[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 120 (Thursday, September 22, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H8311-H8324]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
SCHOOL READINESS ACT OF 2005
The Committee resumed its sitting.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 9
printed in House Report 109-229.
Amendment No. 9 Offered by Ms. Millender-McDonald
Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 9 offered by Ms. Millender-McDonald:
At the end of the bill, add the following new section:
SEC. ___. IMPROVING HEAD START ACCESS FOR HOMELESS AND FOSTER
CHILDREN.
(a) Definitions.--Section 637 of the Head Start Act (42
U.S.C. 9832) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(18) The term `family' means all persons living in the
same household who are--
``(A) supported by the income of at least 1 parent or
guardian (including any relative acting in place of a parent,
such as a grandparent) of a child enrolling or participating
in the Head Start program; and
``(B) related to the parent or guardian by blood, marriage,
or adoption.
``(19) The term `homeless child' means a child described in
section 725(2) of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act
(42 U.S.C. 11434a(2)).
``(20) The term `homeless family' means the family of a
homeless child.''.
(b) Allotment of Funds; Limitations on Assistance.--
(1) Quality improvement.--Section 640(a)(3) of the Head
Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9835(a)(3)) is amended--
(A) in subparagraph (B)--
(i) in clause (ii), by inserting ``children in foster care,
children referred to Head Start programs by child welfare
agencies, '' after ``background''; and
(ii) in clause (v), by inserting ``, including
collaboration to increase program participation by
underserved populations, including homeless children,
eligible children in foster care, and children referred to
Head Start programs by child welfare agencies'' before the
period; and
(B) in subparagraph (C)--
(i) in clause (ii)(IV)--
(I) by inserting ``homeless children, children in foster
care, children referred to Head Start programs by child
welfare agencies, '' after ``dysfunctional families''; and
(II) by inserting ``and families'' after ``communities'';
(ii) in clause (v)--
(I) by inserting ``homeless children, children in foster
care, children referred to Head Start programs by child
welfare agencies,'' after ``dysfunctional families''; and
(II) by inserting ``and families'' after ``communities'';
(iii) by redesignating clause (vi) as clause (viii); and
(iv) by inserting after clause (v) the following:
``(vi) To conduct outreach to homeless families and to
increase Head Start program participation by homeless
children.''.
(2) Collaboration grants.--Section 640(a)(5)(C)(iv) of the
Head Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9835(a)(5)(C)(iv)) is amended--
(A) by inserting ``child welfare (including child
protective services),'' after ``child care,'';
(B) by inserting ``home-based services (including home
visiting services),'' after ``family literacy services''; and
(3) Allocation of funds.--Section 640(g)(2) of the Head
Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9835(g)(2)) is amended--
(A) in subparagraph (C)--
(i) by inserting ``organizations and agencies providing
family support services, child abuse prevention services,
protective services, and foster care, and'' after
``(including''; and
(ii) by striking ``and public entities serving children
with disabilities'' and inserting ``, public entities, and
individuals serving children with disabilities and homeless
children (including local educational agency liaisons
designated under section 722(g)(1)(J)(ii) of the McKinney-
Vento Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C.
11432(g)(1)(J)(ii)))'';
(B) in subparagraph (H), by inserting ``(including the
local educational agency liaison designated under section
722(g)(1)(J)(ii) of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance
Act (42 U.S.C. 11432(g)(1)(J)(ii)))'' after ``community
involved''.
(c) Research, Demonstrations, and Evaluation.--Section 649
of the Head Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9844) is amended in
subsection (a)(1)(B), by striking ``disabilities)'' and
inserting ``disabilities, homeless children, children who
have been abused or neglected, and children in foster care''.
(d) Reports.--Section 650(a) of the Head Start Act (42
U.S.C. 9846(a)) is amended--
(1) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking
``disabled and'' and inserting ``disabled children, homeless
children, children in foster care, and'';
(2) in paragraph (8), by inserting ``homelessness, whether
the child is in foster care or was referred by a child
welfare agency,'' after ``background''.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 455, the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald) and a Member
opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-
McDonald).
Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume, and I first want to thank my colleague and friend, the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), as well as the chairman of
the subcommittee, for allowing me to come before the body today for
this very important amendment.
Today, I am offering an amendment that addresses one of our Nation's
greatest needs: providing a sound educational foundation for children
who are homeless or in foster care. There are many obstacles these
children must overcome, but access to early education should not be one
of them.
Quite simply, my amendment does the following: it encourages Head
Start grantees to reduce barriers by directing them to increase their
outreach to homeless and foster children. It encourages coordination
between Head Start grantees and community service providers and
homeless and foster children. It increases the coordination of these
populations as they transition out of Head Start to elementary school
and increases reporting requirements. It allows homeless children and
foster children to be automatically eligible for Head Start.
Mr. Chairman, the early years of a child's life are critical to their
development. Homeless and foster youth face monumental hurdles,
starting with their need for stability, emotional reassurance, and
access to educational resources. Because of these inherent challenges,
homeless children and foster youth are twice as likely to have a
learning disability and are three times as likely to have emotional and
behavioral problems that can contribute to long-term learning
disabilities. We can help these kids by identifying them early and
making sure that they are enrolled in Head Start. The work we do now
for these kids will help them throughout their life.
This, Mr. Chairman, is an investment worth making, but we must make
this investment now. The numbers are staggering. Tragically, an
estimated 1.4 million children experience homelessness each year. More
than 40 percent of the children in homeless shelters are under the age
of 5. Currently, only 2 percent of the more than 900,000 students
served by Head Start are children identified as homeless.
In my home State of California, there are more homeless children
today than ever before. The California Department of Housing and
Community Development estimates that there are 80,000 to 95,000
homeless children statewide. The vast majority of these children come
from homeless families that consist of a single mother and her
children.
[[Page H8312]]
The numbers of children in foster care are equally astonishing. There
are approximately 532,000 children in foster care in the United States.
In California, there are approximately 85,226 children in foster care.
With the devastation of Hurricane Katrina in the gulf States, and the
displacement of families, these numbers will only increase. Now, more
than ever, our children need a head start just to keep up.
Providing opportunities for foster children has long been a priority
of mine. I have introduced legislation in this Congress that creates a
foster care mentoring program that seeks to team college students with
foster kids who age out of the system. The purpose of this is to
provide structure for these children and to open new doors and
opportunities through education and community partnerships.
But all of these partnerships, Mr. Chairman, start at an early age
and must begin with Head Start.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment is good policy. This is an excellent
investment in our most vulnerable population. No child should be alone
in the world, and in these United States of America no child should be
left behind. My amendment will prevent these children from the
beginning in becoming victims of bureaucratic loopholes and keep them
transitioning into and through life with the support and commitment
that they deserve. I ask all of my colleagues to support this critical
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I do not oppose the amendment, but I ask
unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Terry). Is there objection to the request of
the gentleman from Delaware?
There was no objection.
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume,
and I rise in very strong support of this amendment, which goes along
with a number of other amendments which we have had, which is
recognizing the fact that when you are dealing with Head Start you are
dealing with a population that comes from 100 percent of poverty or
less, and you are dealing with people who are going to have barriers in
terms of their education. They may be barriers in terms of where they
live or the ability of the parents to care for them. They may be
homeless or foster children, as the sponsor has pointed out; and I
think it is only right and just and absolutely the correct thing to do
to increase that access.
In fact, perhaps that is more important than anything else we can do
in terms of the kinds of children we are reaching out to, in terms of
their background issues. So for that reason, I am extremely supportive
of this amendment, and I think it is a great deal of help to what I
believe is already a good piece of legislation, and I encourage each
and every one of us to support it.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my friend and colleague
from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald) for offering this amendment
and our chairman for accepting it.
Head Start is a program to give a helping hand to vulnerable
children, and no child is more vulnerable than a homeless or foster
child. This amendment will improve outreach and coordination of
services for these very children, and this will help ensure that they
receive the services they need to succeed in school and in life.
Mr. Chairman, this is a worthy amendment and I support it.
Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the
subcommittee, the chairman of the full committee, and the gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Woolsey) for their support. I ask all of my
colleagues to support this very worthy amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald).
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 10
printed in House Report 109-229.
Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mrs. Musgrave
Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 10 offered by Mrs. Musgrave:
At the end of the bill, insert the following new section:
SEC. __. ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS AND STANDARDS.
Section 644 of the Head Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9839) in
amended--
(1) in subsection (b), by inserting immediately before
``exceed 15 percent'' the following: ``, and any reasonable
amounts, in excess of allowable direct and indirect costs,
normally incurred or recognized by an entity eligible under
section 641(a)(1) by virtue of its organization,''; and
(2) in subsection (c), by inserting after the second
sentence the following: ``For purposes of this section, the
Secretary shall prescribe no rules or regulations that
prohibit an entity eligible under section 641(a)(1) from
effectively competing for or administering a grant by virtue
of its organization.''.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 455, the
gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Musgrave) and the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Woolsey) each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Musgrave).
Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
First of all, I want to commend the chairman on the good work that he
did. This bill really increases competition and accountability in the
Head Start Early Childhood Program.
{time} 1430
While the vast majority of Head Start programs are of very high
quality, I have been concerned about recent reports of mismanagement in
some of the Head Start programs. That is why I am pleased that H.R.
2123 infuses the Head Start program with increased competition.
This amendment I am offering would ensure competition and access to
high-quality services for these needy children. It would allow a for-
profit agency that can demonstrate that it can provide a higher level
of services for the same number of Head Start children at a lower cost,
to keep a small portion of the administration's savings as profit.
I firmly believe Congress should be doing everything possible to
encourage the highest-quality providers to become involved in Head
Start. I believe my amendment will provide an incentive for high-
quality for-profit providers to apply for Head Start grants and serve
our Nation's neediest students.
I would also like to point out that for-profit entities are already
an allowable grantee under current law, as well as H.R. 2123, so we
would not be setting a new precedent in terms of for-profit
participation in the program.
My amendment is bipartisan. It is supported by the National Child
Care Association and the Early Care and Education Consortium. I urge my
colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Ohio (Chairman Boehner), and commend the gentleman for his good
work.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for her amendment.
I think it is a very good amendment.
Under current law, a for-profit entity can apply to be a local
grantee to a Head Start program, but you are not allowed to make a
profit. This has been in the law for some time. Given what we are
trying to accomplish in terms of helping children be ready for school,
we ought to have all of the providers possible. If there is an entity
out there who thinks they can provide Head Start with a very high-
quality program and make a profit, we ought to allow them the
opportunity to apply and be in the program. That is all this amendment
does. It does not guarantee that they are ever going to get a grant.
I am a big believer in competition, a big believer in the private
sector and innovative solutions. Given the challenge we have with low-
income children in very low-income neighborhoods, anything we can do to
bring more high-quality innovative services to those children, we ought
to take that chance, and so I support the gentlewoman's amendment.
[[Page H8313]]
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Musgrave amendment.
The underlying bill requires that Head Start grantees keep their
administrative expenses to 15 percent or less of the grant. The grantee
that keeps expenses lower than 15 percent would have the remaining
funds available for teacher salaries or more books or other
improvements that benefit the children. That is, unless this amendment
passes and the grantee is a for-profit organization, in which case
under my colleague's amendment, the difference between the 15 percent
and lower expenses simply would be in the pocket of the for-profit
organization.
So my colleague's amendment comes down to this, very simply: whether
we want the benefits of more efficient administration of grantees to go
to the children or whether we want to give the businesses an incentive
to cut corners for profits. I hope Members all remember HMOs; those
profits do not go directly back into the program to benefit the
children.
I think the answer is obvious, particularly when we are serving fewer
than half the eligible children. I only hope that the majority will be
as willing to spend Federal dollars on serving the children as they
would be in giving those dollars to for-profit companies.
Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from
California (Mr. George Miller), our ranking member.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the
gentlewoman for yielding me this time, and I rise in opposition to this
amendment. I think it is a bad amendment.
The fact of the matter is, if there are these kinds of savings to be
had, either the grant is not right or the money should be put back into
the services. When we have a program here that is failing to meet the
demand for Head Start, it would seem to me if this is a high-quality
program and it has the difference between 13 percent and 13.5 percent
and 15 percent, which could be a couple hundred thousand dollars on a
$10 million grant, which is not that unusual, that ought to be plowed
into the program to extend the opportunity of this high-quality program
to these children.
This program does not exist to create a profit. That does not mean
that people cannot bring profit-making ideals and principles to these
programs for efficiencies, but we ought to plow it into the unserved
population or to improve quality programs.
When we look at the low pay and the profit-making in the nonprofit
sector of Head Start, you would think that we would put that into
quality to try to raise the pay so we can attract teachers with more
education and child development experience and all of the rest of those
issues. This is what we have been arguing and discussing and trying to
improve. To now suggest, because somebody has put in some efficiencies,
that money should now go to the for-profits, instead of services and
extension of the benefits of Head Start to this population that is in
so much need of these services, just does not make sense.
One could argue if we were meeting the need and the demand all across
the country, maybe there is some argument for this. But when we know
how programs struggle, and we see programs with utilities and gas going
up, that is going to cause even more difficulties. And to suggest that
you can somehow eke out a profit that is not returned to the benefit of
the program, that just does not make any sense.
I appreciate vendors are dealing with a government grant and very
low-income children and it is very difficult to make a profit, but I do
not think that we should eke out the means by which that profit can be
taken out of the services rendered to those children. I know these are
called administrative costs, and we have been debating administrative
costs for a long time. Administrative costs also go with other
concerns, the question of accountability and auditing and structuring
of these facilities, all of which are part of that, too. I think this
is an ill-considered amendment, and I would hope that we would reject
the Musgrave amendment.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I think the point we are trying to make
here is there is a lot of innovation that is underway in terms of
bringing technology and other innovation to the whole idea of learning.
When it comes to early childhood programs, the chance at a profit, I
believe, could bring innovation technology to this entire sector.
Nobody has asked me for it, I am not suggesting there is going to be a
rush to come in with innovation, but without some opportunity at
getting a return on your investment, will the innovation ever come?
That is where I am willing to take the chance that new ideas, new
innovations in terms of developing these children, could be very
beneficial to the program.
Ms. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Terry). The question is on the amendment
offered by the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. Musgrave).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
ayes appeared to have it.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Colorado
(Ms. Musgrave) will be postponed.
It is now in order to consider amendment No. 11 printed in House
Report 109-229.
Amendment No. 11 Offered by Ms. Woolsey
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 11 offered by Ms. Woolsey:
At the end of the bill, add the following new section:
SEC. ___. CHILDREN AFFECTED BY HURRICANE KATRINA.
(a) Definitions.--For the purposes of this section, the
following definitions apply:
(1) Children affected by hurricane katrina.--The term
``children affected by Hurricane Katrina'' means a child who
is not older than 5 and who resides or who resided on August
22, 2005, in an area in which the President has declared that
a major disaster exists.
(2) Impacted head start agencies.--The term ``impacted Head
Start Agencies'' means a Head Start agency receiving a
significant number of children from an area in which a major
disaster has been declared.
(3) Major disaster.--The term ``major disaster'' means a
major disaster declared by the President in accordance with
section 401 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief
Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 4170), related to
Hurricane Katrina.
(b) Techical Assistance, Guidance, and Resources.--The
Secretary shall provide technical assistance, guidance, and
resources through the Region 4 and Region 6 offices of the
Administration for Children and Families (and may provide
technical assistance, guidance, and resources, through other
regional offices of the Administration, at the request of
such offices, that administer affected Head Start agencies)
to Head Start agencies in areas in which a major disaster has
been declared, and to affected Head Start agencies, to assist
the agencies involved in providing Head Start services to
children affected by Hurricane Katrina.
(c) Waiver.--For such period up to March 31, 2006, and to
such extent as the Secretary considers appropriate, the
Secretary of Health and Human Services--
(1) may waive section 640(b) of the Head Start Act.
(2) shall waive requirements of documentation for children
affected by Hurricane Katrina who participate in Head Start
programs and Early Head Start programs funded under the Head
Start Act.
The ACTING CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 455, the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) and a Member opposed each
will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I am offering this amendment on behalf of the gentleman
from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson) who is unable to be here this
afternoon.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment will help some of the most vulnerable
victims of Hurricane Katrina, the children. As a result of Hurricane
Katrina, many families have been displaced from their homes and their
schools. This amendment allows displaced families to enroll their
children under the age of 5 in Head Start.
In Mississippi, 44 Head Start centers were impacted by Hurricane
Katrina,
[[Page H8314]]
18 centers will be closed indefinitely, and 26 more are in need of
repair. Approximately 26,743 children within the State of the gentleman
from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson) are eligible for Head Start services
prior to Hurricane Katrina. In the aftermath, the number is expected to
double.
In the neighboring State of Louisiana, 117 centers were impacted, 83
remain closed, and 34 centers are providing partial services.
In Alabama, 9 centers were impacted, 3 centers will be closed
indefinitely, and 6 are in need of repair.
This amendment provides a waiver for 6 months for those families that
do not have proof of immunizations and income levels to participate in
the Head Start program. This 6-month waiver authority also permits the
Secretary of Health and Human Services to waive the 20 percent local
Head Start match requirement.
This amendment directs the Secretary to provide technical assistance,
guidance, and resources which permits agencies to provide Head Start
services to children who have been affected by the hurricane. The total
number of Head Start children affected by Hurricane Katrina is
approximately 18,000. Since the devastation of Hurricane Katrina, more
families are now Head Start eligible. If you want families to come back
and restore their communities, their children need to be safe and
healthy in environments where they can learn and play.
I understand and appreciate that the majority will accept this
amendment and I think that is wonderful. I hope that the majority will
also join us in the coming days to appropriate supplemental funds for
these same children.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time
in opposition to the amendment, although I do not oppose the amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Ohio?
There was no objection.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey)
for offering this amendment on behalf of the gentleman from California
(Mr. Thompson).
The gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson) and I have worked
together and have known each other since the gentleman's arrival here
in Congress. This amendment will direct the Department of Health and
Human Services to assist those displaced children, to try to get them
into Head Start locations around the country. We have already allocated
some $15 million to help enroll children in those places where they
have moved to temporarily.
We believe that the amendment offered by the gentleman from
California (Mr. Thompson) would help on a longer-term basis. Given the
fact we have another hurricane going to hit somewhere in the gulf in
the next couple of days, unfortunately, there could be more children
displaced, and helping them stay in a Head Start program, regardless of
where they go, is something for their good and their family's good and
our country's good, and is something we should do. I urge my colleagues
to accept the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from California.
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 12
printed in House Report 109-229.
Amendment No. 12 Offered by Mr. Boehner
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 12 offered by Mr. Boehner:
At the end of the bill, insert the following new section:
SEC. ___. DISCRIMINATION PROVISIONS.
Section 654 of the Head Start Act is amended to read as
follows:
``SEC. 654 NONDISCRIMINATION PROVISIONS.
``(a)(1) The Secretary shall not provide financial
assistance for any program, project, or activity under this
subchapter unless the grant or contract with respect thereto
specifically provides that no person with responsibilities in
the operation thereof will discriminate with respect to any
such program, project, or activity because of race, creed,
color, national origin, sex, political affiliation, or
beliefs.
``(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to a recipient of
financial assistance under this subchapter that is a
religious corporation, association, educational institution,
or society, with respect to the employment of individuals of
a particular religion to perform work connected with the
carrying on by such corporation, association, educational
institution, or society of its activities. Such recipients
shall comply with the other requirements contained in this
subsection.
``(b) No person in the United States shall on the ground of
sex be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits
of, be subjected to discrimination under, or be denied
employment in connection with any program or activity
receiving assistance under this subchapter. The Secretary
shall enforce the provisions of the preceding sentence in
accordance with section 602 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Section 603 of such Act shall apply with respect to any
action taken by the Secretary to enforce such sentence. This
section shall not be construed as affecting any other legal
remedy that a person may have if such person is excluded from
participation in, denied the benefit of, subjected to
discrimination under, or denied employment (except as
provided in subsection (a)(2)), in the administration of any
program, project, or activity receiving assistance under this
subchapter.
``(c) The Secretary shall not provide financial assistance
for any program, project, or activity under this subchapter
unless the grant or contract relating to the financial
assistance specifically provides that no person with
responsibilities in the operation of the program, project, or
activity will discriminate against any individual because of
a handicapping condition in violation of section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, except as provided in subsection
(a)(2).''.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 455, the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms.
Woolsey) each will control 15 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner).
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I thank the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany) for offering this
important amendment. Unfortunately, with the hurricane moving now
somewhat east of where it was, he decided to return to his district in
central and southwestern Louisiana. So he is not here today, and I
offer the amendment in his place.
Faith-based organizations such as churches, synagogues, and charities
are an essential fabric of local communities across America. This
amendment will correct a flaw in the Federal Head Start law that has
stripped these organizations of their hiring rights, forcing them to
relinquish their civil liberties if they choose to participate in
Federal early childhood programs that are poised to be reauthorized
today.
{time} 1445
We have had this debate many times before here on the House floor. In
fact, earlier this year we rejected, in a bipartisan fashion, an
amendment that would have barred faith-based organizations from
providing job training services in their own communities.
Unfortunately, each time we have had this debate, opponents of faith-
based groups' federally protected right to maintain their religious
nature and character through those they hire have equated these civil
liberties with discrimination.
The 1964 Civil Rights Act makes clear that faith-based groups may
serve their communities without being forced to give up their right to
employ individuals who share the tenets and practices of their faith.
Were the authors of the Civil Rights Act pro-discrimination? No.
The United States Supreme Court in 1987 unanimously reaffirmed the
hiring rights for faith-based organizations. Was the Supreme Court pro-
discrimination? No.
Former President Bill Clinton signed four laws explicitly allowing
faith-based groups to staff on a religious basis when they receive
Federal funds: the 1996 Welfare Reform law, the 1998 Community Services
Block Grant Act, the 2000 Community Renewal Tax Relief Act, and the
2000 Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration Act. Was
President Clinton pro-discrimination? No.
The amendment we are considering today is offered in the same spirit
as the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the 1987 Supreme Court decision, and each
of the
[[Page H8315]]
four laws signed into law by President Bill Clinton.
Our Nation's Head Start students deserve to be served by the very
best organizations willing to lend a helping hand, and if those
organizations are not faith based, so be it. But if they are, the faith
and values that motivate them to serve their neighbors should not be
held against them.
Considering the proven track record of faith-based providers in
meeting the needs of our Nation, efforts we are seeing in action right
now in the gulf coast region, why would we want to deny them the
opportunity to make a difference in the lives of Head Start students?
President Bush has worked tirelessly to remove barriers that
needlessly discourage faith-based groups from bringing their talents
and compassion to Federal initiatives that help Americans in need.
Countless times he has called on Congress to send him ``the same
language protecting religious hiring that President Clinton signed on
four other occasions.'' This amendment answers the President's call
once again.
We should not be denying compassionate, professional faith-based
providers the opportunity to serve our children, and I want to urge my
colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I think it is very sad that we are debating this
amendment. I think it is sad because we are squandering a rare
opportunity for a real bipartisan achievement with the Head Start bill
today. It is sad because we are debating whether to amend a program
that came out of our country's struggle for civil rights by restricting
those very civil rights. And it is sad because we are debating whether
to make religious discrimination a higher priority than finding the
best qualified Head Start teacher for at-risk children.
We are discussing supporting religious discrimination paid for with
Federal dollars. Under current law, religious organizations can and do
participate in Head Start, and they always have from the very
beginning. They do a very good job. Under current law, religious
organizations can hire members of their own faith using only their own
funds, and they have always been able to do that. And under current
law, job applicants have the right to apply for a federally funded Head
Start position without submitting to a religious test.
We are not talking about forcing Catholic churches to hire Jewish
priests. We are talking about whether if a religious organization
chooses to accept Federal funds for Head Start, it should be allowed to
discriminate using those funds, which, by the way, is exactly what
President Bush called on Congress to do earlier this year. The
President said, ``We ought to judge faith-based groups by results, not
by their religion.''
But, sadly, the Boustany amendment is asking us to allow some Head
Start programs to judge job applicants by their religion, not by their
results.
So I ask my colleagues to oppose this amendment and to oppose final
passage if the bill includes this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Ehlers).
Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
This is a debate we have had before, particularly in the committee as
we discussed this bill last year. And I have difficulty understanding
the rationale for opposing this amendment because it has been
established in law for some time that churches have the right to hire
on the basis of religion and the activities they pursue.
I understand some of the arguments offered, but I would point out the
difficulties that one can discover immediately. As an example, the
gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne) pointed out in the debate last
year that one of his local churches operates a Head Start program, but
they do not hire full-time people for that. They hire part-time people
who also work for the church the rest of the day. Obviously, they
should be allowed to hire on the basis of religion for the operations
of the church. Why then prohibit that person from also teaching in the
Head Start program?
I come from a city that is often called the City of Churches, Grand
Rapids, Michigan, a great many churches often working together. And
when the call came in after Hurricane Katrina, the Red Cross was asked
to organize a relief effort, asked to provide emergency shelter and
housing for 500 people. Their first call was to GRACE, the Grand Rapids
area ecumenical group, which, through the churches, put together a
shelter in a matter of 2 or 3 days. They could not have done that
without that, but virtually every church in the city worked on it.
Again, all of these workers were affiliated with churches and were
hired partly on the basis of their religious faith. Why exclude such a
potent social force from working with the government in cases of
emergency or at any other time?
I think there is a basic misunderstanding here, something along the
lines that we cannot have this because these people might try to
proselytize some people and try to get them to join the church. That is
not the motivation of the churches in Grand Rapids or across this
country. They understand, based on their spiritual commitment, that
they have a responsibility to their fellow human beings and that, in
the name of God, they are to minister to others who are in need. And
that is why they are an effective social force in meeting the needs of
the poor, meeting the needs of those who are hurting, and that is the
reason that they are an effective agency of the Federal Government to
work with in terms of crisis, emergency, or simple pain and need on the
part of certain people.
This amendment that is being offered will allow the continuation of
that effort in the Head Start program; and, frankly, we should allow it
in every program. Why should we rule out one of the most effective and
one of the most potent social organizations in the Nation, that is,
religious organizations, who are dedicated to doing good, who are
seeking to do good, who are trying to honor their Lord by doing good,
and they can be a very effective force? We should not exclude them in
any way from their work and from their participation with the
government as partners.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Nadler).
(Mr. NADLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Louisiana. This amendment
betrays our core values by permitting, for the first time in the
history of the Head Start program, religious discrimination in hiring.
It allows taxpayer funds to be used in Head Start programs that
discriminate against teachers and parent volunteers solely because of
their religious beliefs. The bill does so by eliminating existing law
that has, since Head Start's beginning, protected the people who teach
our children against this most reprehensible form of discrimination.
Religious discrimination in employment or the imposition of religious
tests for federally funded employment in violation of the Constitution
is reprehensible and an affront to our first freedom. Nobody should be
able to hang out a sign that says no Catholics or Jews, no Protestants,
no Lutherans, no whoever may apply for this federally funded job.
Every religious denomination in this country can run a Head Start
program and has. Every religious denomination can run programs and has.
No one says they cannot discriminate in who the minister is or they do
not want women as ministers or, for that matter, as janitors, but not
with those positions funded by the Federal Government.
That is what this amendment would breach. That is what is obnoxious.
That is why it should be defeated.
We have heard terrible allegations from the other side of the aisle,
and from the administration alleging, during the recent confirmation
hearings for Judge Roberts, that certain members of the Other Body have
hung a sign on the Federal courts saying ``No Catholics Need Apply.''
While I continue to believe that this slur against conscientious
Catholic members of the Other Body is blatantly false and slanderous,
those making the charge, including the President and our colleagues on
the other
[[Page H8316]]
side of the aisle, seem to understand that religious discrimination in
employment, or the imposition of a religious test for federally funded
employment in violation of the Constitution, is reprehensible and an
affront to our First Freedom.
I only wish they would apply that same principle to the people who
teach our children.
Head Start is an exceptional program that serves nearly one million
children and their families. We know from experience that it works and
works well, helping our children succeed educationally. Instead of
promoting religious discrimination, we should be standing up for
families and for our most vulnerable children by providing the
necessary resources and accountability, to ensure that all children who
qualify for the Head Start program can participate and succeed.
It is time to match the rhetoric with action and leave no child
behind. It is time to make good on the promise of this Nation that we
are all created equal, that all children are entitled to a decent
education, and that no one should ever have to decide between a job
helping our children and their religious faith. No child was ever
helped by governmentally funded and endorsed religious discrimination.
That is not what this country is about, and it is not befitting of a
nation dedicated to liberty and justice for all.
I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment, to stand up for our
values of religious equality.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Green).
Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me this time.
We just heard some explosive rhetoric. Let me boil this down. This
amendment really stands for two simple basic principles: Number one,
that those who are in need should have the right to receive vital
services from the most effective source in the most effective way
possible. That should be their right as Americans. Now, in the vast
majority of cases that is going to be a public entity, but in some
cases and in some places it might just be a faith-based organization.
It might be a faith-based organization, it might be a religious
organization, that is the most effective choice for those in need, that
family in need, those children in need. Should they not have the right
to those services in the most effective way?
Secondly, the second basic principle is if it is a faith-based
organization that is providing those services and participating in the
program, they should not have to surrender their religious character
merely because they choose to try to help out. That is what this is
really all about. These organizations that are trying to reach out,
that are taking a chance to help provide these services because they
see people in need, the government should not say to them if they are
going to help out, I am sorry, they have to surrender much of their
religious character. I think that is wrong.
Let me be very clear. If we fail to adopt this amendment and fail to
protect the rights of these faith-based organizations to retain their
religious character in such things as hiring, it is not these groups
that will suffer. They are not making money. They are not profiting by
serving as Head Start providers. It will be our neediest children; it
will be our families who participate in Head Start. Those will be the
ones who suffer.
Let us adopt this amendment and stand for the principle that kids
need help and they should be able to get it in the most effective way
possible.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, first, the first half of
the gentleman's remarks previously are irrelevant. We are not disputing
the importance of including faith-based groups as providers. When this
question came up years ago, I was ardently for it. No one is trying to
prevent faith-based groups from providing the service. No one is saying
that a faith-based using its own money, using private money, using
private donations has to pay any attention to the question of hiring if
they choose to have only their religious co-workers.
The question is if a faith-based group wants to take Federal money
paid for by every taxpayer in this country, is it a violation of their
religious character to say, with that Federal money, they must not
discriminate in hiring?
The religious character being imputed to these groups makes me think
that we are talking about the constitution of the Iraq. What is this?
The Sunnis should not have to hire the Shias? The Shias should not have
to deal with the Kurds? What is the principle here? Are we not trying
to promote the notion of people living together? What religious group
taking Federal money says, ``You know what, I want to help these poor
people, but not with a Jew,'' ``I cannot have a Baptist working for
me,'' ``no Mormon need apply''?
We are not talking about administering religious services. We are not
talking about performing religious rites. We are talking about taking
Federal money to perform what has to be, remember, a secular service.
We all agree to that. If it were not a wholly secular service, no one
would expect us to be funding it with Federal money. And this is the
question I have to ask my friends. Of course we want religious groups
there. Why is it so terrible to tell Jews that they must associate with
Baptists if Federal money is being spent to provide child care
services?
{time} 1500
What violation of the religious right of a Catholic is to say you
have to hire a Methodist? How are Episcopalians being deprived of their
religious integrity if they are told that, you know what, when you have
Federal money in this program, if you hire a Presbyterian, that is
okay. I mean, this is fundamental, we thought, in America.
Again, we are talking about Federal money, and we are talking about
not imputing to religious groups an insistence on bigotry and
discrimination in the spending of Federal funds.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
North Carolina (Ms. Foxx), a member of our committee.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Boustany amendment
which seeks to include important protections for religious
organizations in this bill.
As I stated in my remarks during consideration of the rule, this
Nation is second to none in charitable giving and in helping others in
need. This is not just a religious tenet, but an American principle,
and we as Americans must continue to encourage and foster that spirit
of giving and serving others. Not allowing those organizations, who
have proven they are some of the best at feeding the hungry, healing
the sick, and housing the homeless, to provide early childhood
education for our children is just wrong.
A secular group, such as Planned Parenthood or the Sierra Club, that
receives government money is currently free to hire based on its
ideology and mission, but still use Federal funds for certain programs
and activities they provide. Yet, groups that are religious in nature
are not allowed to hire according to their ideology and mission?
Because an organization has among its purposes and basic tenets to
serve others is not a reason to discriminate against them.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Minnesota (Ms. McCollum).
Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, today I rise to oppose the
Boustany amendment and all the explicit discrimination it represents by
removing Head Start hiring protections provided by the Equal
Opportunity Act. Currently, Head Start law embraces the Equal
Opportunity Act. This amendment cuts the heart out of it.
This is a blatant attack on civil rights and this sanctions
discrimination. This would allow organizations to discriminate based on
religion, as well as fundamentally changing disability laws,
discrimination paid for by U.S. tax dollars. This amendment is
offensive to Americans who value civil rights, equal justice, and to
many, many of us who are strong people of faith.
Let us be clear. Faith-based organizations currently are providing
Head Start services, and their mission, their work is valued by all of
us. This amendment provides no additional opportunities to faith-based
organizations, because they can currently apply for Head Start dollars.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Inglis), a member of our committee.
[[Page H8317]]
Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me this time.
I rise in support of the Boustany amendment. There has been a lot of
talk about how it would appear these faith-based organizations are
bigoted and maybe even arrogant for wanting to express their views. I
think it is the opposite. The government here, absent the Boustany
amendment, is being arrogant and bigoted.
It could be, if the government wants to take advantage of the
location, let us say, of a Hebrew school in downtown New York, that it
is the best possible route of caring for people in need in that area.
Why would the government think that it is our position, our
prerogative, to insist that the Hebrew school hire somebody outside
their faith tradition? It is the ultimate of arrogance on the part of
the Federal Government.
And to those who are concerned about the constitutional issues, may I
remind my colleagues the Supreme Court actually ruled on this matter.
In a 1987 case, Corporation of the Presiding Bishop v. Amos, the Court
supported this kind of approach.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Scott).
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I just want to make clear the
Supreme Court cases made it clear that you could discriminate with your
personal church money, but not with Federal money. All of the cases are
consistent. In fact, if my colleagues read the cases, they point out
that if you are using Federal money, you cannot discriminate.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I want to read two paragraphs from a letter from Barbara Pickney, who
is head of the St. Landry Parish Head Start program and is State
president of the Louisiana Head Start Association.
Paragraph number 1: ``I have become aware that an amendment has been
offered by Representative Boustany, a Republican from Louisiana, to the
Head Start bill on the House floor today that would give faith-based
organizations providing Head Start services the right to discriminate
with Federal funds against employees who are of different faiths. As
the State President of the Louisiana Head Start Association, I strongly
oppose such an amendment.''
Then she goes on to say, ``I am greatly concerned that the provision
to remove civil rights protections for employees could have a negative
impact on the children and families who participate in these programs.
Tens of thousands of at-risk 3- and 4-year-old children currently in
Head Start could lose their teachers, who often are the most important
adults to whom they have bonded, other than their parents; not because
those teachers are doing a bad job, but because they are the wrong
religion.''
That was Barbara Pickney, St. Landry Parish Head Start program, State
president of the Louisiana Head Start Association.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Edwards).
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, you can use whatever rhetoric you want,
but at the end of the day, this amendment not only legalizes religious
discrimination in America, it pays for that discrimination using
American taxpayer dollars.
It is disappointing to me, and I think to the vast majority of
Americans, that on the same day we are pleading with Iraqis to provide
religious freedom to their citizens, the Republican leadership and this
House, with this amendment, is saying it is okay to force an American
citizen to choose between his or her faith and his or her job. They are
saying it is okay for American citizens to have to pass someone else's
private religious test to qualify for a publicly funded job.
I do not think most Americans are going to think that is okay. I
think they are going to be offended by it. I think people of faith are
going to be offended by the fact that some in this House think that
groups have got to be able to discriminate based on religion in order
to make their programs work.
The fact is, this amendment supports and allows and subsidizes racial
discrimination in job hiring, and no amount of rhetoric can deny that.
I do not know how the majority can stand up and say it is okay to put
up a sign, paid for by tax dollars, saying no Jews nor Catholics need
apply here for a federally funded job, even though they might have a
Ph.D. in education and 20 years of experience helping children get a
head start in life; they can still put up that sign. I wonder what the
majority is going to say and people think they are going to say the
first time a Christian is denied a job by a Muslim group that has
received $1 million in Federal funding to run a Head Start program and
say, no Christians need apply here for a job.
Mr. Chairman, our country has more religious tolerance than any other
Nation in the world and more religious freedom than any other Nation in
the world because we have not allowed this kind of discrimination in
America.
This is taking America down the wrong path. Defeat this amendment.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).
Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Chairman, since 1965, Head Start has provided 22
million children, American children, with the education and health and
social services to lead productive lives. It is the most successful
school readiness program in the Nation. It has always received
bipartisan support. I want to commend the chairman and the committee
for producing a very good bill that reauthorizes Head Start so
America's children get the same type of investment that we have been
providing Iraqi children.
I find myself puzzled why you would take such good legislation and
play politics with it when we can make progress. The rest of the
country is looking at us and asking us to please put politics aside and
put progress first. Do not divide Americans along religious lines. That
is not the America they want; they want an American that comes
together, recognizes our differences, and makes progress rather than
politics.
Mr. Chairman, it is amendments like this that remind me why 29
percent of the American people think the Congress is doing a good job,
but well over 75 percent of the American people think this Congress is
failing to meet the obligations and the challenges that America has.
You today can get a bill passed in a bipartisan vote, unanimously, with
everybody understanding because we are investing in America's children,
and you chose to take that progress and play politics in the most ugly
way, by pinning American against American based on their religion. This
does not represent America's values, it does not represent your values,
and you chose to put politics over progress. It reminds me when I look
at today's data why the American people hold this Congress in the
lowest esteem it has in over 15 years.
Invest in America's future. Choose these children. Give them the best
start they can for productive lives where they can come and be
contributors to this country. No, we do not take the progress. The
chairman of the committee did a good job in the committee, producing a
good bill that builds on the progress of the last 40 years and
continues to invest in America's children, and you chose to put an
amendment on this floor, unprecedented, that chose to divide America,
not unite it, to choose politics over progress, and to continue the
same policies that has taken this Congress to the lowest esteem ever in
the American people's history.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, the previous speaker talked about how we brought this
bill out of our committee and brought it to the House, with a unanimous
vote out of the committee, 48 to nothing. One of the reasons that this
language was not included in the original bill was to try to create a
spirit of bipartisanship in moving the process along.
But the American people elected us to come here and make decisions on
their behalf. We are having a free and open debate about this issue. No
one should denigrate the majority because we want to have a debate and
want to have a vote. We have had this debate many times in this House.
It has passed every time on a bipartisan basis, and I expect it will
pass on a bipartisan basis again today.
The issue here is a simple one. In the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and
amendments to it in 1974, religious organizations were granted an
exception in their hiring practices so they could hire people
[[Page H8318]]
of their own faith. I think most people would understand that. Over the
years, religious organizations have been involved in doing all types of
good works, including providing programs in their communities. But, for
far too long, these organizations have been denied the use of Federal
dollars in order to preserve their religious heritage.
Over the years, a number of programs passed by this Congress have
been signed into law that have allowed religious organizations to
maintain the rights given to them under the 1964 Civil Rights Act and
provide services with Federal funds. As a matter of fact, Bill Clinton,
Bill Clinton, during 8 years in office, signed 4 laws into law that had
the same identical language as being offered to this bill today.
Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BOEHNER. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Chairman, as somebody who worked for President
Clinton as his senior advisor, President Clinton did not support, nor
did he introduce in his welfare bill, anything that you are saying, and
I will say he never promulgated those rules or enforced that. Mr.
Chairman, as the gentleman knows, that is not correct.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the point is,
President Bill Clinton signed these laws into law, knowing that the
language that we are offering today was included.
What we have been trying to do in the Work Force Investment Act, the
Community Services Block Grant Act, today in the Head Start Act, is
bring some consistency to the Federal rules and regulations in terms of
allowing faith-based providers to offer services without having to give
up their protections under the Civil Rights Act.
{time} 1515
Now, if you want to change the 1964 Civil Rights Act and say to
religious organizations, you can have your exemption on hiring, unless
you take a Federal dollar, fine. Go have that debate in the Judiciary
Committee, bring it out here, and we will vote on it. But this is not
the forum to deny those organizations their own rights.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).
Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Chairman, in the original welfare reform bill by
President Clinton, this provision was never in it. Second, it was
unconstitutional, and it was never promulgated by President Clinton in
the rulemaking. He does not support that provision. If you want to
support something that President Clinton believed in, then try fiscal
responsibility and start balancing the budget. This is not what he
believes, and the gentleman from Ohio knows that, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Scott).
Mr. SCOTT. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, again, no group is barred from participation. If this
amendment is adopted or not adopted, any organization that could
sponsor a program with this amendment could sponsor it without the
amendment if you would agree not to discriminate. Now what we are
doing, you can try to dress it up a little bit, but we are talking
about a policy where someone wants to refuse to hire Catholics, Jews,
and Muslims just because they are prejudiced. If that offends you, then
I do not have to explain to you what is wrong with this amendment.
If it does not offend you, then I am going to have trouble explaining
to you what is wrong with this amendment. The 1964 Civil Rights Act has
been cited. Let us remember the vote on that amendment was not
unanimous. Obviously a lot of people back then, virtually every
Representative from my home State of Virginia, voted against the Civil
Rights Act. But let us remember what it said in the religious
exemption. It said you could discriminate if your work is connected
with carrying on the church activities.
Now, obviously it is okay with church money, but a contract to
administer a Head Start program is a contract for government services.
It is not a gift to the church to advance religious missions. It is a
contract to administer a federally funded program.
Now, since 1965, it has been illegal to discriminate in Head Start
for all sponsors. It is okay to discriminate with the church money,
just not with the Federal money. Let us remember also that when you
talk about discrimination based on religion, you are talking about
discrimination based on race, because some religious groups are, to the
nearest percentage, 100 percent black; others, to the nearest
percentage, 100 percent white. So your Head Start staff can start
looking like your church.
This is a bad amendment. It is ugly. We should not turn the clock
back on civil rights. If there is a problem in employment, where the
employer does not like to hire people of different races or religion,
traditionally it has been a problem of that employer. We need to
support the victim, as we have for the last 40 years. This is a bad
amendment, and it needs to be defeated.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
This is an amendment that allows Federal funding to support
discrimination. It is paid for by Federal tax dollars. It will strip
civil rights protections by allowing religious organizations to
discriminate in hiring on the basis of religion for Head Start
positions, and I repeat, using Federal taxpayers' money.
Under the amendment, a religious organization could tell a potential
Head Start teacher, of all of the applicants we have seen, you would be
the best one to teach our kids, but we are not going to hire you,
because you are not the right religion.
As I said earlier, Head Start kids are at risk as it is, without
their teachers being chosen because of their religion instead of
whether they are the best qualified.
Mr. Chairman, I ask the members of this body, think before you vote
yes on this. Think before you set a precedent that has Federal funding
paying for discrimination based on religion.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
What we are trying to do here is preserve the rights given to
religious organizations under the 1964 Civil Rights Act. And for the
Members who have been paying some attention to this, we know that
Members on different sides of the aisle, and frankly it is on a
bipartisan basis, have deeply held convictions about this. Clearly, we
are not in real agreement.
But this is an issue that the House really should decide and the
House should vote on. I am glad that we are having this debate once
again, because the longer we have the debate, clearly, the evidence is
coming down that the winning side continues to prevail.
Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from
Nebraska (Mr. Osborne).
Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Chairman, I do not know how much clearer this can be
made. We keep having this circular debate on so many issues. I will
just go back to the law one more time. We have mentioned over and over,
title VII, Civil Rights Act, 1964, states specifically, and this is the
verbiage, ``This subchapter shall not apply to an employer with respect
to the employment of aliens outside any State, or to a religious
corporation, association, educational institution, or society, with
respect to the employment of individuals of a particular religion to
perform work connected with the carrying on by such corporation,
association, educational institution, or society of its activities.''
There is no way we can change this. This is the verbiage. This is the
language.
What we are saying here is that a faith-based organization cannot be
expected to sustain their religious mission if we do not uphold this
statute. It is very plain.
If a choir director or a youth director also serves as a Head Start
employee, you certainly should not have to hire somebody that does not
sustain the mission of the church.
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to show my
opposition to the Boustany Amendment.
Head Start has been one of the most successful education programs in
our Nation's history.
It is successful because it brings public, private and faith based
organizations together to provide a common good.
Head Start helps disadvantaged youth get a firm foundation on which
they can build a strong education.
Mr. Boustany's amendment would allow faith based organizations to
circumvent civil
[[Page H8319]]
rights laws governing hiring practices by entities receiving federal
funding.
I strongly believe in the case of Head Start, that this is
inappropriate. Head Start programs are not allowed to decide what
religion or race the children they serve are.
Nor should they be able to eliminate qualified candidates for
employment based on their religious beliefs.
In my district, thousands of children are served by Head Start and
almost every major religion is represented by a Head Start program in
Houston.
This amendment could lead to divisions in partnerships between Head
Start providers and communities.
Currently, many of these relationships are harmonious because our
community, religious leaders, and educators keep the diverse interests
of our community a priority.
I believe this amendment could lead to a shift in those priorities
and therefore urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to oppose the Boustany
amendment to the School Readiness Act of 2005 (H.R. 2123). This
amendment would abolish long standing civil rights protections that
ensure federally funded jobs in the Head Start program are not subject
to discrimination.
At a time when 37 million Americans endure the plight of poverty,
Congress is tragically debating an amendment that would undermine a
successful anti-poverty program. Head Start provides disadvantaged
children with a genuine head start in life to outrun the clutches of
limited opportunities. While H.R. 2123 is not a perfect bill, it
positively maintains the successful federal-to-local structure of Head
Start and wisely promotes ``smart accountability.''
Mr. Chairman, the Boustany amendment needlessly dismantles the
bipartisan spirit of the underlying bill in an attempt to rectify a
nonexistent problem. For decades, faith-based organizations that
provide Head Start services have ably met the needs of children, while
adhering to the law protecting their 198,000 teachers and 1.4 million
volunteers from employment discrimination. The Boustany amendment would
repeal those protections, allowing faith-based Head Start providers to
establish a ``religious test'' to dictate personnel decisions for
positions funded with federal tax dollars.
In fact, the Boustany amendment could allow discrimination on
practically any basis. Those whose race, gender, or lifestyle are not
aligned with a particular interpretation of faith could be prohibited
from federally funded employment under the guise of preserving
religious expression. For instance, in deciding who gets hired and
fired from Head Start, do we really want an individual's position on
contraception or creationism to be equally as relevant as their
professional qualifications? Head Start teachers should be judged not
by faith, but by teaching ability.
That is why hundreds of faith-based and civil rights organizations
are leading the fight against this discriminatory amendment. The
Boustany amendment is a poison pill that represents the worst of
partisan politics. At a hearing held by the Government Reform
Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources, of
which I am the Ranking Member, David Kuo, former Deputy Director of the
White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, testified
that:
``At the same time, many members of the president's own party
expressed equal parts apathy and antipathy towards this agenda. Money
for the poor? Why it will just get wasted, they said . . . all we
really need to do is make sure that we have a huge political fight over
religious charities right to hire and fire based on their own faith.
That way Republicans will be seen as fighting for religion and
Democrats will be seen as fighting against it. `It is a good fight to
have,' I heard time and again. A good fight for partisanship perhaps,
but less good for the poor.''
His words are telling of how some in this body are using religion to
divide the nation and to enact federally subsidized discrimination.
That is most unfortunate.
As many of my colleagues have pointed out and I will repeat for
emphasis--current law already supports the notion that faith-based
organizations can use its own private funds to decide who it wants to
hire on the basis of religion, they simply cannot discriminate in
hiring with American taxpayers' dollars. Discrimination with federal
dollars is the real issue, not faith-based organizations providing Head
Start services. Faith-based organizations are and will continue to be
critical partners in providing these services.
Mr. Chairman, in this new century so rich with opportunities to right
the wrongs of our past, let us embrace our democratic values and put
the needs of our children ahead of partisan political interests. I
encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Boustany amendment, and
if passed, to vote ``no'' on final passage.
Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, today we are debating whether or not we
should repeal civil rights provisions in Head Start reauthorization,
and allow religious organizations that use federal funding to
discriminate in hiring and firing based on an individual's religious
beliefs. In a time when we are forcefully trying to persuade other
countries to include protections against religious discrimination in
their constitutions, it is astounding that we are here, in the United
States Congress, trying to repeal these same protections for our own
citizens.
As a practicing ordained minister, I find the Boustany amendment to
be unnecessary, unwise, and unproductive. The Boustany amendment would
allow religious organizations to waive civil rights protections that
nonreligious organizations must abide by. The provisions that currently
govern Head Start have been in place and have been working effectively
for decades. Religious organizations operate over 5 percent of all Head
Start programs, abiding by the civil rights provisions, and there is no
need for Congress to take this unprecedented step that Mr. Boustany is
proposing. Never before has Congress ever repealed existing civil
rights protections by adopting an amendment on the House Floor, without
the benefit of committee hearings, debate, or expert testimony.
In fact, H.R. 2123, the School Readiness Act, passed through the
Education and the Workforce Committee by a bipartisan, unanimous 48-0
vote. Now, some Members of Congress are attempting to sabotage this
bill by attaching this unconstitutional, divisive amendment to it.
Maybe this is a way for Members who are against Head Start anyway, to
try and derail the program. Mr. Boustany knows that Democrats will note
vote for an amendment that allows federally funded organizations to
discriminate against any Americans on any grounds.
Republicans are trying to make us choose between early childcare for
our neediest students and civil rights protections for the rest of our
citizens. I wonder what the real motivation is behind bringing up this
amendment.
It is truly a shame that Members of this House are playing politics
with a bill that affects millions of our young children, and which
millions of Americans have come to trust and rely on. No, Mr. Speaker,
I will not vote for a bill that repeals civil rights protections. I
will not vote for federally funded discrimination. It is unconscionable
that Members of Congress would try to reverse the progress that we have
made on civil rights in this country. What message are we sending to
the rest of the world, including the newly-established democracies
struggling to find a balance between religious freedom and civil
liberties in their own laws and constitutions?
Adopting the Boustany amendment will send our country in the wrong
direction. This is just another example of where the Republican
Leadership wants to take our country, and I hope all our citizens are
watching carefully. I urge a ``no'' vote on the Boustany amendment.
Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Chairman, on September 22, 2005, I returned to my
district to prepare for Hurricane Rita, which was projected to hit
southwest Louisiana, and I was unable to be present during House
consideration of H.R. 2123, ``School Readiness Act of 2005.'' Had I
been present, I planned to offer an amendment that would allow faith-
based Head Start providers to participate in the program and maintain
the character of their organization through their employment practices.
I would like to thank my colleague, Representative John Boehner, for
introducing this amendment in my absence.
It is critical that faith-based organizations that are willing to
serve their communities by participating in federal programs are not
forced to give up who they are to participate. They cannot be expected
to sustain their religious mission without the ability to employ
individuals who share the tenets and practices of their faith or who
are dedicated to upholding the values of the organization. These groups
should not be forced to abandon who they are because they want to
assist the community; we lose too many good people who want to help
when we put that barrier in their way.
Now, more than ever before, we are seeing first hand the good work
these groups are doing in my region of the country. In the aftermath of
Hurricane Katrina, faith-based organizations were among the first to
reach out a hand in service to those impacted by the disaster.
The 1964 Civil Rights Act makes it clear that faith-based groups have
a federally protected right to maintain their religious nature and
character through those they hire. If we do not include the provision
to allow them to exercise their right we are continuing to discourage
potential providers, who could provide needed learning experiences,
from participating in the program.
Let me be clear, we are not talking about discrimination--nothing in
the amendment will allow a faith-based provider to discriminate. The
Boehner amendment merely allows faith-based providers to exercise their
rights under the Civil Rights Act and help their neighbors by
participating in this federal program.
[[Page H8320]]
We have a long history of making social service legislation more
inclusive by extending these rights in various federal programs.
Despite the attacks launched by opponents of this amendment that we
will hear today, former President Clinton actually signed four separate
pieces of legislation that explicitly allow religious organizations
providing social services to make employment decisions based on
religion, including the Welfare Reform Act of 1996 and the Community
Services Block Grant Act of 1998.
We have also passed these protections in other legislation in the
House, most recently on the Job Training Improvement Act, H.R. 27.
The Boehner amendment to the School Readiness Act would simply make
Head Start consistent with the legislation governing other major social
service programs amendment, and I urge support of this amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Terry). The question is on the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
ayes appeared to have it.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Boehner) will be postponed.
Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings
will now resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were
postponed, in the following order: amendment No. 2 by the gentleman
from Indiana (Mr. Souder), amendment No. 4 by the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Stearns), amendment No. 5 by the gentleman from Illinois
(Mr. Davis), amendment No. 10 by the gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs.
Musgrave), amendment No. 12 by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner).
The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote
after the first vote in this series.
Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Souder
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana
(Mr. Souder) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 153,
noes 266, not voting 14, as follows:
[Roll No. 488]
AYES--153
Akin
Baca
Baird
Bartlett (MD)
Becerra
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Blumenauer
Boozman
Brown, Corrine
Burton (IN)
Cannon
Capito
Capuano
Cardin
Case
Chabot
Chandler
Costello
Cramer
Crowley
Cubin
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (IL)
Davis, Jo Ann
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dent
Doolittle
Duncan
Emanuel
English (PA)
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Filner
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Flake
Forbes
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett (NJ)
Gibbons
Gillmor
Gonzalez
Goode
Green, Al
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hayworth
Hensarling
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Hostettler
Hulshof
Inslee
Israel
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Keller
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Langevin
Larson (CT)
Lee
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Lipinski
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Maloney
Manzullo
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McHenry
McKinney
McNulty
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Musgrave
Nadler
Napolitano
Nunes
Oberstar
Otter
Pallone
Paul
Payne
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Platts
Radanovich
Ramstad
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Shadegg
Shaw
Simmons
Smith (NJ)
Sodrel
Souder
Stearns
Strickland
Tancredo
Tanner
Taylor (NC)
Tiahrt
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wamp
Waters
Watt
Weldon (FL)
Whitfield
Wu
Wynn
NOES--266
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Bachus
Baker
Baldwin
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Barton (TX)
Bass
Bean
Beauprez
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (NY)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boren
Boucher
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Butterfield
Calvert
Cantor
Capps
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Carter
Castle
Chocola
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Crenshaw
Cunningham
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeGette
Delahunt
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Drake
Dreier
Edwards
Ehlers
Emerson
Engel
Eshoo
Everett
Fattah
Feeney
Ferguson
Foley
Ford
Fortenberry
Fossella
Frank (MA)
Gallegly
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Grijalva
Hall
Harman
Harris
Hart
Hastings (FL)
Hayes
Herger
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Hobson
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson, Sam
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kelly
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Mack
Marchant
Markey
McCarthy
McCaul (TX)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Mica
Michaud
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Murtha
Myrick
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Obey
Olver
Osborne
Owens
Oxley
Pascrell
Pastor
Pearce
Pelosi
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Rahall
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (MI)
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Salazar
Saxton
Schmidt
Schwartz (PA)
Schwarz (MI)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tierney
Turner
Upton
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wasserman Schultz
Watson
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (PA)
Westmoreland
Wexler
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Woolsey
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--14
Boswell
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Buyer
Camp
DeLay
Green, Gene
Hastings (WA)
Hefley
Hinojosa
Kind
Ortiz
Poe
Weller
Announcement by the Acting Chairman
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Terry) (during the vote). Members are
advised that 2 minutes remain in this vote.
{time} 1558
Messrs. King of Iowa, REYNOLDS, ROSS, PEARCE, CARNAHAN, BERRY, Ms.
HARRIS and Mr. REYES changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no''.
Ms. WATERS, Messrs. WELDON of Florida, FLAKE, FARR, HOEKSTRA, MORAN
of Kansas, LEWIS of Kentucky, RAMSTAD, ROGERS of Kentucky, SIMMONS, Ms.
JACKSON-LEE of Texas, Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey, Mr. LANGEVIN, Mrs.
JONES of Ohio, Messrs. WAMP, DUNCAN, CUELLAR, SCOTT of Georgia,
JEFFERSON, Ms. VELAZQUEZ, Messrs. BISHOP of Georgia, TOWNS, FORBES,
MILLER of Florida, LEWIS of Georgia, Al GREEN of Texas, Mrs.
NAPOLITANO, Messrs. SANDERS, MEEKS of New York, WYNN, SCOTT of
Virginia, FITZPATRICK of Pennsylvania, TANNER, WATT, INSLEE, Ms. LEE,
Mr. GILLMOR, Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida, Mr. PAYNE, Mr. CROWLEY, Ms.
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas, Messrs. EVANS, DOOLITTLE, MOORE of
Kansas, HENSARLING, OTTER, MENENDEZ, GONZALEZ, Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD,
Messrs. FILNER, BACA, SERRANO, BECERRA, CARDIN, PALLONE, NADLER, Ms.
SCHAKOWSKY, Messrs. CHABOT, SHAW, MARSHALL, ISRAEL, Ms. DeLAURO,
=========================== NOTE ===========================
September 22, 2005--On Page H8320 the following appeared: Ms.
WATERS, Messrs. WELDON of Florida, FLAKE, FARR, HOEKSTRA, MORAN of
Kansas, LEWIS of Kentucky, RAMSTAD, ROGERS of Kentucky, SIMMONS,
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas, Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey, Mr. LANGEVIN,
Mrs. JONES of Ohio, Messrs. WAMP, DUNCAN, CUELLAR, SCOTT of
Georgia, JEFFERSON, Ms. VELAZQUEZ, Messrs. BISHOP of Georgia,
TOWNS, FORBES, MILLER of Florida, LEWIS of Georgia, Al GREEN of
Texas, Mrs. NAPOLITANO, Messrs. SANDERS, MEEKS of New York, WYNN,
SCOTT of Virginia, FITZPATRICK of Pennsylvania, TANNER, WATT,
INSLEE, Ms. LEE, Mr. GILLMOR, Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida, Mr.
PAYNE, Mr. CROWLEY, Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas, Messrs.
EVANS, DOOLITTLE, MOORE of Kansas, HENSARLING, OTTER, MENENDEZ,
GONZALEZ, Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD, Messrs. FILNER, BACA, SERRANO,
BECERRA, CARDIN, PALLONE, NADLER, Ms. SCHAKOWSKY, Messrs. CHABOT,
SHAW, ISRAEL, Ms. DeLAURO.
The online version should be corrected to read: Ms. WATERS,
Messrs. WELDON of Florida, FLAKE, FARR, HOEKSTRA, MORAN of Kansas,
LEWIS of Kentucky, RAMSTAD, ROGERS of Kentucky, SIMMONS, Ms.
JACKSON-LEE of Texas, Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey, Mr. LANGEVIN,
Mrs. JONES of Ohio, Messrs. WAMP, DUNCAN, CUELLAR, SCOTT of
Georgia, JEFFERSON, Ms. VELAZQUEZ, Messrs. BISHOP of Georgia,
TOWNS, FORBES, MILLER of Florida, LEWIS of Georgia, Al GREEN of
Texas, Mrs. NAPOLITANO, Messrs. SANDERS, MEEKS of New York, WYNN,
SCOTT of Virginia, FITZPATRICK of Pennsylvania, TANNER, WATT,
INSLEE, Ms. LEE, Mr. GILLMOR, Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida, Mr.
PAYNE, Mr. CROWLEY, Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas, Messrs.
EVANS, DOOLITTLE, MOORE of Kansas, HENSARLING, OTTER, MENENDEZ,
GONZALEZ, Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD, Messrs. FILNER, BACA, SERRANO,
BECERRA, CARDIN, PALLONE, NADLER, Ms. SCHAKOWSKY, Messrs. CHABOT,
SHAW, MARSHALL, ISRAEL, Ms. DeLAURO.
========================= END NOTE =========================
[[Page H8321]]
Messrs. EMANUEL, LARSON of Connecticut, CRAMER, MCNULTY and HOLDEN
changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Stearns
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Terry). The pending business is the demand
for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Stearns) on which further proceedings were postponed and
on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 411,
noes 0, not voting 22, as follows:
[Roll No. 489]
AYES--411
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldwin
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Bean
Beauprez
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Boucher
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Calvert
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Carter
Case
Castle
Chabot
Chandler
Chocola
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doolittle
Doyle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Farr
Fattah
Feeney
Ferguson
Filner
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Green, Al
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall
Harman
Harris
Hart
Hastings (FL)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hostettler
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Maloney
Manzullo
Marchant
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy
McCaul (TX)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McMorris
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Mica
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Osborne
Otter
Owens
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pearce
Pelosi
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Saxton
Schiff
Schmidt
Schwartz (PA)
Schwarz (MI)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Sodrel
Solis
Souder
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Strickland
Stupak
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden (OR)
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Westmoreland
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
NOT VOTING--22
Boswell
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Buyer
Camp
DeLay
Edwards
Green, Gene
Hastings (WA)
Hefley
Hinojosa
Johnson (CT)
Kind
Melancon
Myrick
Ortiz
Poe
Schakowsky
Walsh
Watt
Weller
Young (FL)
Announcement by the Acting Chairman
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Terry) (during the vote). There are 2
minutes remaining in this vote.
{time} 1605
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Davis of Illinois
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois
(Mr. Davis) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 401,
noes 14, not voting 18, as follows:
[Roll No. 490]
AYES--401
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baldwin
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Bean
Beauprez
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Boucher
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Calvert
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Case
Castle
Chabot
Chandler
Chocola
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doolittle
Doyle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
Ehlers
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Farr
Fattah
Feeney
Ferguson
Filner
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Green, Al
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Harman
Harris
Hart
Hastings (FL)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hensarling
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hostettler
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
[[Page H8322]]
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Maloney
Manzullo
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy
McCaul (TX)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McMorris
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Menendez
Mica
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Osborne
Otter
Owens
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pearce
Pelosi
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schmidt
Schwartz (PA)
Schwarz (MI)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Sodrel
Solis
Souder
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Strickland
Stupak
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Westmoreland
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--14
Blunt
Carter
Flake
Franks (AZ)
Hall
Herger
Johnson, Sam
King (IA)
Marchant
McHenry
Myrick
Price (GA)
Sessions
Shadegg
NOT VOTING--18
Baker
Boswell
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Buyer
Camp
DeLay
Diaz-Balart, L.
Goode
Green, Gene
Hastings (WA)
Hefley
Hinojosa
Kind
Lynch
Ortiz
Poe
Weller
Announcement by the Acting Chairman
The Acting CHAIRMAN (during the vote). There are 2 minutes remaining
in this vote.
{time} 1613
Mr. GINGREY and Mr. MARCHANT changed their vote from ``aye'' to
``no.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mrs. Musgrave
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Colorado
(Mrs. Musgrave) on which further proceedings were postponed and on
which the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 175,
noes 241, not voting 17, as follows:
[Roll No. 491]
AYES--175
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Beauprez
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (KY)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
English (PA)
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hayes
Hayworth
Hensarling
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Latham
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCaul (TX)
McCrery
McHenry
McKeon
McMorris
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rehberg
Reichert
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Sherwood
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Sodrel
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--241
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bass
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Boren
Boucher
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Case
Castle
Chandler
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Gerlach
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Hart
Hastings (FL)
Herger
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Hulshof
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kelly
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Menendez
Mica
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Ney
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Osborne
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Platts
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Renzi
Reyes
Rogers (MI)
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Schwarz (MI)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Shays
Sherman
Shimkus
Simmons
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Sweeney
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (PA)
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOT VOTING--17
Baker
Boswell
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Buyer
Camp
DeLay
Green, Gene
Hastings (WA)
Hefley
Hinojosa
Kind
Lynch
Ortiz
Peterson (PA)
Poe
Weller
Announcement by the Acting Chairman
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Terry) (during the vote). Members are
advised 2 minutes remain in this vote.
{time} 1621
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
[[Page H8323]]
Amendment No. 12 Offered by Mr. Boehner
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Boehner) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the
ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 220,
noes 196, not voting 17, as follows:
[Roll No. 492]
AYES--220
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Case
Castle
Chabot
Chandler
Chocola
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
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
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hayes
Hayworth
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marshall
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
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
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Sodrel
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Taylor (MS)
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)
NOES--196
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boucher
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
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)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kelly
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kirk
Kucinich
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Maloney
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Schwarz (MI)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Simmons
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
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--17
Baker
Boswell
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Buyer
Camp
DeLay
Gohmert
Green, Gene
Hastings (WA)
Hefley
Hinojosa
Kind
Lynch
Ortiz
Poe
Weller
Announcement by the Acting Chairman
The Acting CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised 2 minutes
remain in this vote.
{time} 1629
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the committee amendment in
the nature of a substitute, as amended.
The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended,
was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Simpson) having assumed the chair, Mr. Terry, Acting Chairman of the
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2123) to
reauthorize the Head Start Act to improve the school readiness of
disadvantaged children, and for other purposes, pursuant to House
Resolution 455, he reported the bill back to the House with an
amendment adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the committee
amendment in the nature of a substitute adopted by the Committee of the
Whole? If not, the question is on the amendment.
The amendment was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 231,
noes 184, not voting 18, as follows:
[Roll No. 493]
AYES--231
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Barton (TX)
Bass
Bean
Beauprez
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Bradley (NH)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Cardoza
Carter
Case
Castle
Chabot
Chandler
Chocola
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Costa
Cramer
Crenshaw
Cubin
Cuellar
Cunningham
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Edwards
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Eshoo
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hayes
Hayworth
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hostettler
[[Page H8324]]
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuhl (NY)
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Marchant
Marshall
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Otter
Oxley
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
Skelton
Smith (TX)
Sodrel
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Sweeney
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Udall (CO)
Upton
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Wu
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--184
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Bartlett (MD)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carnahan
Carson
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Crowley
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duncan
Emanuel
Engel
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Flake
Frank (MA)
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Higgins
Hinchey
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kucinich
LaHood
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Maloney
Manzullo
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wynn
NOT VOTING--18
Baker
Boswell
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Buyer
Camp
DeLay
Gohmert
Green, Gene
Hastings (WA)
Hefley
Hinojosa
Kind
Lynch
Ortiz
Poe
Smith (NJ)
Weller
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson) (during the vote). Members are
advised there are 2 minutes remaining in this vote.
{time} 1646
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________