[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 123 (Wednesday, September 28, 2005)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1977-E1978]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2123, SCHOOL READINESS ACT OF 2005

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                          HON. BETTY McCOLLUM

                              of minnesota

                    in the house of representatives

                      Thursday, September 22, 2005

  Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my 
sincere disappointment in the Committee on Rules decision to report a 
restrictive rule for consideration of the bill before us today, the 
reauthorization of Head Start, the future of our children.
  Several common-sense amendments that were offered to strengthen this 
bill were not ruled in order. Not surprising, most of them were 
Democratic amendments. Instead, several amendments that were ruled in 
order will weaken Head Start and the opportunity for our children to 
succeed.
  In committee, there was bipartisan support for adding ``faith-based'' 
language into the Head Start Act, even though faith-based institutions 
currently participate in providing Head Start programs. We were happy 
to do this in committee; I was happy to do so, along with my 
colleagues, because the Federal Equal

[[Page E1978]]

Opportunity Employment laws are spelled out clearly in the bill, which 
do not allow for discrimination in hiring.
  But there was another amendment that was not ruled in order--my 
amendment. My amendment would have protected the privacy of our faith-
based organizations and the integrity of our tax dollars. The amendment 
that I offered in the Committee on Rules would have simply required 
faith-based organizations to create a separate bank account, a separate 
bank account in which to receive Federal dollars for the Head Start 
program--distinct and from the private dollars that a religious 
organization collects to advance their religious mission.
  Why do we need to do that? Well, first, we need to protect Federal 
tax dollars from being used improperly; and, secondly, we need to 
protect the privacy of faith-based organizations' accounting books for 
their religious mission. With the commingling of funds, if fraud is 
suspected, a faith-based organization would have to open up all of 
their books for inspection. My amendment would have required separate 
accounts, therefore, protecting the church's mission and the Federal 
education mission of Head Start.
  Mr. Chairman, let me quote from the Covenant Companion, a Christian 
publication, which I submit for the Record, as well as one other 
publication that speaks to this issue.
  From the Covenant: ``Churches are particularly vulnerable to 
embezzlement because of the high-level of trust given to employees and 
volunteers that lack the sophistication, fiscal controls, and 
oversight.''
  My amendment simply would have been a preemptive strike against 
financial abuse that we know will happen because it has already 
occurred. For example, this past summer, $800,000 was stolen from a 
Federal Head Start program run by a church.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to reject this rule. We need a new 
rule, one that will protect the taxpayers, one that will protect faith-
based organizations, and one that will prevent discrimination.

                          ____________________