Federal education programs, have.
Especially important is this particular thing, that in the text of
this particular bill it puts a greater emphasis on tying Head Start
programs to a State's curricular standards. To be a priority grantee in
the Head Start program, they have to show a pure correlation to a
State's curriculum standard. This is for the benefit of the kids coming
through the system.
Of increasing specific importance to me is the local tie-in that is
demanded by this particular bill. The Head Start
[[Page H8254]]
programs have to demonstrate an active support in trying to tie their
programs into local school districts. This is essential in the long run
if you want to have a smooth transition between Head Start and the
local schools. Too often programs running contrary to that simply have
a disconnect; and, therefore, there is not local support for these
programs. This bill recognizes that is a serious problem and a serious
error and attempts to try to bridge that gap by insisting that Head
Start programs work closely with their local school districts to
provide a seamless entry for those kids going through Head Start into
the regular school programs in the States where they are.
The GAO was critical of some financial management standards of the
Head Start program. To solve that without losing the purpose of Head
Start, which is to help disadvantaged kids prepare for school, they
have increased the element of competition within the program. The
competition that will be new in this particular program will drive
improvements in Head Start; at the same time it will meet the needs of
a recommended financial management that the GAO suggested. By looking
for and rewarding success in Head Start programs and also looking for
and punishing deficiencies in any 5-year cycle, there is an element to
try to improve this program, taking a program that is good and great
and in every situation making it indeed better.
There are also within this guarantees that there is a guaranteed
share of the money that will go to Native American programs, migrant
and seasonal workers, the most disadvantaged of the groups that Head
Start is trying to help and assist, who will never be placed at a
disadvantage in the overall process.
In addition to that, this bill removes certain flawed techniques of
evaluation that have been standardly used by the Head Start program and
replaces them with something that is more scientifically based.
The rule that is currently before us provides for important
amendments and policy discussion, and it is a very fair rule. In
addition to a manager's amendment, the chairman of the committee who
recommended this bill recommended four amendments, two by Republicans
and two by Democrats. The Committee on Rules instead, in addition to
the manager's amendment, recommended 11 additional amendments, five by
Republicans, six by Democrats.
I commend the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) and the sponsor of
this legislation, the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), for their
hard work in placing this bill before the House; and I urge all of my
colleagues to support this rule.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Utah
(Mr. Bishop) for the time, and I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Committee on Rules reported out a
restrictive rule providing for the consideration of the School
Readiness and Head Start Reauthorization Act.
A total of 24 amendments were submitted to the Committee on Rules on
this bill, 16 by Democratic members and eight by Republicans. In
typical fashion, however, only 12 of those amendments were made in
order. Half of our colleagues' proposals, half of their legislative
ideas, half of their amendments are blocked from consideration under
this rule.
This includes, among many others, the McCollum-Van Hollen amendment,
which calls for providing assistance to Head Start providers complying
with congressional transportation mandates and the rising costs of
gasoline. This commonsense amendment provided much needed assistance to
Head Start programs that are having to cope with escalating gasoline
costs. They are now choosing between buying new books for their
students and putting gas into their buses. Unfortunately, the House
will not have the opportunity to debate this amendment because it was
not made in order under the rule.
As all Members should know, Head Start was created to address the
preparatory educational deficiencies among economically disadvantaged
children as a part of the War on Poverty. Since that time, millions of
children and families have been the beneficiaries of a proven winning
educational model for early childhood development.
This body likes to talk about readiness in many contexts: disaster
readiness, military readiness, emergency readiness. We devise and
implement all kinds of plans in order to be ready or prepared for any
eventuality. School readiness is more than just being prepared for
entry into the educational system. It is preparation for entry into
life's systems.
Head Start is just what it says: a head start. It gives
systematically, economically and socially disadvantaged children the
head start that potentially allows for the navigation and negotiation
of hurdles in life's race that they may not otherwise have been able to
maneuver without. It is at this very point in the lives of our children
that they are introduced to varying themes and concepts that will shape
them into the individuals they will become.
Several of my Democratic colleagues from the Congressional Black
Caucus have designed excellent amendments designed to broaden the scope
of readiness for America's disadvantaged children.
The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) had an amendment and it asked
for the recruitment of African American and Latino men to become Head
Start teachers. This was made in order.
The gentleman from Mississippi's (Mr. Thompson) amendment calls for
the Department of Health and Human Services to provide additional
assistance in areas affected by Hurricane Katrina, and I suggested to
the Chair that we broaden that to include any disaster so that children
are covered who are in the Head Start category.
The gentlewoman from California's (Ms. Millender-McDonald) amendment
allows homeless and foster children to be automatically eligible for
Head Start. These amendments were designed to help, not hinder; to move
forward, not backward; to grow, not stifle.
{time} 1030
I am pleased that they were made in order and enthusiastically
support each of these amendments.
Unfortunately, although the underlying legislation has the support of
both parties, the rule also makes in order a controversial and
discriminatory amendment offered by the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr.
Boustany), our colleague. His amendment contains language that should
give all of us pause and may cause this bill not to pass should it be
approved by this body.
The Boustany amendment allows faith-based Head Start providers to
discriminate with regard to religion when hiring personnel to run their
programs.
Does this not blatantly and egregiously undermine what we are trying
to do here? We are supposed to be about the business of creating
opportunities and closing gaps.
The Boustany amendment only creates opportunities of systemic
disadvantage and discrimination and closes doors to the very ones
trying to open them for America's children.
Even more, title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act clearly stands in
opposition to the gentleman from Louisiana's (Mr. Boustany) amendment,
the same title VII that was voted on and agreed to by the Members of
this great body 41 years ago. Title VII provides every citizen broad-
based protection against employment discrimination based on race,
color, religion, sex, and national origin.
Supporters of the amendment will argue that the Supreme Court
decision in the Amos case allows for the amendment to be in order and
is, therefore, constitutional. That decision does, in fact, allow for
the consideration of religion in hiring practices. However, it does not
allow for the consideration of religion to discriminate in hiring
practices.
How soon we forget that it is the very same language that made this
bill highly controversial in the 108th Congress, and it will allow for
it to be controversial if it passes again. I urge my colleagues to
oppose this amendment.
Mr. Speaker, if we are serious about the lives of our children, if we
are serious about readiness, if we are serious about reauthorizing Head
Start, then it is critical that we continue to work in a bipartisan
fashion and reject proposals which seek to divide this body
[[Page H8255]]
and its Members. The chairman of this committee and the ranking member
and the members of this committee have worked very actively to fashion
a reasonable and bipartisan effort. Congress should not be in the
business of supporting State-sponsored discrimination. Forty-one years
ago we said no. Today, 41 years later, no still is no.
The House should, without question or hesitation, reject the Boustany
amendment and approve the bipartisan underlying legislation with some
of the proposed amendments.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
If I could just make a note of the amendments that were not made in
order, of the 12, four were defeated in committee. So they did have a
hearing in which they were discussed. Two were not germane. One was
withdrawn in the committee. One was withdrawn before our Committee on
Rules. Two dealt with issues that can be dealt with in other bills and
should be dealt with in other bills. One was combined and given
preference to a similar bill, and one was a policy issue that we simply
said would not be there because it would take money away from the
training of teachers, in contradiction with what the bill was trying to
do.
Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the chairman of the Committee on Education and
the Workforce.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Utah for
yielding time, and Mr. Speaker, today we have an opportunity to act on
behalf of the nearly 1 million disadvantaged children in the United
States who participate in the Head Start early childhood education
program every year. The bill before us, the School Readiness Act, was
introduced by the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), my friend and
colleague, and approved unanimously by the Committee on Education and
the Workforce in May.
For four decades, Head Start has provided comprehensive services to
help prepare low-income preschool children for success in school and in
life. Unfortunately, Head Start children still enter school lagging
behind their more affluent peers. If we do not address this readiness
gap, Head Start children will continue to enter school without the
level of preparedness that we know that they need. Another problem we
have witnessed is an alarming number of financial abuses in various
Head Start programs, showing that taxpayer dollars are not always being
used to serve disadvantaged children and their families.
We must demand more in exchange for the money we are investing, and
that is why the bill before us reforms and strengthens the Head Start
program. To protect parents, children and taxpayers, the School
Readiness Act subjects Head Start operators to an annual independent
financial audit and requires them to file an annual financial
disclosure statement that documents how Federal Head Start funds were
used. These protections are a direct response to the reports of chronic
financial abuse that have surfaced in recent years.
Another important component of this bill is that it will create
greater competition to ensure Federal dollars are being spent wisely.
The bill requires Head Start grantees that fail to meet program
requirements to compete in order to continue receiving funds. This
commonsense reform will fundamentally shift expectations in the Head
Start program by demanding nothing less than the highest quality
programs, and for the first time ever, programs that fail to meet
expectations will face the possibility of losing Federal funding.
Later today we will debate an important amendment offered by the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), which has been a priority of mine,
that will complement our efforts to introduce greater competition into
the program. The amendment would help implement a reform initiative at
the Department of Health and Human Services designed to address the
internal weaknesses in the Head Start management structure and improve
its overall effectiveness, and I would urge my colleagues to support
it.
Lastly, I would like to note another critical issue we will consider
today in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Faith-based organizations
were among the first to reach out and lend a hand in service to those
impacted by this disaster. It does not take a hurricane or another
large-scale catastrophe to rally faith-based organizations to assist
their fellow Americans each and every day. They focus on issues from
job training to child care and everything in between. President Bush
has called them the armies of compassion, and these armies are always
on the front lines when our Nation needs them most.
Too often, the Federal Government has ignored or impeded the efforts
of faith-based organizations willing to lend a helping hand in
providing critical services to the neediest in our communities. The
Boustany amendment will protect the rights of faith-based groups to
fully participate in serving Head Start children without relinquishing
their religious identities.
The 1964 Civil Rights Act made clear that when faith-based groups
hire employees on a religious basis, it is an exercise of the group's
civil liberties. Former President Bill Clinton signed four laws
explicitly allowing faith-based groups to staff on a religious basis
when they receive Federal funds, and a 1987 Supreme Court decision
unanimously upheld this right. This amendment deserves the support of
all of our colleagues.
I think the rule before us today is a fair rule that makes in order
an array of Democrat and Republican amendments, and I would urge my
colleagues to support it.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I cannot impress enough to the chairman that title VII
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 applies to the use of religious
organizations' own resources, not Federal taxpayer dollars.
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 4 minutes to the
distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui), my good friend
with whom I serve on the Committee on Rules.
(Ms. MATSUI asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for
yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of a program that works, Head
Start, and our efforts today to reauthorize the program in this School
Readiness Act.
Head Start has proven itself time and time again to be an effective
program and a worthwhile investment of Federal dollars. For every
dollar invested, we see a $7 return. Imagine those returns on the stock
market. An investment of $100,000 means that ultimately you would see
$700,000 in your account. In fact, with those returns, we should be
authorizing a higher level of funding.
We are all aware of just how critical a child's first years are, and
this is a program that is so much more than just early education and
reading skills. It is also about health care, nutritional and social
benefits for the children as well as their parents. Head Start is about
ensuring children are on the right path as they begin their education
careers.
Earlier this year, I visited two of the over 110 Head Start centers
in Sacramento County in my district. During the visit, I witnessed the
tangible reward of this program, as well as the harder-to-define
benefits.
At one of the centers, they were learning about shoes, from slippers
and sneakers to work boots and rain boots. The children were not only
learning about how the shoes indicated what people were doing, but
about all of the possibilities available to them; that one day they,
too, could be wearing those doctor's booties or those firefighter's
boots.
With a goal in mind, maybe not consciously outlined but still a hint
of an idea, these children began to dream about the positive benefits
of education and where in life an education can take them.
Lifting children out of poverty, offering them hope and possibility
instead of despair is truly a worthwhile endeavor, a lesson that Head
Start works to teach.
[[Page H8256]]
I do have one concern today, and that is about the possibility that
an amendment allowing religious discrimination could be added to this
legislation. The idea of discrimination is not something we should be
teaching our children. By allowing this discrimination, we could be
blocking countless parents from rising out of poverty. Already,
thousands of parents have transitioned from parent volunteer to a full-
time paid Head Start teacher.
There is a bigger and more fundamental issue at stake. Head Start
emerged from the civil rights platform of equality and minimizing the
reach of poverty in this Nation. Yet, this amendment is about allowing
discrimination.
Discrimination only serves to divide us. It pits one individual
against another, one group against another, something we see far too
often. This is not a lesson the children should learn.
Head Start is a good program. We should keep it that way, for all the
children of Sacramento and all across the country. I would hope that
during consideration of this legislation today, we would vote down the
religious discrimination amendment so we can see this good bill move
forward.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I am more than pleased to yield 2
minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller).
Mr. KELLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule and of the
underlying Head Start bill. Since I was elected to Congress in 2000, we
have increased Head Start funding by 28 percent, from $5.8 billion in
2000 to $6.8 billion today.
Head Start is a crucial program for over 900,000 of our Nation's most
needy students. It provides child development, educational, health,
nutritional, social and other activities to help prepare young children
for kindergarten. A good Head Start program will make sure that low-
income 4-year-old children will know their ABCs, be able to count to
20, have the building blocks they need to hit the ground running on
their first day of kindergarten.
We know today how important early childhood education is to a child's
long-term success. Head Start makes sure that children from low-income
families have the educational foundation they need to succeed.
As a father of two, I know firsthand how precious our children's
first years are and how important they are to our children's future. I
am proud of Congress' increased support for low-income children through
the Head Start program, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the
rule and ``yes'' on the Head Start reauthorization bill.
{time} 1045
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3
minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum).
Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my
sincere disappointment in the Committee on Rules decision to report a
restrictive rule for consideration of the bill before us today, the
reauthorization of Head Start, the future of our children.
Several commonsense amendments were not ruled in order. Not
surprising, most of them were Democratic amendments. Instead, several
amendments that were ruled in order will weaken Head Start and the
opportunity for our children.
In the committee, there was support of adding the language ``faith-
based'' into the bill, even though faith-based institutions currently
participate in providing Head Start programs. We were happy to do this
in committee; I was also, along with my colleagues, because the Equal
Opportunity Employment Act is also spelled out clearly in the bill,
which does not allow for discrimination in hiring.
But there was another amendment that was not ruled in order, my
amendment, an amendment which would have protected the privacy of our
faith-based organizations and the integrity of our tax dollars. The
amendment that I offered in the Committee on Rules would have simply
required faith-based organizations to create a separate bank account, a
separate bank account in which to receive Federal dollars for the Head
Start program, a distinct and separate bank account from the private
dollars that a religious organization collects to put forward their
religious mission.
Why do we need to do that? Well, first, we need to protect Federal
tax dollars from being used improperly; and, secondly, we need to
protect the privacy of faith-based organizations' accounting books for
their religious mission. With the commingling of funds, if fraud is
suspected, a faith-based organization would have to open up all of
their books for inspection. My amendment would have required separate
accounts, therefore, protecting the church's mission and the Federal
education mission of Head Start.
Mr. Speaker, let me quote from the Covenant Companion, a Christian
publication. I quote from this publication, and I will also include
this in the Record, as well as two other publications that speak to
this. From the Covenant: ``Churches are particularly vulnerable to
embezzlement because of the high-level of trust given to employees and
volunteers that lack the sophistication, fiscal controls, and
oversight.''
My amendment simply would have been a preemptive strike against
financial abuse that we know will happen because it has already
occurred. For example, this past summer, $80,000 was stolen from a
Federal Head Start program run by a church.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this rule. We need a new
rule, one that will protect the taxpayers, one that will protect faith-
based organizations and stop discrimination.
[From the Covenant Companion, Apr. 2003]
When the Numbers Don't Add Up
(By Bob Smietana)
Sandra had a problem--an overdue Visa bill for $672 and no
cash to pay it. And the Visa bill wasn't the only problem.
Sandra was behind on a number of other bills and her
creditors were calling. And calling.
Then Sandra, the bookkeeper at a small manufacturing
company in Kansas, came up with a desperate plan. She would
use one of the company's checks to pay her bill. ``I thought,
just this one time, just to get back on my feet,'' she told
Fortune Small Business (FSB) magazine. ``No one will know.''
To disguise her actions, Sandra recorded the check under
the name of one of the company's vendors. When the bank
statement came, she removed the canceled check, leaving no
trace of the theft.
But it wasn't just one time. From 1992 to 1999, Sandra, a
former small town cheerleader and mother of two, wrote out
eighty-eight checks to pay her bills and made eighty-eight
false entries. The total, according to FSB, was $248,383--all
of it going to pay living expenses. Since her employers at
the small, family-run business trusted her, they never
checked her work.
The embezzlement was discovered when Sandra went on
vacation. While she was gone, one of the canceled checks was
found and her boss discovered what she had done. Sandra was
convicted of embezzlement and sentenced to eighteen months in
prison.
While fraud at major companies like World Com and Enron
have made headlines in recent years, small businesses,
nonprofits, and churches arc particularly vulnerable to
embezzlement because of the level of trust given to employees
and volunteers and the lack of sophisticated financial
controls and oversight.
In the past three years, GuideOne, which insures 45,000
churches in the United States, paid 3,845 claims to churches
for losses from theft (by people outside the church) or
embezzlement (by people inside the church). Those claims
total over $8 million, with an average claim of $2,106.
In the past ten years, at least eleven Covenant churches
have reported being victims of embezzlement, with anywhere
from ``just over'' $10,000 to more than $300,000 taken by
people they trusted--volunteer treasurers, church staff, even
a pastor. At least one major embezzlement at a Covenant
church was discovered in 2002. And the actual number of
embezzlements is likely higher because many churches are
reluctant to report when a member of the church has embezzled
money.
Kent Egging, interim pastor of Bethany Covenant Church in
Mount Vernon, Washington, has studied embezzlement in
churches as part of a doctor of ministry degree program.
Egging also knows the effects of embezzlement on a church
firsthand--while he was co-pastor of a Covenant church in
Portland, Oregon, the church's treasurer embezzled more than
$45,000.
The embezzlement began in 1992, soon after Jim, a member of
the church, became treasurer. His main qualification, Egging
says, was not formal training in business or accounting--``he
was willing to do the job.''
Soon after starting, Jim learned that the church had a
separate account to handle funds for a campaign to build a
Christian education (CE) wing. Since the funds were not
needed immediately, there seemed to be no need to closely
monitor the account.
That separate account gave Jim two things that an embezzler
needs to succeed--access and no accountability. ``He found he
could transfer funds into this CE account and then withdraw
them,'' says Egging, ``and absolutely nobody knew.''
[[Page H8257]]
The transfers were made by phone, leaving no paper trail,
and then the treasurer would create a false financial
statement, which made it appear that the transactions had
never taken place.
``When the building committee began asking for access to
the CE funds, they had a hard time getting Jim to write them
a check. In April 1993, he admitted--at first--taking
$20,000. After learning about the embezzlement, the church
discussed whether or not to call the police. In the process,
Egging talked with a friend who worked in the local district
attorney's office.
``You call the police now,'' his friend told him. ''You
call them now. Here's what I can tell you--if he says it's
twenty, it's probably forty. If he says he'll do anything you
want right now to repay it, two months from now he won't be
willing to do anything.''
Much of what Egging's friend said was accurate. A thorough
investigation revealed that $45,000 was missing. While the
church filed a police report, they did not press charges.
Instead, they reached a binding agreement with their former
treasurer to repay the money.
``We ended up having a stipulated statement of judgment,''
says Egging, ``which is a combination of a legally binding
confession to a crime, so there is no need for prosecution,
and a contract for repayment.'' The agreement for repayment
was for about $50,000. The church only received about $300.
Restoring trust after an embezzlement at a church is a long
process. The first step is getting an accurate picture of
what was lost. ``It was very important for us to do a proper
accounting,'' says Egging. ``The biggest issue in all of this
is trust, the violation of trust. It's not about the money so
much. It's about the trust. He violated our trust. The trust
of leaders in the congregation was in question because of
this.''
To prevent any embezzlement from happening in the future,
the church revamped its entire financial system. They hired a
CPA to set up and monitor new accounting procedures. The
church changed its bank accounts so that telephone transfers
were no longer allowed. All financial statements were kept at
the church, and all accounting work was done on the church's
office computer rather than on a volunteer's home computer.
That's an area of vulnerability in most churches, says
Egging.
``I would bet that most churches in America have some or a
significant number of financial records at somebody's house
in a box or on somebody's home computer,'' he says, ``because
home computers are generally better than church computers. A
church wants to make it easy for a volunteer who's working on
church finances.''
Embezzlement can happen even when a church has taken steps
to prevent financial losses. That was the case at Highland
Covenant Church in Bellevue, Washington, during the mid-
1990s. The church had a number of common financial safeguards
in place--two signatures were required on every check, two
people were present whenever collections were counted, and
the church did an internal audit of its book each year.
Highland also practiced a ``segregation of duties.'' One
person, the financial secretary, deposited funds; another
person, the bookkeeper, prepared checks. Neither the
bookkeeper nor the financial secretary was allowed to sign
checks.
For the most part, Beth, the church's bookkeeper, generated
Highland's checks on her computer. ``But every few months,
she would call up and say her printer wasn't working,'' says
Dave Kersten, who was pastor of Highland Covenant from 1986
to 1997.
When this happened, Beth would prepare all of the payroll
checks by hand and then send them to the church office to be
signed. After they were signed, she would alter the checks,
adding just a single digit to increase the amount, sometimes
by several thousand dollars.
``She would write herself a check and her husband a check,
because he was the part-time janitor,'' says Kersten.
``Instead of it being a check for $700--it could become a
check for $4,700.'' Over a seven-year period, Beth took more
than $300,000.
The embezzlement was not detected because the church's
bookkeeper had control of the bank statements. Early on, she
had asked that all of the church's bank statement be sent to
her home. ``And in a very trusting environment,'' says
Kersten, ``that was the big mistake.''
When the first altered check was discovered, Kersten called
the Bellevue police and spoke to a fraud detective.
``As soon as he heard that she had control of the bank
statements, he knew that he had a real case,'' Kersten says.
``Invariably, when an organization allows a person who is
writing the checks to control the bank statements, they are
very vulnerable.''
While the church's financial reports indicated that it had
money in savings and other discretionary funds, that proved
to be false as well. All of those funds had been folded into
the church's checking account. And because the embezzlement
had taken place slowly, over a long period of time, it was
easier to hide even during internal audits.
Each year, two members were appointed to audit the books.
They would call up Beth and ask her to send 3 months of
statements, picked at random. ``She would pick months she
didn't embezzle any funds and send them those accounts,''
says Kersten. ``The books balanced and that was the end of
the story.''
The embezzlement came to light in April 1995, after the
church let Beth go as bookkeeper because of suspicions that
something was wrong with the church's finances. She was
arrested, tried, convicted, and sentenced to 40 months in
jail. The decision to turn the matter over to the police had
been fairly straightforward, because of the amount of money
involved.
Because their policy limited the amount of losses due to
embezzlement or fraud, Highland received less than $20,000
from their insurance company. But the church was able to
recover from the embezzlement, and by the time Kersten left
in 1997, had rebuilt their savings and completed a major
fundraising campaign.
Most churches, charities, and businesses that arc victims
of embezzlement are never able to recover the funds they
lost. Often their insurance policies have clauses that limit
liability due to fraud. Many embezzlers have financial
problems and, despite stealing large sums of money, have no
assets left when they arc caught. And while embezzlers often
make restitution plans, it is difficult to enforce them.
Remember Sandra, the accountant from Kansas? She was
released from prison 2 months early so she could start
repaying what she stole. According to FSB, she makes a
monthly payment of $100--at that rate, it will take 20 years
to pay it all back. She said she told her story because she
wanted to help prevent other people from making the same
mistakes she did.
``I'm not a bad person,'' Sandra told FSB. ``But I did a
really bad thing.''
____
Protecting Your Ministry From Internal Threats
When Fred Meyers was elected treasurer of First Community
Church, it didn't take him long to realize something wasn't
adding up with the church's finances. After scouring the
church ledger and consulting a private CPA, Meyers informed
church leaders that First Community had been the victim of
embezzlement.
Church leaders soon discovered that, over the past several
years, an usher had been directing offering money into his
own pockets. Overall, nearly $10,000 of tithes and offerings
never made it into the church's account.
In the business world, embezzlement is the most common
financial crime in the Nation. Unfortunately, it's also a
frequent crime against churches and not-for-profit
ministries. And, unlike other crimes against religious
organizations, embezzlement is perpetrated by a trusted
person from within.
Most church leaders don't want to acknowledge the
likelihood of one of their own parishioners or employees
committing a crime against their organization. But, although
these types of crimes may not be widespread, they are common
enough-and costly enough-to warrant preventive measures.
PUT IT IN WRITING
Develop a comprehensive written policy governing the
handling of your ministry's finances. This policy should
clearly spell out the procedures for handling church
finances, making deposits and withdrawals from church
accounts, accessing financial records, and conducting other
financial business.
Having procedures in writing and explaining these
procedures to employees and volunteers will promote
consistent handling of your organization's finances. Written
guidelines let everyone know what's expected of them. And,
they discourage dishonest employees from using ignorance
of proper procedures as a defense of their criminal
actions.
In addition to a written policy for handling finances, it's
helpful to have written position descriptions for all
employees and volunteers. Position descriptions can eliminate
confusion over who has access to certain financial documents
and who's authorized to perform certain financial functions.
Document all financial transactions clearly and
immediately. Record deposits, withdrawals, loan payments,
payroll, and any other financial transactions. Keep these
records (and duplicates, if necessary) in a safe place. By
documenting all financial procedures, your organization can
detect discrepancies quickly, protect honest employees from
unwarranted accusations, and gather necessary evidence to
identify criminals in the event of a financial crime.
Implement a program for documenting suspicious financial
incidents. In many cases, at least one other employee or
volunteer is aware of--or at least suspicious of--fraud or
embezzlement. Making it easy and safe for employees and
volunteers to report suspicious financial activity will make
it more likely that they'll come forward with helpful
information.
Develop a program for handling church finances in which the
receipt, deposit, distribution, and documentation of church
money is carried out by different people. Require dual
signatures for financial transactions like withdrawals or for
endorsing and cashing church checks for more than a certain
dollar amount. If control over financial operations is
divided among several people, it will be extremely difficult
for discrepancies to go undetected.
WATCH OVER YOUR OFFERINGS
Tithes and offerings represent the greatest internal threat
of loss to churches and ministries. And, because significant
portions of offerings are made in cash and are usually
collected and counted by volunteers, the misuse or
misappropriation of cash offerings is one of the easier
crimes to commit against churches.
[[Page H8258]]
To protect your church's offerings, follow these steps:
Ask your congregants to place financial gifts in envelopes
preprinted with their names and addresses before placing them
in the offering plate. This will make it harder to discern
what portion of the offering is cash and what portion is
checks.
Always have at least two people present when counting the
offering. It's best to use longtime church members who've
established a reputation of being trustworthy. Develop a list
of such people, and periodically rotate those on the list
when offerings are counted. Also, avoid counting the offering
behind closed doors.
Stamp checks ``For Deposit Only'' when endorsing them. This
will make it more difficult for the money to be redirected
anywhere except to your church's account. Also, using colored
ink, rather than black ink, on rubber stamp images makes it
harder to use a copy machine to forge them.
Have an independent certified public accountant (CPA)
periodically review your financial control procedures. A CPA
can tell you whether your procedures are adequate and give
you additional guidelines to help you protect your finances
from threats from within.
PROTECT YOUR PHYSICAL PROPERTY
In addition to financial assets, physical property is a
favorite target for criminals within an organization. Follow
these tips to protect your property:
Use a safe for petty cash, small valuables, keys, and
important documents. Keep important financial records and
personnel documents in a safe or a locked filing cabinet.
Only a few necessary staff members should have access to the
key or combination.
Establish a key monitoring system. Use keys with serial
numbers on them to keep track of which employee or volunteer
has which key. Avoid keeping spare keys. If they're
necessary, keep them locked in a secure place. Collect keys
from employees or volunteers who leave the organization.
Keep interior office, classroom, and supply room doors
locked when not in use.
Give master keys only to those people who need them. If
someone only needs a key to get into a classroom, that person
may not also need a key that opens the church office.
Control access to security codes. If your church or
ministry has a security system, be sure that only a few
necessary staff members know the codes. Additionally, it's a
good idea to occasionally change codes or passwords. Be sure
to change the codes whenever anyone with access to them
leaves the organization.
Keep a personal property inventory of your organization's
physical property. This will help you quickly tell if
something is missing, establish proper insurance protection,
and allow a faster, more comprehensive recovery in the event
of a loss.
Taking steps to prevent internal crime is just as important
as guarding against threats from the outside. Following these
guidelines will help you reduce the chance of being
victimized from within and help you avoid the high physical,
emotional, and monetary costs it can bring.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the
gentlewoman from Minnesota. I understand her feelings about not being
allowed to have an amendment placed in order on the floor. I have been
in that situation myself several times.
I would simply point out that the particular amendment to which the
gentlewoman refers was offered in the committee itself and was defeated
on a bipartisan vote in that committee. It was one of the concepts that
we thought was not necessary to replow all old ground over and over
again, and that is probably one of the reasons why this particular
amendment was not placed in order by the Committee on Rules.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 4
minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards), my
good friend and a leader in the fight for education and for veterans
and other affairs in this Congress.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, as the father of two young sons, I am a
strong supporter of the Head Start program because I want every child
in America to have a chance to reach his or her highest God-given
potential. As a person of faith, I believe in the important role of
faith-based organizations in addressing society's needs, including the
education needs of children. But also as a person of faith, someone who
has revered my religious freedom under the Constitution, I am deeply
disappointed and offended that the Republican leadership of this House
has allowed an amendment on the floor today that would deny potentially
hundreds of thousands of American citizens a government-funded job
simply because of their religious faith.
How ironic and disappointing it is that just at the very same time
that we are preaching to the Iraqis that they should adopt a
constitution that protects religious freedom, the Republican leadership
of this House is willing to deny that freedom, that religious freedom
to American citizens.
I wonder how the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop), who is the floor
manager on the Republican side of this rule, would feel, Mr. Speaker,
if right now I asked him to answer my 20-point religious test. I hope
he would be offended that I would ask him 20 specific questions about
his personal religious faith. Yet that gentleman and others who support
this rule and the Boustany amendment would allow faith-based groups,
using tax dollars to give every individual applying for a job to teach
children how to have a better life in the world, allow them to give a
personal detailed religious test.
And then they can say, you know what, even though you have a Ph.D. in
education and 30 years of experience in helping young children get a
better education, we are going to deny you, Mr. Jones or Mrs. Smith,
this federally funded Head Start job because you did not pass our
personal religious test. No American citizen should have to choose
between his or her religious faith and a job, a job paid for by
American taxpayers.
What is wrong with this, the Boustany amendment, is that it would
allow religious discrimination, period. Call it what you want, it would
allow religious discrimination. Number two, it is worse than that. It
actually uses taxpayers' money to subsidize religious discrimination
and bigotry.
Next, I think it is inconsistent with article VI of the Constitution.
We have heard a lot of debate about strict construction of the
Constitution. Article VI, the only reference to religion in the
original Constitution before the amendments were passed, said basically
that no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any
office or public trust under the United States. The spirit of that
article is that you should not have to pass a religious test to get a
publicly funded taxpayer-paid-for job.
Talk about strict interpretation of the Constitution. If having to
choose between my religious faith and getting a Head Start tax-funded
job is not restricting my religious freedom, then what is?
Let me tell you what could happen under the Boustany amendment, which
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) said he supported, because it is
pretty ugly.
I could get a Federal million dollar taxpayer job grant and put out a
sign that says ``No Jews or Catholics need apply here to this federally
funded job.'' Another group might put out a sign that says ``No
Baptists or Methodists need apply here for a federally funded job.''
Another group might put out a sign that says ``No Mormons need apply
here for a federally funded job.'' Despite the fact they are qualified
to help children have a better life, have a Ph.D. in early childhood
education or even special education, simply because of their religious
faith they are denied the right to have that job to help children.
That is morally wrong. Shame on the Republican leadership for
endorsing and subsidizing religious discrimination.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2
minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey),
my classmate, the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Education
Reform, the subcommittee of relevant jurisdiction for this legislation.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule. The
Committee on Education and the Workforce voted for this Head Start bill
unanimously, 48 to 0. But many of our Republican colleagues today would
destroy this bill, making it partisan by allowing religious
discrimination in hiring while using Federal funds, using taxpayer
dollars.
Most Democrats were not allowed to bring their amendments here to the
floor for debate, although a bill was allowed that would add religious
discrimination to this Head Start bill. It is a poison pill.
I offered an amendment with the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van
Hollen) to fully fund Head Start and
[[Page H8259]]
to increase funding for early Head Start. Even though we are serving
fewer than half of eligible children, the first 4 years of the George
W. Bush administration included four of the five smallest Head Start
funding increases since 1991. And the number of children served by Head
Start has increased by less than one-tenth of 1 percent since the end
of the Clinton administration.
In a country as wealthy as ours, this is not acceptable. It is also
not acceptable that while denying Democrats a debate on expanding
access for children, we will debate an amendment from the gentlewoman
from Colorado (Mrs. Musgrave) to allow some providers to divert public
funds to private profit.
Opponents of my amendment will say that they would like to increase
funding for Head Start, but that they just cannot because budget
constraints make it impossible. But this is authorizing legislation,
Mr. Speaker, and authorizing legislation should tell appropriators what
we need to accomplish our goals. If appropriators do not have the
resources to do this, it is only because the administration and this
Congress choose more tax cuts for the wealthiest among us over help for
our children.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, once again I share the frustration
and understand the gentlewoman from California, as to her amendment not
being made in order here. But I once again would point out that the
amendment was presented in the committee and was rejected by the
committee. And once again, it is not necessary to replow old ground
every time the bill appears before the group again. So I appreciate
that consideration very much.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3
minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Cleaver), a
man of the cloth, a reverend representative.
(Mr. CLEAVER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. CLEAVER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time, and my goal here is to make a point, not to make an enemy.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and in strong
opposition to the Boustany amendment and to add my name to the chorus
of religious individuals and organizations that oppose this ill-
conceived and harmful amendment.
As an ordained minister of the United Methodist Church, I recognize
the important role faith-based organizations play in providing
educational, health, and social support services to low-income children
and their parents. The faith-based community has long played an active
role in operating Head Start programs and has done so while upholding
the Constitution and civil rights standards. By the faith community, we
have been able to provide all kinds of services. In fact, my first job
after college was working in Catholic Charities, which received tens of
millions of Federal dollars to run programs.
Mr. Speaker, this is not only bad policy; this is bad theology. In my
religious tradition, we give great recognition to the Apostle Paul, who
said: ``There is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor
uncircumcision, barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free,'' and it goes on to
say: ``Put on, therefore, as the elect of God, holy and beloved, tender
mercies, kindness, humbleness of mind, meekness, long suffering.'' That
is not in this amendment.
Proponents of this amendment claim it is necessary to protect
religious freedom. I will tell you now, as a pastor, that I take
offense at that claim. How is religious freedom served when we force a
teacher to choose between her faith and her job? How is it religious
freedom when we tell children that they can lose their teacher because
she or he is from the wrong faith? How is it religious freedom when we
frustrate the laws of the land?
And make no mistake, should this amendment pass, the children served
by Head Start, those most at risk, would be the ones who suffer. Tens
of thousands of children currently in Head Start could lose their
teachers to whom they have bonded.
{time} 1100
And their parents could be denied the chance to climb out of poverty
by moving from Head Start, discriminating against current and potential
teachers because of religion, causing children to lose one of the most
important adults in their lives, denying parents the chance to elevate
themselves out of poverty.
There is no doubt in my mind that these things are not only harmful,
they are immoral. This is not good for America. This body has no
business undoing prohibitions against bigotry.
Churches have been seen historically as a citadel for justice, a
place of peace, a place of racial harmony. This can be seen as a
subterfuge for bigotry. When someone comes to the St. James United
Methodist Church, which I pastor, they know that they are going to be
considered for employment based on their qualifications and there is no
subterfuge for bigotry.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, there is a time and place for everything we do. If this
rule is passed, there will be a 30-minute time and place to discuss the
details of the specific amendment which has been referred to several
times. I hope saying there is a time and place for that, and I
apologize since I am paraphrasing from a faith-based piece of
literature, and if it would be more profitable I could say I am
paraphrasing from a popular song of the counterculture of the 1960s,
and I am sure that would absolve anyone with 9th and 10th Circuit
concerns. But let me say just one particular word, and I appreciate the
comments that have been made so far.
Mr. Speaker, what we are talking about is the rule on if an amendment
should be debated, which is far different than actually debating the
amendment itself.
Since the minority has jumped over that line and tried to go into the
amendment itself, let me say a couple of things about it, and I
appreciate the comments from the gentleman from Texas.
I served as a missionary from my church for a couple of years. I am
used to people asking me those questions, so if the gentleman has got
more, he should. Although when you put the discrimination, if the
gentleman put my religion first instead of the end of the line, it
would have been nicer.
I also was a school teacher, and I realize in the article the
gentleman quoted from the Constitution I was an officer of public
office and trust.
What we are talking about here is simply whether a church who is
organized should be able to hire Members of their church to work for
their church. That is a concept which has been upheld in statute by
this body. It is a concept which has been upheld by the courts. Should
the State be able to compel a church to hire somebody outside of that
church to work for that church: That is the question. Then the issue is
once you have decided that, and it has been decided by both the courts
and the legislature, can we allow those people to help kids?
What we are talking about is if we can help kids and how best we can
help kids. The entire purpose of this act is to try and focus academic
efforts to try and make sure that kids are prepared to enter the school
system, and are there groups that can help kids. We should not put some
kind of artificial barrier in front of groups that can help kids from
actually doing that, especially when they are functioning under the
rules that we have established and have been upheld by the courts.
This debate is going to be extremely lively during its proper time
and place during the debate on the floor when the amendment is
presented.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
My distinguished friend on the Committee on Rules never ceases to
amaze me, but he has done it again. The gentleman says we are going to
have a time and place to debate this. It will be for 30 minutes; 435
Members of this body are going to have 30 minutes to debate this. For
the gentleman's information, the Boustany amendment has been made in
order. And yes, we are discussing it and this is the time and this is
the place to make sure that we do not discriminate with Federal
dollars.
[[Page H8260]]
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Pascrell).
Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I oppose the rule on the basis of an
exclusion of some very pertinent amendments, but I have to respond to
what I just heard. It is not the church that hires the individual, it
is the Federal Government's money that is being utilized. You are
missing this point. Do not, and I warn everyone about this, do not
place one party against the other. We support faith-based, but
taxpayers should not have their money taken so that one church can say
you are not of this religion so you cannot work for me. That is
discrimination and it will never stand up with the Constitution.
How dare anyone say on this floor that we are allowed to separate
with Federal money, with Federal money, the horror of tens of thousands
of desperately poor Americans trapped in an environment of extreme
neglect, abandoned by its government, left behind to fend for
themselves without the most basic resources to survive? We witnessed
that in the last 3 weeks. We witnessed the aftermath and we witnessed a
wake-up call to America.
I am proud that Americans have opened their hearts in the wake of
this tragedy to lend a helping hand that the government at first
refused. America believes in giving all of its citizens the resources
and opportunities to make a decent life for themselves and their
families. America believes in bringing the buses in on time so everyone
gets out, not just the wealthiest among us.
Head Start is that helping hand. Head Start is bringing the buses in
before the floodwaters of poverty trap people in a desperate life of
illiteracy, unemployment, crumbling homes, dangerous streets, drug
addiction, and no hope.
If we did not know it before, the tragedy of Hurricane Katrina has
reaffirmed that a Head Start is the very least we owe each other; so I
am pleased that there is bipartisan efforts to put this reauthorization
bill together. It protects the basic structure of the program. I
commend the gentleman for that. But do not separate those of us in this
room in saying those are for values and these are not for values. We
are talking about a very narrow scope of debate here. Head Start
programs continue to address the many needs of low-income children and
their families.
In the words of Cecile Dickey, the former executive director of Head
Start in Paterson, New Jersey, my home town, and a personal hero of
mine, she was there when we started Head Start in this Nation, and she
said, ``You cannot do anything for the kids without doing something for
their parents, too. That is why we have programs designed to help them
improve themselves through education and job training, as well as
opportunities for them to be involved in planning activities involving
their children. We serve the entire family unit.''
Cecile is a perfect example of how Head Start can turn a family's
life around. A struggling young mother with two children working in a
daycare center, she was recruited by Head Start as a teacher, trained
at New York University. Through Head Start, Cecile learned that looking
out for her kids meant looking out for her community, and she became a
tremendous advocate for her sons.
A struggling young mother with two children working in a day care
center, she was recruited by Head Start as a teacher and trained at New
York University.
Through Head Start, Cecile learned that looking out for her kids
meant looking out for her community, and she became a tremendous
advocate for her sons, and for the children of Paterson.
Cecile's four sons, two of whom were Head Start children, have grown
up to be surgeons, engineers, and teachers.
Cecile and other Head Start advocates argue that the only problem
with the program is that not enough eligible children can be served.
Nationwide, nearly 50 percent of three and four year olds who qualify
by their parents' income have been denied this opportunity in the last
few years. In Paterson alone, over 2,000 eligible children are on the
waiting list.
A study by Rutgers University has reported that high quality pre-
school more than pays for itself.
When children are enrolled in pre-school programs, mothers are better
equipped to find stable, paying jobs. After these children leave
school, they earn $143,000 more over their lifetimes and are less
likely to need special education than other children.
This program has had tremendous success at improving educational and
social outcomes for children, and is a good deal for the country: It
costs American taxpayers a little more than $6 billion a year, or one
third of one percent of the national budget.
I hope that the House today will vote for this good bipartisan bill,
and will vote down any poison pill amendment that will allow hiring and
firing on the basis of religious affiliation. This is anti-American.
It will be a shame if all the bipartisan hard work that has gone into
crafting this worthy legislation was scuttled by the cynical attempts
of a few to codify discrimination into our national laws.
No rule for more amendments should have been in order. I urge my
colleagues in the House to continue to expand its support of a program
that every American can be proud of.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings).
I have always enjoyed his comments in the Committee on Rules, and I
have oftentimes agreed with his comments in the Committee on Rules.
I do disagree here about the concept of time and place and when this
amendment should be discussed. I would point out that contrary to what
we sometimes hear on the floor, the minority's first approach on this
particular amendment was to try to ban it and take it off the table so
it would not be discussed. That did not pass, and there will be a time
for discussion. I am sure when the amendment is actually before us, it
will be a remarkable discussion based on what we have had right now on
the rule on if we discuss the amendment. But I appreciate very much the
gentleman from Florida.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Delaware (Mr.
Castle), the sponsor of this piece of legislation; not the rule, but
the sponsor of the legislation.
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time, and I rise to say a couple of things. I will speak more when the
bill is on the floor.
Mr. Speaker, we worked very hard to make this a piece of legislation
that could be supported by all of us, and I think we succeeded on that,
as was shown by the unanimous vote coming out of the Committee on
Education and the Workforce.
There are a lot of issues. It is not quite as easy as it sounds. I
thank the staff on both sides who had a great deal to do with that.
I also would like to say that I think the Committee on Rules has been
extremely fair. I would hope that this is a rule that all Members could
support. We may disagree, and in fact I disagree with a couple of the
amendments, but I agree with most of them on both sides. I think there
are some very good, positive suggestions, and I know sometimes we
complain about closed rules, whatever, but this is certainly a rule
that is not closed, that is going to allow a lot of opportunity for
debate.
I have listened to part of the debate here on the faith-based that is
going to go on all day, I suppose. There is disagreement with respect
to that, which is unfortunate because it detracts from what is a piece
of legislation that otherwise we could all support. But on the other
hand, there are strong views on that and I think they have a right to
be recognized, and a vote needs to be taken on that, too.
I would like to say that things have changed a great deal with how we
look at Head Start. In fact, in some ways it was a poverty program when
it began. It was basically a social service program to a great degree.
We are now diverting it to more of an academic program. There is no
question about that, and I think that is good. We need to get all of
these kids up to the starting line, equal. That is what it is all
about. If a child is 3 or 4, we need to give them that opportunity.
I think this legislation does that. I think we are all in that
together. I think everybody in this building would agree that we need
to do that. So I hope we keep that in mind as we look at our amendments
and the legislation, and hopefully when the day is over we can move
forward in helping these young people.
[[Page H8261]]
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), my classmate and good friend.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I oppose the rule because it
allows the Boustany amendment. Let us be clear. First of all, faith-
based organizations sponsor Head Start programs now. They have and they
will continue to. My own church hosted a Head Start program. They
sponsor the programs, just like everybody else, on a level playing
field. They have to use the money for Head Start and they cannot
discriminate in employment.
Any organization that can sponsor a Head Start program under that
amendment can do it anyway if they agree not to discriminate. We are
talking just about discrimination. We are not talking about allowing
groups to sponsor Head Start programs. We are talking about allowing
them to discriminate in employment with the Federal money.
Now they can still discriminate with the church money, just not with
the Federal money. This discussion really represents a profound change
in civil rights discussions, because there was a time traditionally if
an employer had a problem with somebody's religion, the employer has a
problem because the weight of the Federal Government would come down
supporting the victim. Now we are talking about what rights the group
has to discriminate against the victim.
If we are talking about religion, we are also talking about race
because if you can discriminate based on religion, some religions are
virtually all white, others virtually all black. So if you can
discriminate based on religion, you can discriminate based on race.
Where is your moral authority to tell somebody with their private money
what they can do and cannot do, if you are going to turn around and
allow people to discriminate with Federal money?
Mr. Speaker, that is wrong and a rule that allows that is wrong.
There used to be a time when parents would have to describe to their
children why they could not eat at the lunch counter, why they had to
sit in the back of the bus, why they could not get a job at certain
firms. And now we are going to have to have parents tell children why
they could not get a job at the Head Start program while their
neighbors could get a job at the Head Start program.
I want to remind Members that any organization can sponsor the
federally funded Head Start program now if they agree not to
discriminate. We do not need to turn the clock back, and we also do not
need a rule that allows this to ruin the Head Start program.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Puerto Rico (Mr. Fortuno).
Mr. FORTUNO. Mr. Speaker, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 explicitly
protects the rights of faith-based organizations to exercise their
civil liberties and take religion into account in their hiring
practices.
Actually, when faith-based groups hire employees on a religious
basis, they are actually exercising their civil liberties. Faith-based
organizations cannot be expected to sustain their religion mission
without the ability to employ individuals who share the tenets and
practices of their faith, because it is that faith that motivates them
to serve their neighbors in trouble.
{time} 1115
I can tell the Members about this. In my home district of Puerto
Rico, I see this all the time. Actually, on the Head Start program in
the San Juan metropolitan area, it has been run for years by the
Catholic Church. Are we going to tell the Catholic Church whom they can
hire and not hire for the good job they are doing? That is exactly what
we are trying to do here. Actually, it will make it very difficult,
make them liable for hiring practices when, in fact, what they are
doing is that they are giving back to society in the way that no
government entity can actually give back in the way that these
religious organizations are giving back.
So essentially going back to my basic argument, since 1964 we have
recognized this right of the religious organizations that are involved
in these faith-based activities. We cannot turn back actually from what
we did in 1964 by trying to impose new rules that will simply impair
their capacity to handle what they are handling today in such an able
way.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne).
Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
These arguments are well rehearsed. We seem to go through these on a
regular basis, and I certainly admire the tenacity with which the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) and others defend their position.
However, as has already been stated, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, I
believe, does explicitly protect the rights of faith-based
organizations to exercise their civil liberties and take religion into
account in their hiring practices, and I do not know why we seem to
continually have trouble assimilating that into our collective body of
knowledge here.
When faith-based groups hire employees on a religious basis, they are
exercising their civil liberties. The Civil Rights Act made clear when
faith-based groups hire employees on a religious basis, it is an
exercise of the groups' civil liberties. It does not constitute
discrimination under Federal law.
I believe one of the major issues here is that faith-based
organizations are allowed to maintain and sustain their mission. It
does not mean that the people that they hire are discriminated against
on the basis of what religion they have, what their ethnicity might be;
but rather simply the ability to hire people who share their common
beliefs, who share their sense of mission.
We certainly saw this in the recent rescue mission and aid issues
down with Hurricane Katrina, where a great number of faith-based groups
were the most efficient groups that we saw on the ground there. And,
certainly, they should have the right to bring those people in who
share their beliefs, even though they may have been receiving in some
ways Federal dollars.
The same thing is true with Head Start. People must be hired in a way
that they do share a common sense of mission, a common sense of
purpose. Otherwise, these organizations would be totally disrupted in
what they are trying to get done.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman
from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, as we consider the rule, I want to speak on
some important amendments that are going to come up to provide
important protections for religious organizations. If we do not insert
these important protections for these organizations, we will be
dictating to them whom they can or cannot hire. We must maintain the
integrity of religious entities.
The Constitution of the United States explicitly states that Congress
shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. Not
allowing our churches, mosques, and synagogues to hire people of like
mind and similar beliefs is not only an affront to their very core but
contrary to this great Nation's Constitution.
I am proud to be an American for so many reasons, first among them
because I am able to think, speak, and believe whatever I want freely,
as stated in the first amendment to our Constitution. Denying religious
organizations the ability to hire an employee because of his or her
beliefs is to take away that employee's right to think, speak, and
believe as he or she so chooses.
We are not talking about allowing religious organizations to
brainwash children to think as they do. We are talking about allowing
religious organizations simply to be able to provide the same services
and programs as nonreligious organizations. Our children deserve the
very best education; and if a religious organization is going to
provide that education better, then we must not stand in the way.
Are we going to deny many of the poorest and less fortunate children
the opportunity to learn in these early childhood education programs
simply because it is a church that is administering it? This is about
our children,
[[Page H8262]]
and denying them exemplary services just because the organization
providing them happens to be a religious one is just cruel.
I think we all know firsthand the impact that our churches have and
how much they contribute to our communities across the Nation. And we
all know how much they give back to their communities.
This Nation is second to none in charitable giving and at helping
others in need. This is not just a religious tenet, but an American
principle. We need to support this rule.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman
from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart).
Ms. HART. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
I rise in support of the rule, but most especially in support of the
rule allowing for the offering of the amendment by the gentleman from
Louisiana (Mr. Boustany). This amendment is clearly dominating a lot of
the discussion this morning regarding the rule. It is the one that
protects faith-based Head Start providers, and it is so important for
us to be very sensitive about this issue as we look to those who are
willing to provide some very difficult services and ones that certainly
the providers must be very interested in as far as the well-being of
the student, the well-being of the families involved in these programs.
Certainly, faith-based organizations are first in mind when it comes to
providing the services that require the most care, and we would be
remiss in not providing an opportunity for this amendment to be
adopted. This rule does allow that, and this rule is very well crafted.
And I support it for that very reason.
We the Congress have specified in several statutes that religious
organizations that receive Federal funds in the form of grants or
contracts must not lose their Title VII exemption. In fact, former
President Bill Clinton signed four laws that explicitly allow faith-
based groups to staff on a religious basis when they receive Federal
funds. They should not be discriminated against. If we tell faith-based
groups they cannot hire on a faith basis in order to receive Federal
funds, then we will force those organizations out of providing these
services.
Some examples of laws that we have passed that allow for faith-based
groups to continue to hire on their continued basis are the Personal
Responsibility and Work Opportunities Reconciliation Act, or Welfare
Reform of 1996; the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
Administration Act of 1998; the Community Service Block Grant Act,
which everyone has been very supportive of; as well as the Community
Renewal Tax Relief Act of 2000.
We have had debates before regarding faith-based groups being
involved in government contracting. It would be a huge error for us to
exempt the most caring, conscious, and helpful organizations,
especially from Head Start contracts. Those groups should not be forced
to hire anybody off the street simply because they have a Federal
contract. They should hire the best people and the ones who are most
capable of carrying out their mission. The very reason why many of
these organizations will win the contracts is because they have the
best track record of service and results. What more important place is
there for us to care about results than in Head Start?
I think it is important for us, as Members of the United States House
of Representatives, to be very careful as we move forward on this bill.
The Committee on Education and the Workforce has worked very hard to
craft it. They are very concerned about making sure that students get
every advantage at that early age. We need to contract with the
organizations that can best provide the service.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. HART. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I respect the gentlewoman's views, but let
me ask her this question: What is right about letting a group take her
or my tax dollars and put out a sign that says ``Jews nor Catholics
need not apply here for this Head Start job''? What is right about
that?
Ms. HART. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the gentleman, again, is
trying to inflame what I think is really an unreasonable discussion in
this conversation.
The point of faith-based providers is that they are mostly obviously
church people who have a mission. They want to provide a service. They
are not discriminating against others. They are encouraging service
within their church, and we should allow them to provide that service
because we know that they have the best track record of success.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of
my time.
When I was a child, my grandmomma took me to churches. She played
piano for all of the churches in town, four in Altamonte Springs.
Sometimes I did not know whether I was going to be sprinkled and be
baptized here or repent and be baptized. It was very difficult, but all
of the children in that town went to all of the churches.
For 41 years Head Start has existed, and it is the most empirically
collected database organization supporting the children of the United
States of America. And for all of those 41 years, all of these faith-
based organizations have been involved in receiving contracts to do
business. What we are saying is they cannot do it with Federal dollars.
They have to do it with their own money.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, as we conclude the debate on this rule, I would remind
people that the underlying bill provides for the Head Start program in
many different areas. It provides for academic refocusing on class
readiness and to close the class readiness gap. It provides for
competition to improve the quality and to meet questions of
mismanagement of financial abilities. It provides for a closer tie to
State curricula and to local ties which will improve it, and it also
provides, if the amendment is adopted, for faith-based institutions to
actually help kids.
We have an opportunity to discuss 12 amendments plus the underlying
bill, and we have an opportunity to hit a home run for kids. That is
the goal that we still have.
Mr. Speaker, this is a good and balanced rule, and I urge the Members
to support this rule.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Latham). The question is on the
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the
ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a
quorum is not present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 15-minute vote on adoption of
House Resolution 455 will be followed by a 5-minute vote on agreeing to
the Speaker's approval of the Journal.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 221,
nays 189, not voting 23, as follows:
[Roll No. 486]
YEAS--221
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Bradley (NH)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (KY)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
[[Page H8263]]
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schmidt
Schwarz (MI)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Sodrel
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--189
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Case
Chandler
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
Kucinich
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Menendez
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOT VOTING--23
Boswell
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brown, Corrine
Camp
Conyers
Davis (IL)
DeLay
Doolittle
Fattah
Green, Gene
Hefley
Hinojosa
Jackson-Lee (TX)
McMorris
Millender-McDonald
Murtha
Ortiz
Peterson (MN)
Poe
Rush
Sabo
Weller
Announcement By The Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote) (Mr. Latham). There are 2
minutes remaining in this vote.
{time} 1151
Messrs. FRANK of Massachusetts, SCOTT of Virginia, RANGEL, and
MOLLOHAN changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Miss. McMORRIS. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 486 I was unavoidably
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''
____________________