[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 15]
[House]
[Pages 21063-21074]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




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

  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on 
Rules, I call up House Resolution 455 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 455

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 2123) to reauthorize the Head Start Act to 
     improve the school readiness of disadvantaged children, and 
     for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be 
     dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of 
     the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the 
     bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and 
     controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Education and the Workforce. After general 
     debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the 
     five-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider as an 
     original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-
     minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     recommended by the Committee on Education and the Workforce 
     now printed in the bill. The committee amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. 
     Notwithstanding clause 11 of rule XVIII, no amendment to the 
     committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in 
     order except those printed in the report of the Committee on 
     Rules accompanying this resolution. Each such amendment may 
     be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be 
     offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be 
     considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified 
     in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent 
     and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall 
     not be subject to a demand for division of the question in 
     the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of 
     order against such amendments are waived. At the conclusion 
     of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee 
     shall rise and report the bill to the House with such 
     amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a 
     separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted in the 
     Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the committee 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and 
     amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Duncan). The gentleman from Utah (Mr. 
Bishop) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I 
yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Hastings), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the 
purpose of debate only.
  The resolution before us provides for a structured rule for the 
consideration of H.R. 2123, the School Readiness Act of 2005, and makes 
a good number of important amendments in order and will provide for a 
full and wide-ranging debate on all the aspects of the Head Start 
program.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2123 was passed out of the Committee on Education 
and the Workforce unanimously. It reauthorizes the Head Start program 
for fiscal 2011. At the same time, the bill incorporates a number of 
wide-ranging and widely supported commonsense improvements to Head 
Start which will improve teacher education standards, increase the 
accountability for the use of funds, and enhance outreach to the most 
deserving students.
  The underlying bill does not include provisions which were deemed by 
some controversial in the base text, such as providing hiring 
protection for faith-based Head Start providers. Instead, the rule does 
provide for this and other items to be debated and voted upon 
separately so that the House may work its will and the final outcome 
will reflect the views of the majority of the Members, which is an 
understandable approach.
  The Head Start program has provided comprehensive early childhood 
development services to low-income and disadvantaged children since the 
mid-1960s. Today, almost 1 million students are involved in Head Start. 
The Head Start program is good. In some places the Head Start program 
is great.
  I do not want to be a little bit parochial here, but being well 
acquainted with those involved in Head Start in my particular area, 
they do a great job and I am very proud of my association with them. 
But in each of these situations, the program still could be better. For 
that purpose, this bill focuses or attempts to focus the academic 
program more clearly in particular areas. They put greater emphasis on 
language skills, prereading, premath, and cognitive skills. They insist 
that any new money above and beyond the funding skills, 60 percent of 
that be tendered only to teacher quality, which is where that emphasis 
needs to be.
  The Head Start program is administered by the Department of Health 
and Human Services and is accomplished through grants that directly go 
to applying entities.
  The Head Start program has been largely successful because the Head 
Start program is locally designed and they are administered by a 
network of 1,600 public and private nonprofit and forprofit agencies at 
the local level. Because of this local emphasis, educators can tailor 
their approaches to fill the specific needs of the populations they 
serve, instead of a one-size-fits-all approach that too many other 
Federal programs, including other Federal education programs, have.
  Especially important is this particular thing, that in the text of 
this particular bill it puts a greater emphasis on tying Head Start 
programs to a State's curricular standards. To be a priority grantee in 
the Head Start program, they have to show a pure correlation to a 
State's curriculum standard. This is for the benefit of the kids coming 
through the system.
  Of increasing specific importance to me is the local tie-in that is 
demanded by this particular bill. The Head Start programs have to 
demonstrate an active support in trying to tie their programs into 
local school districts. This is essential in the long run if you want 
to have a smooth transition between Head Start and the local schools. 
Too often programs running contrary to that simply have a disconnect; 
and, therefore, there is not local support for these programs. This 
bill recognizes that is a serious problem and a serious error and 
attempts to try to bridge that gap by insisting that Head Start 
programs work closely with their local school districts to provide a 
seamless entry for those kids going through Head Start into the regular 
school programs in the States where they are.
  The GAO was critical of some financial management standards of the 
Head Start program. To solve that without losing the purpose of Head 
Start, which is to help disadvantaged kids prepare for school, they 
have increased the element of competition within the program. The 
competition that will be

[[Page 21064]]

new in this particular program will drive improvements in Head Start; 
at the same time it will meet the needs of a recommended financial 
management that the GAO suggested. By looking for and rewarding success 
in Head Start programs and also looking for and punishing deficiencies 
in any 5-year cycle, there is an element to try to improve this 
program, taking a program that is good and great and in every situation 
making it indeed better.
  There are also within this guarantees that there is a guaranteed 
share of the money that will go to Native American programs, migrant 
and seasonal workers, the most disadvantaged of the groups that Head 
Start is trying to help and assist, who will never be placed at a 
disadvantage in the overall process.
  In addition to that, this bill removes certain flawed techniques of 
evaluation that have been standardly used by the Head Start program and 
replaces them with something that is more scientifically based.
  The rule that is currently before us provides for important 
amendments and policy discussion, and it is a very fair rule. In 
addition to a manager's amendment, the chairman of the committee who 
recommended this bill recommended four amendments, two by Republicans 
and two by Democrats. The Committee on Rules instead, in addition to 
the manager's amendment, recommended 11 additional amendments, five by 
Republicans, six by Democrats.
  I commend the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) and the sponsor of 
this legislation, the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), for their 
hard work in placing this bill before the House; and I urge all of my 
colleagues to support this rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Utah 
(Mr. Bishop) for the time, and I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Committee on Rules reported out a 
restrictive rule providing for the consideration of the School 
Readiness and Head Start Reauthorization Act.
  A total of 24 amendments were submitted to the Committee on Rules on 
this bill, 16 by Democratic members and eight by Republicans. In 
typical fashion, however, only 12 of those amendments were made in 
order. Half of our colleagues' proposals, half of their legislative 
ideas, half of their amendments are blocked from consideration under 
this rule.
  This includes, among many others, the McCollum-Van Hollen amendment, 
which calls for providing assistance to Head Start providers complying 
with congressional transportation mandates and the rising costs of 
gasoline. This commonsense amendment provided much needed assistance to 
Head Start programs that are having to cope with escalating gasoline 
costs. They are now choosing between buying new books for their 
students and putting gas into their buses. Unfortunately, the House 
will not have the opportunity to debate this amendment because it was 
not made in order under the rule.
  As all Members should know, Head Start was created to address the 
preparatory educational deficiencies among economically disadvantaged 
children as a part of the War on Poverty. Since that time, millions of 
children and families have been the beneficiaries of a proven winning 
educational model for early childhood development.
  This body likes to talk about readiness in many contexts: disaster 
readiness, military readiness, emergency readiness. We devise and 
implement all kinds of plans in order to be ready or prepared for any 
eventuality. School readiness is more than just being prepared for 
entry into the educational system. It is preparation for entry into 
life's systems.
  Head Start is just what it says: a head start. It gives 
systematically, economically and socially disadvantaged children the 
head start that potentially allows for the navigation and negotiation 
of hurdles in life's race that they may not otherwise have been able to 
maneuver without. It is at this very point in the lives of our children 
that they are introduced to varying themes and concepts that will shape 
them into the individuals they will become.
  Several of my Democratic colleagues from the Congressional Black 
Caucus have designed excellent amendments designed to broaden the scope 
of readiness for America's disadvantaged children.
  The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) had an amendment and it asked 
for the recruitment of African American and Latino men to become Head 
Start teachers. This was made in order.
  The gentleman from Mississippi's (Mr. Thompson) amendment calls for 
the Department of Health and Human Services to provide additional 
assistance in areas affected by Hurricane Katrina, and I suggested to 
the Chair that we broaden that to include any disaster so that children 
are covered who are in the Head Start category.
  The gentlewoman from California's (Ms. Millender-McDonald) amendment 
allows homeless and foster children to be automatically eligible for 
Head Start. These amendments were designed to help, not hinder; to move 
forward, not backward; to grow, not stifle.

                              {time}  1030

  I am pleased that they were made in order and enthusiastically 
support each of these amendments.
  Unfortunately, although the underlying legislation has the support of 
both parties, the rule also makes in order a controversial and 
discriminatory amendment offered by the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. 
Boustany), our colleague. His amendment contains language that should 
give all of us pause and may cause this bill not to pass should it be 
approved by this body.
  The Boustany amendment allows faith-based Head Start providers to 
discriminate with regard to religion when hiring personnel to run their 
programs.
  Does this not blatantly and egregiously undermine what we are trying 
to do here? We are supposed to be about the business of creating 
opportunities and closing gaps.
  The Boustany amendment only creates opportunities of systemic 
disadvantage and discrimination and closes doors to the very ones 
trying to open them for America's children.
  Even more, title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act clearly stands in 
opposition to the gentleman from Louisiana's (Mr. Boustany) amendment, 
the same title VII that was voted on and agreed to by the Members of 
this great body 41 years ago. Title VII provides every citizen broad-
based protection against employment discrimination based on race, 
color, religion, sex, and national origin.
  Supporters of the amendment will argue that the Supreme Court 
decision in the Amos case allows for the amendment to be in order and 
is, therefore, constitutional. That decision does, in fact, allow for 
the consideration of religion in hiring practices. However, it does not 
allow for the consideration of religion to discriminate in hiring 
practices.
  How soon we forget that it is the very same language that made this 
bill highly controversial in the 108th Congress, and it will allow for 
it to be controversial if it passes again. I urge my colleagues to 
oppose this amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, if we are serious about the lives of our children, if we 
are serious about readiness, if we are serious about reauthorizing Head 
Start, then it is critical that we continue to work in a bipartisan 
fashion and reject proposals which seek to divide this body and its 
Members. The chairman of this committee and the ranking member and the 
members of this committee have worked very actively to fashion a 
reasonable and bipartisan effort. Congress should not be in the 
business of supporting State-sponsored discrimination. Forty-one years 
ago we said no. Today, 41 years later, no still is no.
  The House should, without question or hesitation, reject the Boustany 
amendment and approve the bipartisan underlying legislation with some 
of the proposed amendments.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page 21065]]


  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  If I could just make a note of the amendments that were not made in 
order, of the 12, four were defeated in committee. So they did have a 
hearing in which they were discussed. Two were not germane. One was 
withdrawn in the committee. One was withdrawn before our Committee on 
Rules. Two dealt with issues that can be dealt with in other bills and 
should be dealt with in other bills. One was combined and given 
preference to a similar bill, and one was a policy issue that we simply 
said would not be there because it would take money away from the 
training of teachers, in contradiction with what the bill was trying to 
do.
  Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the chairman of the Committee on Education and 
the Workforce.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Utah for 
yielding time, and Mr. Speaker, today we have an opportunity to act on 
behalf of the nearly 1 million disadvantaged children in the United 
States who participate in the Head Start early childhood education 
program every year. The bill before us, the School Readiness Act, was 
introduced by the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), my friend and 
colleague, and approved unanimously by the Committee on Education and 
the Workforce in May.
  For four decades, Head Start has provided comprehensive services to 
help prepare low-income preschool children for success in school and in 
life. Unfortunately, Head Start children still enter school lagging 
behind their more affluent peers. If we do not address this readiness 
gap, Head Start children will continue to enter school without the 
level of preparedness that we know that they need. Another problem we 
have witnessed is an alarming number of financial abuses in various 
Head Start programs, showing that taxpayer dollars are not always being 
used to serve disadvantaged children and their families.
  We must demand more in exchange for the money we are investing, and 
that is why the bill before us reforms and strengthens the Head Start 
program. To protect parents, children and taxpayers, the School 
Readiness Act subjects Head Start operators to an annual independent 
financial audit and requires them to file an annual financial 
disclosure statement that documents how Federal Head Start funds were 
used. These protections are a direct response to the reports of chronic 
financial abuse that have surfaced in recent years.
  Another important component of this bill is that it will create 
greater competition to ensure Federal dollars are being spent wisely. 
The bill requires Head Start grantees that fail to meet program 
requirements to compete in order to continue receiving funds. This 
commonsense reform will fundamentally shift expectations in the Head 
Start program by demanding nothing less than the highest quality 
programs, and for the first time ever, programs that fail to meet 
expectations will face the possibility of losing Federal funding.
  Later today we will debate an important amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), which has been a priority of mine, 
that will complement our efforts to introduce greater competition into 
the program. The amendment would help implement a reform initiative at 
the Department of Health and Human Services designed to address the 
internal weaknesses in the Head Start management structure and improve 
its overall effectiveness, and I would urge my colleagues to support 
it.
  Lastly, I would like to note another critical issue we will consider 
today in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Faith-based organizations 
were among the first to reach out and lend a hand in service to those 
impacted by this disaster. It does not take a hurricane or another 
large-scale catastrophe to rally faith-based organizations to assist 
their fellow Americans each and every day. They focus on issues from 
job training to child care and everything in between. President Bush 
has called them the armies of compassion, and these armies are always 
on the front lines when our Nation needs them most.
  Too often, the Federal Government has ignored or impeded the efforts 
of faith-based organizations willing to lend a helping hand in 
providing critical services to the neediest in our communities. The 
Boustany amendment will protect the rights of faith-based groups to 
fully participate in serving Head Start children without relinquishing 
their religious identities.
  The 1964 Civil Rights Act made clear that when faith-based groups 
hire employees on a religious basis, it is an exercise of the group's 
civil liberties. Former President Bill Clinton signed four laws 
explicitly allowing faith-based groups to staff on a religious basis 
when they receive Federal funds, and a 1987 Supreme Court decision 
unanimously upheld this right. This amendment deserves the support of 
all of our colleagues.
  I think the rule before us today is a fair rule that makes in order 
an array of Democrat and Republican amendments, and I would urge my 
colleagues to support it.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I cannot impress enough to the chairman that title VII 
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 applies to the use of religious 
organizations' own resources, not Federal taxpayer dollars.
  Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 4 minutes to the 
distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui), my good friend 
with whom I serve on the Committee on Rules.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of a program that works, Head 
Start, and our efforts today to reauthorize the program in this School 
Readiness Act.
  Head Start has proven itself time and time again to be an effective 
program and a worthwhile investment of Federal dollars. For every 
dollar invested, we see a $7 return. Imagine those returns on the stock 
market. An investment of $100,000 means that ultimately you would see 
$700,000 in your account. In fact, with those returns, we should be 
authorizing a higher level of funding.
  We are all aware of just how critical a child's first years are, and 
this is a program that is so much more than just early education and 
reading skills. It is also about health care, nutritional and social 
benefits for the children as well as their parents. Head Start is about 
ensuring children are on the right path as they begin their education 
careers.
  Earlier this year, I visited two of the over 110 Head Start centers 
in Sacramento County in my district. During the visit, I witnessed the 
tangible reward of this program, as well as the harder-to-define 
benefits.
  At one of the centers, they were learning about shoes, from slippers 
and sneakers to work boots and rain boots. The children were not only 
learning about how the shoes indicated what people were doing, but 
about all of the possibilities available to them; that one day they, 
too, could be wearing those doctor's booties or those firefighter's 
boots.
  With a goal in mind, maybe not consciously outlined but still a hint 
of an idea, these children began to dream about the positive benefits 
of education and where in life an education can take them.
  Lifting children out of poverty, offering them hope and possibility 
instead of despair is truly a worthwhile endeavor, a lesson that Head 
Start works to teach.
  I do have one concern today, and that is about the possibility that 
an amendment allowing religious discrimination could be added to this 
legislation. The idea of discrimination is not something we should be 
teaching our children. By allowing this discrimination, we could be 
blocking countless parents from rising out of poverty. Already, 
thousands of parents have transitioned from parent volunteer to a full-
time paid Head Start teacher.

[[Page 21066]]

  There is a bigger and more fundamental issue at stake. Head Start 
emerged from the civil rights platform of equality and minimizing the 
reach of poverty in this Nation. Yet, this amendment is about allowing 
discrimination.
  Discrimination only serves to divide us. It pits one individual 
against another, one group against another, something we see far too 
often. This is not a lesson the children should learn.
  Head Start is a good program. We should keep it that way, for all the 
children of Sacramento and all across the country. I would hope that 
during consideration of this legislation today, we would vote down the 
religious discrimination amendment so we can see this good bill move 
forward.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I am more than pleased to yield 2 
minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller).
  Mr. KELLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule and of the 
underlying Head Start bill. Since I was elected to Congress in 2000, we 
have increased Head Start funding by 28 percent, from $5.8 billion in 
2000 to $6.8 billion today.
  Head Start is a crucial program for over 900,000 of our Nation's most 
needy students. It provides child development, educational, health, 
nutritional, social and other activities to help prepare young children 
for kindergarten. A good Head Start program will make sure that low-
income 4-year-old children will know their ABCs, be able to count to 
20, have the building blocks they need to hit the ground running on 
their first day of kindergarten.
  We know today how important early childhood education is to a child's 
long-term success. Head Start makes sure that children from low-income 
families have the educational foundation they need to succeed.
  As a father of two, I know firsthand how precious our children's 
first years are and how important they are to our children's future. I 
am proud of Congress' increased support for low-income children through 
the Head Start program, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the 
rule and ``yes'' on the Head Start reauthorization bill.

                              {time}  1045

  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 
minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum).
  Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my 
sincere disappointment in the Committee on Rules decision to report a 
restrictive rule for consideration of the bill before us today, the 
reauthorization of Head Start, the future of our children.
  Several commonsense amendments were not ruled in order. Not 
surprising, most of them were Democratic amendments. Instead, several 
amendments that were ruled in order will weaken Head Start and the 
opportunity for our children.
  In the committee, there was support of adding the language ``faith-
based'' into the bill, even though faith-based institutions currently 
participate in providing Head Start programs. We were happy to do this 
in committee; I was also, along with my colleagues, because the Equal 
Opportunity Employment Act is also spelled out clearly in the bill, 
which does not allow for discrimination in hiring.
  But there was another amendment that was not ruled in order, my 
amendment, an amendment which would have protected the privacy of our 
faith-based organizations and the integrity of our tax dollars. The 
amendment that I offered in the Committee on Rules would have simply 
required faith-based organizations to create a separate bank account, a 
separate bank account in which to receive Federal dollars for the Head 
Start program, a distinct and separate bank account from the private 
dollars that a religious organization collects to put forward their 
religious mission.
  Why do we need to do that? Well, first, we need to protect Federal 
tax dollars from being used improperly; and, secondly, we need to 
protect the privacy of faith-based organizations' accounting books for 
their religious mission. With the commingling of funds, if fraud is 
suspected, a faith-based organization would have to open up all of 
their books for inspection. My amendment would have required separate 
accounts, therefore, protecting the church's mission and the Federal 
education mission of Head Start.
  Mr. Speaker, let me quote from the Covenant Companion, a Christian 
publication. I quote from this publication, and I will also include 
this in the Record, as well as two other publications that speak to 
this. From the Covenant: ``Churches are particularly vulnerable to 
embezzlement because of the high-level of trust given to employees and 
volunteers that lack the sophistication, fiscal controls, and 
oversight.''
  My amendment simply would have been a preemptive strike against 
financial abuse that we know will happen because it has already 
occurred. For example, this past summer, $80,000 was stolen from a 
Federal Head Start program run by a church.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this rule. We need a new 
rule, one that will protect the taxpayers, one that will protect faith-
based organizations and stop discrimination.

                [From the Covenant Companion, Apr. 2003]

                     When the Numbers Don't Add Up

                           (By Bob Smietana)

       Sandra had a problem--an overdue Visa bill for $672 and no 
     cash to pay it. And the Visa bill wasn't the only problem. 
     Sandra was behind on a number of other bills and her 
     creditors were calling. And calling.
       Then Sandra, the bookkeeper at a small manufacturing 
     company in Kansas, came up with a desperate plan. She would 
     use one of the company's checks to pay her bill. ``I thought, 
     just this one time, just to get back on my feet,'' she told 
     Fortune Small Business (FSB) magazine. ``No one will know.''
       To disguise her actions, Sandra recorded the check under 
     the name of one of the company's vendors. When the bank 
     statement came, she removed the canceled check, leaving no 
     trace of the theft.
       But it wasn't just one time. From 1992 to 1999, Sandra, a 
     former small town cheerleader and mother of two, wrote out 
     eighty-eight checks to pay her bills and made eighty-eight 
     false entries. The total, according to FSB, was $248,383--all 
     of it going to pay living expenses. Since her employers at 
     the small, family-run business trusted her, they never 
     checked her work.
       The embezzlement was discovered when Sandra went on 
     vacation. While she was gone, one of the canceled checks was 
     found and her boss discovered what she had done. Sandra was 
     convicted of embezzlement and sentenced to eighteen months in 
     prison.
       While fraud at major companies like World Com and Enron 
     have made headlines in recent years, small businesses, 
     nonprofits, and churches arc particularly vulnerable to 
     embezzlement because of the level of trust given to employees 
     and volunteers and the lack of sophisticated financial 
     controls and oversight.
       In the past three years, GuideOne, which insures 45,000 
     churches in the United States, paid 3,845 claims to churches 
     for losses from theft (by people outside the church) or 
     embezzlement (by people inside the church). Those claims 
     total over $8 million, with an average claim of $2,106.
       In the past ten years, at least eleven Covenant churches 
     have reported being victims of embezzlement, with anywhere 
     from ``just over'' $10,000 to more than $300,000 taken by 
     people they trusted--volunteer treasurers, church staff, even 
     a pastor. At least one major embezzlement at a Covenant 
     church was discovered in 2002. And the actual number of 
     embezzlements is likely higher because many churches are 
     reluctant to report when a member of the church has embezzled 
     money.
       Kent Egging, interim pastor of Bethany Covenant Church in 
     Mount Vernon, Washington, has studied embezzlement in 
     churches as part of a doctor of ministry degree program. 
     Egging also knows the effects of embezzlement on a church 
     firsthand--while he was co-pastor of a Covenant church in 
     Portland, Oregon, the church's treasurer embezzled more than 
     $45,000.
       The embezzlement began in 1992, soon after Jim, a member of 
     the church, became treasurer. His main qualification, Egging 
     says, was not formal training in business or accounting--``he 
     was willing to do the job.''
       Soon after starting, Jim learned that the church had a 
     separate account to handle funds for a campaign to build a 
     Christian education (CE) wing. Since the funds were not 
     needed immediately, there seemed to be no need to closely 
     monitor the account.
       That separate account gave Jim two things that an embezzler 
     needs to succeed--access and no accountability. ``He found he 
     could transfer funds into this CE account and then withdraw 
     them,'' says Egging, ``and absolutely nobody knew.''
       The transfers were made by phone, leaving no paper trail, 
     and then the treasurer would

[[Page 21067]]

     create a false financial statement, which made it appear that 
     the transactions had never taken place.
       ``When the building committee began asking for access to 
     the CE funds, they had a hard time getting Jim to write them 
     a check. In April 1993, he admitted--at first--taking 
     $20,000. After learning about the embezzlement, the church 
     discussed whether or not to call the police. In the process, 
     Egging talked with a friend who worked in the local district 
     attorney's office.
       ``You call the police now,'' his friend told him. ''You 
     call them now. Here's what I can tell you--if he says it's 
     twenty, it's probably forty. If he says he'll do anything you 
     want right now to repay it, two months from now he won't be 
     willing to do anything.''
       Much of what Egging's friend said was accurate. A thorough 
     investigation revealed that $45,000 was missing. While the 
     church filed a police report, they did not press charges. 
     Instead, they reached a binding agreement with their former 
     treasurer to repay the money.
       ``We ended up having a stipulated statement of judgment,'' 
     says Egging, ``which is a combination of a legally binding 
     confession to a crime, so there is no need for prosecution, 
     and a contract for repayment.'' The agreement for repayment 
     was for about $50,000. The church only received about $300.
       Restoring trust after an embezzlement at a church is a long 
     process. The first step is getting an accurate picture of 
     what was lost. ``It was very important for us to do a proper 
     accounting,'' says Egging. ``The biggest issue in all of this 
     is trust, the violation of trust. It's not about the money so 
     much. It's about the trust. He violated our trust. The trust 
     of leaders in the congregation was in question because of 
     this.''
       To prevent any embezzlement from happening in the future, 
     the church revamped its entire financial system. They hired a 
     CPA to set up and monitor new accounting procedures. The 
     church changed its bank accounts so that telephone transfers 
     were no longer allowed. All financial statements were kept at 
     the church, and all accounting work was done on the church's 
     office computer rather than on a volunteer's home computer. 
     That's an area of vulnerability in most churches, says 
     Egging.
       ``I would bet that most churches in America have some or a 
     significant number of financial records at somebody's house 
     in a box or on somebody's home computer,'' he says, ``because 
     home computers are generally better than church computers. A 
     church wants to make it easy for a volunteer who's working on 
     church finances.''
       Embezzlement can happen even when a church has taken steps 
     to prevent financial losses. That was the case at Highland 
     Covenant Church in Bellevue, Washington, during the mid-
     1990s. The church had a number of common financial safeguards 
     in place--two signatures were required on every check, two 
     people were present whenever collections were counted, and 
     the church did an internal audit of its book each year. 
     Highland also practiced a ``segregation of duties.'' One 
     person, the financial secretary, deposited funds; another 
     person, the bookkeeper, prepared checks. Neither the 
     bookkeeper nor the financial secretary was allowed to sign 
     checks.
       For the most part, Beth, the church's bookkeeper, generated 
     Highland's checks on her computer. ``But every few months, 
     she would call up and say her printer wasn't working,'' says 
     Dave Kersten, who was pastor of Highland Covenant from 1986 
     to 1997.
       When this happened, Beth would prepare all of the payroll 
     checks by hand and then send them to the church office to be 
     signed. After they were signed, she would alter the checks, 
     adding just a single digit to increase the amount, sometimes 
     by several thousand dollars.
       ``She would write herself a check and her husband a check, 
     because he was the part-time janitor,'' says Kersten. 
     ``Instead of it being a check for $700--it could become a 
     check for $4,700.'' Over a seven-year period, Beth took more 
     than $300,000.
       The embezzlement was not detected because the church's 
     bookkeeper had control of the bank statements. Early on, she 
     had asked that all of the church's bank statement be sent to 
     her home. ``And in a very trusting environment,'' says 
     Kersten, ``that was the big mistake.''
       When the first altered check was discovered, Kersten called 
     the Bellevue police and spoke to a fraud detective.
       ``As soon as he heard that she had control of the bank 
     statements, he knew that he had a real case,'' Kersten says. 
     ``Invariably, when an organization allows a person who is 
     writing the checks to control the bank statements, they are 
     very vulnerable.''
       While the church's financial reports indicated that it had 
     money in savings and other discretionary funds, that proved 
     to be false as well. All of those funds had been folded into 
     the church's checking account. And because the embezzlement 
     had taken place slowly, over a long period of time, it was 
     easier to hide even during internal audits.
       Each year, two members were appointed to audit the books. 
     They would call up Beth and ask her to send 3 months of 
     statements, picked at random. ``She would pick months she 
     didn't embezzle any funds and send them those accounts,'' 
     says Kersten. ``The books balanced and that was the end of 
     the story.''
       The embezzlement came to light in April 1995, after the 
     church let Beth go as bookkeeper because of suspicions that 
     something was wrong with the church's finances. She was 
     arrested, tried, convicted, and sentenced to 40 months in 
     jail. The decision to turn the matter over to the police had 
     been fairly straightforward, because of the amount of money 
     involved.
       Because their policy limited the amount of losses due to 
     embezzlement or fraud, Highland received less than $20,000 
     from their insurance company. But the church was able to 
     recover from the embezzlement, and by the time Kersten left 
     in 1997, had rebuilt their savings and completed a major 
     fundraising campaign.
       Most churches, charities, and businesses that arc victims 
     of embezzlement are never able to recover the funds they 
     lost. Often their insurance policies have clauses that limit 
     liability due to fraud. Many embezzlers have financial 
     problems and, despite stealing large sums of money, have no 
     assets left when they arc caught. And while embezzlers often 
     make restitution plans, it is difficult to enforce them.
       Remember Sandra, the accountant from Kansas? She was 
     released from prison 2 months early so she could start 
     repaying what she stole. According to FSB, she makes a 
     monthly payment of $100--at that rate, it will take 20 years 
     to pay it all back. She said she told her story because she 
     wanted to help prevent other people from making the same 
     mistakes she did.
       ``I'm not a bad person,'' Sandra told FSB. ``But I did a 
     really bad thing.''
                                  ____


             Protecting Your Ministry From Internal Threats

       When Fred Meyers was elected treasurer of First Community 
     Church, it didn't take him long to realize something wasn't 
     adding up with the church's finances. After scouring the 
     church ledger and consulting a private CPA, Meyers informed 
     church leaders that First Community had been the victim of 
     embezzlement.
       Church leaders soon discovered that, over the past several 
     years, an usher had been directing offering money into his 
     own pockets. Overall, nearly $10,000 of tithes and offerings 
     never made it into the church's account.
       In the business world, embezzlement is the most common 
     financial crime in the Nation. Unfortunately, it's also a 
     frequent crime against churches and not-for-profit 
     ministries. And, unlike other crimes against religious 
     organizations, embezzlement is perpetrated by a trusted 
     person from within.
       Most church leaders don't want to acknowledge the 
     likelihood of one of their own parishioners or employees 
     committing a crime against their organization. But, although 
     these types of crimes may not be widespread, they are common 
     enough-and costly enough-to warrant preventive measures.


                           PUT IT IN WRITING

       Develop a comprehensive written policy governing the 
     handling of your ministry's finances. This policy should 
     clearly spell out the procedures for handling church 
     finances, making deposits and withdrawals from church 
     accounts, accessing financial records, and conducting other 
     financial business.
       Having procedures in writing and explaining these 
     procedures to employees and volunteers will promote 
     consistent handling of your organization's finances. Written 
     guidelines let everyone know what's expected of them. And, 
     they discourage dishonest employees from using ignorance of 
     proper procedures as a defense of their criminal actions.
       In addition to a written policy for handling finances, it's 
     helpful to have written position descriptions for all 
     employees and volunteers. Position descriptions can eliminate 
     confusion over who has access to certain financial documents 
     and who's authorized to perform certain financial functions.
       Document all financial transactions clearly and 
     immediately. Record deposits, withdrawals, loan payments, 
     payroll, and any other financial transactions. Keep these 
     records (and duplicates, if necessary) in a safe place. By 
     documenting all financial procedures, your organization can 
     detect discrepancies quickly, protect honest employees from 
     unwarranted accusations, and gather necessary evidence to 
     identify criminals in the event of a financial crime.
       Implement a program for documenting suspicious financial 
     incidents. In many cases, at least one other employee or 
     volunteer is aware of--or at least suspicious of--fraud or 
     embezzlement. Making it easy and safe for employees and 
     volunteers to report suspicious financial activity will make 
     it more likely that they'll come forward with helpful 
     information.
       Develop a program for handling church finances in which the 
     receipt, deposit, distribution, and documentation of church 
     money is carried out by different people. Require dual 
     signatures for financial transactions like withdrawals or for 
     endorsing and cashing church checks for more than a certain 
     dollar amount. If control over financial operations is 
     divided among several people, it will be extremely difficult 
     for discrepancies to go undetected.

[[Page 21068]]




                       WATCH OVER YOUR OFFERINGS

       Tithes and offerings represent the greatest internal threat 
     of loss to churches and ministries. And, because significant 
     portions of offerings are made in cash and are usually 
     collected and counted by volunteers, the misuse or 
     misappropriation of cash offerings is one of the easier 
     crimes to commit against churches.
       To protect your church's offerings, follow these steps:
       Ask your congregants to place financial gifts in envelopes 
     preprinted with their names and addresses before placing them 
     in the offering plate. This will make it harder to discern 
     what portion of the offering is cash and what portion is 
     checks.
       Always have at least two people present when counting the 
     offering. It's best to use longtime church members who've 
     established a reputation of being trustworthy. Develop a list 
     of such people, and periodically rotate those on the list 
     when offerings are counted. Also, avoid counting the offering 
     behind closed doors.
       Stamp checks ``For Deposit Only'' when endorsing them. This 
     will make it more difficult for the money to be redirected 
     anywhere except to your church's account. Also, using colored 
     ink, rather than black ink, on rubber stamp images makes it 
     harder to use a copy machine to forge them.
       Have an independent certified public accountant (CPA) 
     periodically review your financial control procedures. A CPA 
     can tell you whether your procedures are adequate and give 
     you additional guidelines to help you protect your finances 
     from threats from within.


                     PROTECT YOUR PHYSICAL PROPERTY

       In addition to financial assets, physical property is a 
     favorite target for criminals within an organization. Follow 
     these tips to protect your property:
       Use a safe for petty cash, small valuables, keys, and 
     important documents. Keep important financial records and 
     personnel documents in a safe or a locked filing cabinet. 
     Only a few necessary staff members should have access to the 
     key or combination.
       Establish a key monitoring system. Use keys with serial 
     numbers on them to keep track of which employee or volunteer 
     has which key. Avoid keeping spare keys. If they're 
     necessary, keep them locked in a secure place. Collect keys 
     from employees or volunteers who leave the organization.
       Keep interior office, classroom, and supply room doors 
     locked when not in use.
       Give master keys only to those people who need them. If 
     someone only needs a key to get into a classroom, that person 
     may not also need a key that opens the church office.
       Control access to security codes. If your church or 
     ministry has a security system, be sure that only a few 
     necessary staff members know the codes. Additionally, it's a 
     good idea to occasionally change codes or passwords. Be sure 
     to change the codes whenever anyone with access to them 
     leaves the organization.
       Keep a personal property inventory of your organization's 
     physical property. This will help you quickly tell if 
     something is missing, establish proper insurance protection, 
     and allow a faster, more comprehensive recovery in the event 
     of a loss.
       Taking steps to prevent internal crime is just as important 
     as guarding against threats from the outside. Following these 
     guidelines will help you reduce the chance of being 
     victimized from within and help you avoid the high physical, 
     emotional, and monetary costs it can bring.

  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the 
gentlewoman from Minnesota. I understand her feelings about not being 
allowed to have an amendment placed in order on the floor. I have been 
in that situation myself several times.
  I would simply point out that the particular amendment to which the 
gentlewoman refers was offered in the committee itself and was defeated 
on a bipartisan vote in that committee. It was one of the concepts that 
we thought was not necessary to replow all old ground over and over 
again, and that is probably one of the reasons why this particular 
amendment was not placed in order by the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 4 
minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards), my 
good friend and a leader in the fight for education and for veterans 
and other affairs in this Congress.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, as the father of two young sons, I am a 
strong supporter of the Head Start program because I want every child 
in America to have a chance to reach his or her highest God-given 
potential. As a person of faith, I believe in the important role of 
faith-based organizations in addressing society's needs, including the 
education needs of children. But also as a person of faith, someone who 
has revered my religious freedom under the Constitution, I am deeply 
disappointed and offended that the Republican leadership of this House 
has allowed an amendment on the floor today that would deny potentially 
hundreds of thousands of American citizens a government-funded job 
simply because of their religious faith.
  How ironic and disappointing it is that just at the very same time 
that we are preaching to the Iraqis that they should adopt a 
constitution that protects religious freedom, the Republican leadership 
of this House is willing to deny that freedom, that religious freedom 
to American citizens.
  I wonder how the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop), who is the floor 
manager on the Republican side of this rule, would feel, Mr. Speaker, 
if right now I asked him to answer my 20-point religious test. I hope 
he would be offended that I would ask him 20 specific questions about 
his personal religious faith. Yet that gentleman and others who support 
this rule and the Boustany amendment would allow faith-based groups, 
using tax dollars to give every individual applying for a job to teach 
children how to have a better life in the world, allow them to give a 
personal detailed religious test.
  And then they can say, you know what, even though you have a Ph.D. in 
education and 30 years of experience in helping young children get a 
better education, we are going to deny you, Mr. Jones or Mrs. Smith, 
this federally funded Head Start job because you did not pass our 
personal religious test. No American citizen should have to choose 
between his or her religious faith and a job, a job paid for by 
American taxpayers.
  What is wrong with this, the Boustany amendment, is that it would 
allow religious discrimination, period. Call it what you want, it would 
allow religious discrimination. Number two, it is worse than that. It 
actually uses taxpayers' money to subsidize religious discrimination 
and bigotry.
  Next, I think it is inconsistent with article VI of the Constitution. 
We have heard a lot of debate about strict construction of the 
Constitution. Article VI, the only reference to religion in the 
original Constitution before the amendments were passed, said basically 
that no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any 
office or public trust under the United States. The spirit of that 
article is that you should not have to pass a religious test to get a 
publicly funded taxpayer-paid-for job.
  Talk about strict interpretation of the Constitution. If having to 
choose between my religious faith and getting a Head Start tax-funded 
job is not restricting my religious freedom, then what is?
  Let me tell you what could happen under the Boustany amendment, which 
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) said he supported, because it is 
pretty ugly.
  I could get a Federal million dollar taxpayer job grant and put out a 
sign that says ``No Jews or Catholics need apply here to this federally 
funded job.'' Another group might put out a sign that says ``No 
Baptists or Methodists need apply here for a federally funded job.'' 
Another group might put out a sign that says ``No Mormons need apply 
here for a federally funded job.'' Despite the fact they are qualified 
to help children have a better life, have a Ph.D. in early childhood 
education or even special education, simply because of their religious 
faith they are denied the right to have that job to help children.
  That is morally wrong. Shame on the Republican leadership for 
endorsing and subsidizing religious discrimination.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 
minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), 
my classmate, the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Education 
Reform, the subcommittee of relevant jurisdiction for this legislation.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule. The 
Committee

[[Page 21069]]

on Education and the Workforce voted for this Head Start bill 
unanimously, 48 to 0. But many of our Republican colleagues today would 
destroy this bill, making it partisan by allowing religious 
discrimination in hiring while using Federal funds, using taxpayer 
dollars.
  Most Democrats were not allowed to bring their amendments here to the 
floor for debate, although a bill was allowed that would add religious 
discrimination to this Head Start bill. It is a poison pill.
  I offered an amendment with the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van 
Hollen) to fully fund Head Start and to increase funding for early Head 
Start. Even though we are serving fewer than half of eligible children, 
the first 4 years of the George W. Bush administration included four of 
the five smallest Head Start funding increases since 1991. And the 
number of children served by Head Start has increased by less than one-
tenth of 1 percent since the end of the Clinton administration.
  In a country as wealthy as ours, this is not acceptable. It is also 
not acceptable that while denying Democrats a debate on expanding 
access for children, we will debate an amendment from the gentlewoman 
from Colorado (Mrs. Musgrave) to allow some providers to divert public 
funds to private profit.
  Opponents of my amendment will say that they would like to increase 
funding for Head Start, but that they just cannot because budget 
constraints make it impossible. But this is authorizing legislation, 
Mr. Speaker, and authorizing legislation should tell appropriators what 
we need to accomplish our goals. If appropriators do not have the 
resources to do this, it is only because the administration and this 
Congress choose more tax cuts for the wealthiest among us over help for 
our children.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, once again I share the frustration 
and understand the gentlewoman from California, as to her amendment not 
being made in order here. But I once again would point out that the 
amendment was presented in the committee and was rejected by the 
committee. And once again, it is not necessary to replow old ground 
every time the bill appears before the group again. So I appreciate 
that consideration very much.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 
minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Cleaver), a 
man of the cloth, a reverend representative.
  Mr. CLEAVER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and my goal here is to make a point, not to make an enemy.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and in strong 
opposition to the Boustany amendment and to add my name to the chorus 
of religious individuals and organizations that oppose this ill-
conceived and harmful amendment.
  As an ordained minister of the United Methodist Church, I recognize 
the important role faith-based organizations play in providing 
educational, health, and social support services to low-income children 
and their parents. The faith-based community has long played an active 
role in operating Head Start programs and has done so while upholding 
the Constitution and civil rights standards. By the faith community, we 
have been able to provide all kinds of services. In fact, my first job 
after college was working in Catholic Charities, which received tens of 
millions of Federal dollars to run programs.
  Mr. Speaker, this is not only bad policy; this is bad theology. In my 
religious tradition, we give great recognition to the Apostle Paul, who 
said: ``There is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor 
uncircumcision, barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free,'' and it goes on to 
say: ``Put on, therefore, as the elect of God, holy and beloved, tender 
mercies, kindness, humbleness of mind, meekness, long suffering.'' That 
is not in this amendment.
  Proponents of this amendment claim it is necessary to protect 
religious freedom. I will tell you now, as a pastor, that I take 
offense at that claim. How is religious freedom served when we force a 
teacher to choose between her faith and her job? How is it religious 
freedom when we tell children that they can lose their teacher because 
she or he is from the wrong faith? How is it religious freedom when we 
frustrate the laws of the land?
  And make no mistake, should this amendment pass, the children served 
by Head Start, those most at risk, would be the ones who suffer. Tens 
of thousands of children currently in Head Start could lose their 
teachers to whom they have bonded.

                              {time}  1100

  And their parents could be denied the chance to climb out of poverty 
by moving from Head Start, discriminating against current and potential 
teachers because of religion, causing children to lose one of the most 
important adults in their lives, denying parents the chance to elevate 
themselves out of poverty.
  There is no doubt in my mind that these things are not only harmful, 
they are immoral. This is not good for America. This body has no 
business undoing prohibitions against bigotry.
  Churches have been seen historically as a citadel for justice, a 
place of peace, a place of racial harmony. This can be seen as a 
subterfuge for bigotry. When someone comes to the St. James United 
Methodist Church, which I pastor, they know that they are going to be 
considered for employment based on their qualifications and there is no 
subterfuge for bigotry.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, there is a time and place for everything we do. If this 
rule is passed, there will be a 30-minute time and place to discuss the 
details of the specific amendment which has been referred to several 
times. I hope saying there is a time and place for that, and I 
apologize since I am paraphrasing from a faith-based piece of 
literature, and if it would be more profitable I could say I am 
paraphrasing from a popular song of the counterculture of the 1960s, 
and I am sure that would absolve anyone with 9th and 10th Circuit 
concerns. But let me say just one particular word, and I appreciate the 
comments that have been made so far.
  Mr. Speaker, what we are talking about is the rule on if an amendment 
should be debated, which is far different than actually debating the 
amendment itself.
  Since the minority has jumped over that line and tried to go into the 
amendment itself, let me say a couple of things about it, and I 
appreciate the comments from the gentleman from Texas.
  I served as a missionary from my church for a couple of years. I am 
used to people asking me those questions, so if the gentleman has got 
more, he should. Although when you put the discrimination, if the 
gentleman put my religion first instead of the end of the line, it 
would have been nicer.
  I also was a school teacher, and I realize in the article the 
gentleman quoted from the Constitution I was an officer of public 
office and trust.
  What we are talking about here is simply whether a church who is 
organized should be able to hire Members of their church to work for 
their church. That is a concept which has been upheld in statute by 
this body. It is a concept which has been upheld by the courts. Should 
the State be able to compel a church to hire somebody outside of that 
church to work for that church: That is the question. Then the issue is 
once you have decided that, and it has been decided by both the courts 
and the legislature, can we allow those people to help kids?
  What we are talking about is if we can help kids and how best we can 
help kids. The entire purpose of this act is to try and focus academic 
efforts to try and make sure that kids are prepared to enter the school 
system, and are there groups that can help kids. We should not put some 
kind of artificial barrier in front of groups that can help kids from 
actually doing that, especially when they are functioning under the 
rules that we have established and have been upheld by the courts.
  This debate is going to be extremely lively during its proper time 
and place

[[Page 21070]]

during the debate on the floor when the amendment is presented.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  My distinguished friend on the Committee on Rules never ceases to 
amaze me, but he has done it again. The gentleman says we are going to 
have a time and place to debate this. It will be for 30 minutes; 435 
Members of this body are going to have 30 minutes to debate this. For 
the gentleman's information, the Boustany amendment has been made in 
order. And yes, we are discussing it and this is the time and this is 
the place to make sure that we do not discriminate with Federal 
dollars.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Pascrell).
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I oppose the rule on the basis of an 
exclusion of some very pertinent amendments, but I have to respond to 
what I just heard. It is not the church that hires the individual, it 
is the Federal Government's money that is being utilized. You are 
missing this point. Do not, and I warn everyone about this, do not 
place one party against the other. We support faith-based, but 
taxpayers should not have their money taken so that one church can say 
you are not of this religion so you cannot work for me. That is 
discrimination and it will never stand up with the Constitution.
  How dare anyone say on this floor that we are allowed to separate 
with Federal money, with Federal money, the horror of tens of thousands 
of desperately poor Americans trapped in an environment of extreme 
neglect, abandoned by its government, left behind to fend for 
themselves without the most basic resources to survive? We witnessed 
that in the last 3 weeks. We witnessed the aftermath and we witnessed a 
wake-up call to America.
  I am proud that Americans have opened their hearts in the wake of 
this tragedy to lend a helping hand that the government at first 
refused. America believes in giving all of its citizens the resources 
and opportunities to make a decent life for themselves and their 
families. America believes in bringing the buses in on time so everyone 
gets out, not just the wealthiest among us.
  Head Start is that helping hand. Head Start is bringing the buses in 
before the floodwaters of poverty trap people in a desperate life of 
illiteracy, unemployment, crumbling homes, dangerous streets, drug 
addiction, and no hope.
  If we did not know it before, the tragedy of Hurricane Katrina has 
reaffirmed that a Head Start is the very least we owe each other; so I 
am pleased that there is bipartisan efforts to put this reauthorization 
bill together. It protects the basic structure of the program. I 
commend the gentleman for that. But do not separate those of us in this 
room in saying those are for values and these are not for values. We 
are talking about a very narrow scope of debate here. Head Start 
programs continue to address the many needs of low-income children and 
their families.
  In the words of Cecile Dickey, the former executive director of Head 
Start in Paterson, New Jersey, my home town, and a personal hero of 
mine, she was there when we started Head Start in this Nation, and she 
said, ``You cannot do anything for the kids without doing something for 
their parents, too. That is why we have programs designed to help them 
improve themselves through education and job training, as well as 
opportunities for them to be involved in planning activities involving 
their children. We serve the entire family unit.''
  Cecile is a perfect example of how Head Start can turn a family's 
life around. A struggling young mother with two children working in a 
daycare center, she was recruited by Head Start as a teacher, trained 
at New York University. Through Head Start, Cecile learned that looking 
out for her kids meant looking out for her community, and she became a 
tremendous advocate for her sons.
  A struggling young mother with two children working in a day care 
center, she was recruited by Head Start as a teacher and trained at New 
York University.
  Through Head Start, Cecile learned that looking out for her kids 
meant looking out for her community, and she became a tremendous 
advocate for her sons, and for the children of Paterson.
  Cecile's four sons, two of whom were Head Start children, have grown 
up to be surgeons, engineers, and teachers.
  Cecile and other Head Start advocates argue that the only problem 
with the program is that not enough eligible children can be served.
  Nationwide, nearly 50 percent of three and four year olds who qualify 
by their parents' income have been denied this opportunity in the last 
few years. In Paterson alone, over 2,000 eligible children are on the 
waiting list.
  A study by Rutgers University has reported that high quality pre-
school more than pays for itself.
  When children are enrolled in pre-school programs, mothers are better 
equipped to find stable, paying jobs. After these children leave 
school, they earn $143,000 more over their lifetimes and are less 
likely to need special education than other children.
  This program has had tremendous success at improving educational and 
social outcomes for children, and is a good deal for the country: It 
costs American taxpayers a little more than $6 billion a year, or one 
third of one percent of the national budget.
  I hope that the House today will vote for this good bipartisan bill, 
and will vote down any poison pill amendment that will allow hiring and 
firing on the basis of religious affiliation. This is anti-American.
  It will be a shame if all the bipartisan hard work that has gone into 
crafting this worthy legislation was scuttled by the cynical attempts 
of a few to codify discrimination into our national laws.
  No rule for more amendments should have been in order. I urge my 
colleagues in the House to continue to expand its support of a program 
that every American can be proud of.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings). 
I have always enjoyed his comments in the Committee on Rules, and I 
have oftentimes agreed with his comments in the Committee on Rules.
  I do disagree here about the concept of time and place and when this 
amendment should be discussed. I would point out that contrary to what 
we sometimes hear on the floor, the minority's first approach on this 
particular amendment was to try to ban it and take it off the table so 
it would not be discussed. That did not pass, and there will be a time 
for discussion. I am sure when the amendment is actually before us, it 
will be a remarkable discussion based on what we have had right now on 
the rule on if we discuss the amendment. But I appreciate very much the 
gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. 
Castle), the sponsor of this piece of legislation; not the rule, but 
the sponsor of the legislation.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and I rise to say a couple of things. I will speak more when the 
bill is on the floor.
  Mr. Speaker, we worked very hard to make this a piece of legislation 
that could be supported by all of us, and I think we succeeded on that, 
as was shown by the unanimous vote coming out of the Committee on 
Education and the Workforce.
  There are a lot of issues. It is not quite as easy as it sounds. I 
thank the staff on both sides who had a great deal to do with that.
  I also would like to say that I think the Committee on Rules has been 
extremely fair. I would hope that this is a rule that all Members could 
support. We may disagree, and in fact I disagree with a couple of the 
amendments, but I agree with most of them on both sides. I think there 
are some very good, positive suggestions, and I know sometimes we 
complain about closed rules, whatever, but this is certainly a rule 
that is not closed, that is going to allow a lot of opportunity for 
debate.
  I have listened to part of the debate here on the faith-based that is 
going to go on all day, I suppose. There is disagreement with respect 
to that, which is unfortunate because it detracts from

[[Page 21071]]

what is a piece of legislation that otherwise we could all support. But 
on the other hand, there are strong views on that and I think they have 
a right to be recognized, and a vote needs to be taken on that, too.
  I would like to say that things have changed a great deal with how we 
look at Head Start. In fact, in some ways it was a poverty program when 
it began. It was basically a social service program to a great degree. 
We are now diverting it to more of an academic program. There is no 
question about that, and I think that is good. We need to get all of 
these kids up to the starting line, equal. That is what it is all 
about. If a child is 3 or 4, we need to give them that opportunity.
  I think this legislation does that. I think we are all in that 
together. I think everybody in this building would agree that we need 
to do that. So I hope we keep that in mind as we look at our amendments 
and the legislation, and hopefully when the day is over we can move 
forward in helping these young people.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), my classmate and good friend.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I oppose the rule because it 
allows the Boustany amendment. Let us be clear. First of all, faith-
based organizations sponsor Head Start programs now. They have and they 
will continue to. My own church hosted a Head Start program. They 
sponsor the programs, just like everybody else, on a level playing 
field. They have to use the money for Head Start and they cannot 
discriminate in employment.
  Any organization that can sponsor a Head Start program under that 
amendment can do it anyway if they agree not to discriminate. We are 
talking just about discrimination. We are not talking about allowing 
groups to sponsor Head Start programs. We are talking about allowing 
them to discriminate in employment with the Federal money.
  Now they can still discriminate with the church money, just not with 
the Federal money. This discussion really represents a profound change 
in civil rights discussions, because there was a time traditionally if 
an employer had a problem with somebody's religion, the employer has a 
problem because the weight of the Federal Government would come down 
supporting the victim. Now we are talking about what rights the group 
has to discriminate against the victim.
  If we are talking about religion, we are also talking about race 
because if you can discriminate based on religion, some religions are 
virtually all white, others virtually all black. So if you can 
discriminate based on religion, you can discriminate based on race. 
Where is your moral authority to tell somebody with their private money 
what they can do and cannot do, if you are going to turn around and 
allow people to discriminate with Federal money?
  Mr. Speaker, that is wrong and a rule that allows that is wrong. 
There used to be a time when parents would have to describe to their 
children why they could not eat at the lunch counter, why they had to 
sit in the back of the bus, why they could not get a job at certain 
firms. And now we are going to have to have parents tell children why 
they could not get a job at the Head Start program while their 
neighbors could get a job at the Head Start program.
  I want to remind Members that any organization can sponsor the 
federally funded Head Start program now if they agree not to 
discriminate. We do not need to turn the clock back, and we also do not 
need a rule that allows this to ruin the Head Start program.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Puerto Rico (Mr. Fortuno).
  Mr. FORTUNO. Mr. Speaker, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 explicitly 
protects the rights of faith-based organizations to exercise their 
civil liberties and take religion into account in their hiring 
practices.
  Actually, when faith-based groups hire employees on a religious 
basis, they are actually exercising their civil liberties. Faith-based 
organizations cannot be expected to sustain their religion mission 
without the ability to employ individuals who share the tenets and 
practices of their faith, because it is that faith that motivates them 
to serve their neighbors in trouble.

                              {time}  1115

  I can tell the Members about this. In my home district of Puerto 
Rico, I see this all the time. Actually, on the Head Start program in 
the San Juan metropolitan area, it has been run for years by the 
Catholic Church. Are we going to tell the Catholic Church whom they can 
hire and not hire for the good job they are doing? That is exactly what 
we are trying to do here. Actually, it will make it very difficult, 
make them liable for hiring practices when, in fact, what they are 
doing is that they are giving back to society in the way that no 
government entity can actually give back in the way that these 
religious organizations are giving back.
  So essentially going back to my basic argument, since 1964 we have 
recognized this right of the religious organizations that are involved 
in these faith-based activities. We cannot turn back actually from what 
we did in 1964 by trying to impose new rules that will simply impair 
their capacity to handle what they are handling today in such an able 
way.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne).
  Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  These arguments are well rehearsed. We seem to go through these on a 
regular basis, and I certainly admire the tenacity with which the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) and others defend their position.
  However, as has already been stated, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, I 
believe, does explicitly protect the rights of faith-based 
organizations to exercise their civil liberties and take religion into 
account in their hiring practices, and I do not know why we seem to 
continually have trouble assimilating that into our collective body of 
knowledge here.
  When faith-based groups hire employees on a religious basis, they are 
exercising their civil liberties. The Civil Rights Act made clear when 
faith-based groups hire employees on a religious basis, it is an 
exercise of the groups' civil liberties. It does not constitute 
discrimination under Federal law.
  I believe one of the major issues here is that faith-based 
organizations are allowed to maintain and sustain their mission. It 
does not mean that the people that they hire are discriminated against 
on the basis of what religion they have, what their ethnicity might be; 
but rather simply the ability to hire people who share their common 
beliefs, who share their sense of mission.
  We certainly saw this in the recent rescue mission and aid issues 
down with Hurricane Katrina, where a great number of faith-based groups 
were the most efficient groups that we saw on the ground there. And, 
certainly, they should have the right to bring those people in who 
share their beliefs, even though they may have been receiving in some 
ways Federal dollars.
  The same thing is true with Head Start. People must be hired in a way 
that they do share a common sense of mission, a common sense of 
purpose. Otherwise, these organizations would be totally disrupted in 
what they are trying to get done.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, as we consider the rule, I want to speak on 
some important amendments that are going to come up to provide 
important protections for religious organizations. If we do not insert 
these important protections for these organizations, we will be 
dictating to them whom they can or cannot hire. We must maintain the 
integrity of religious entities.

[[Page 21072]]

  The Constitution of the United States explicitly states that Congress 
shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. Not 
allowing our churches, mosques, and synagogues to hire people of like 
mind and similar beliefs is not only an affront to their very core but 
contrary to this great Nation's Constitution.
  I am proud to be an American for so many reasons, first among them 
because I am able to think, speak, and believe whatever I want freely, 
as stated in the first amendment to our Constitution. Denying religious 
organizations the ability to hire an employee because of his or her 
beliefs is to take away that employee's right to think, speak, and 
believe as he or she so chooses.
  We are not talking about allowing religious organizations to 
brainwash children to think as they do. We are talking about allowing 
religious organizations simply to be able to provide the same services 
and programs as nonreligious organizations. Our children deserve the 
very best education; and if a religious organization is going to 
provide that education better, then we must not stand in the way.
  Are we going to deny many of the poorest and less fortunate children 
the opportunity to learn in these early childhood education programs 
simply because it is a church that is administering it? This is about 
our children, and denying them exemplary services just because the 
organization providing them happens to be a religious one is just 
cruel.
  I think we all know firsthand the impact that our churches have and 
how much they contribute to our communities across the Nation. And we 
all know how much they give back to their communities.
  This Nation is second to none in charitable giving and at helping 
others in need. This is not just a religious tenet, but an American 
principle. We need to support this rule.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart).
  Ms. HART. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  I rise in support of the rule, but most especially in support of the 
rule allowing for the offering of the amendment by the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Boustany). This amendment is clearly dominating a lot of 
the discussion this morning regarding the rule. It is the one that 
protects faith-based Head Start providers, and it is so important for 
us to be very sensitive about this issue as we look to those who are 
willing to provide some very difficult services and ones that certainly 
the providers must be very interested in as far as the well-being of 
the student, the well-being of the families involved in these programs. 
Certainly, faith-based organizations are first in mind when it comes to 
providing the services that require the most care, and we would be 
remiss in not providing an opportunity for this amendment to be 
adopted. This rule does allow that, and this rule is very well crafted. 
And I support it for that very reason.
  We the Congress have specified in several statutes that religious 
organizations that receive Federal funds in the form of grants or 
contracts must not lose their Title VII exemption. In fact, former 
President Bill Clinton signed four laws that explicitly allow faith-
based groups to staff on a religious basis when they receive Federal 
funds. They should not be discriminated against. If we tell faith-based 
groups they cannot hire on a faith basis in order to receive Federal 
funds, then we will force those organizations out of providing these 
services.
  Some examples of laws that we have passed that allow for faith-based 
groups to continue to hire on their continued basis are the Personal 
Responsibility and Work Opportunities Reconciliation Act, or Welfare 
Reform of 1996; the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services 
Administration Act of 1998; the Community Service Block Grant Act, 
which everyone has been very supportive of; as well as the Community 
Renewal Tax Relief Act of 2000.
  We have had debates before regarding faith-based groups being 
involved in government contracting. It would be a huge error for us to 
exempt the most caring, conscious, and helpful organizations, 
especially from Head Start contracts. Those groups should not be forced 
to hire anybody off the street simply because they have a Federal 
contract. They should hire the best people and the ones who are most 
capable of carrying out their mission. The very reason why many of 
these organizations will win the contracts is because they have the 
best track record of service and results. What more important place is 
there for us to care about results than in Head Start?
  I think it is important for us, as Members of the United States House 
of Representatives, to be very careful as we move forward on this bill. 
The Committee on Education and the Workforce has worked very hard to 
craft it. They are very concerned about making sure that students get 
every advantage at that early age. We need to contract with the 
organizations that can best provide the service.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. HART. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I respect the gentlewoman's views, but let 
me ask her this question: What is right about letting a group take her 
or my tax dollars and put out a sign that says ``Jews nor Catholics 
need not apply here for this Head Start job''? What is right about 
that?
  Ms. HART. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the gentleman, again, is 
trying to inflame what I think is really an unreasonable discussion in 
this conversation.
  The point of faith-based providers is that they are mostly obviously 
church people who have a mission. They want to provide a service. They 
are not discriminating against others. They are encouraging service 
within their church, and we should allow them to provide that service 
because we know that they have the best track record of success.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of 
my time.
  When I was a child, my grandmomma took me to churches. She played 
piano for all of the churches in town, four in Altamonte Springs. 
Sometimes I did not know whether I was going to be sprinkled and be 
baptized here or repent and be baptized. It was very difficult, but all 
of the children in that town went to all of the churches.
  For 41 years Head Start has existed, and it is the most empirically 
collected database organization supporting the children of the United 
States of America. And for all of those 41 years, all of these faith-
based organizations have been involved in receiving contracts to do 
business. What we are saying is they cannot do it with Federal dollars. 
They have to do it with their own money.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, as we conclude the debate on this rule, I would remind 
people that the underlying bill provides for the Head Start program in 
many different areas. It provides for academic refocusing on class 
readiness and to close the class readiness gap. It provides for 
competition to improve the quality and to meet questions of 
mismanagement of financial abilities. It provides for a closer tie to 
State curricula and to local ties which will improve it, and it also 
provides, if the amendment is adopted, for faith-based institutions to 
actually help kids.
  We have an opportunity to discuss 12 amendments plus the underlying 
bill, and we have an opportunity to hit a home run for kids. That is 
the goal that we still have.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a good and balanced rule, and I urge the Members 
to support this rule.
  Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my 
sincere disappointment in the Committee on Rules decision to report a 
restrictive rule for consideration of the bill before us today, the 
reauthorization of Head Start, the future of our children.
  Several 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

[[Page 21073]]

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 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.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, 
and I move the previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Latham). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the 
ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a 
quorum is not present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 15-minute vote on adoption of 
House Resolution 455 will be followed by a 5-minute vote on agreeing to 
the Speaker's approval of the Journal.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 221, 
nays 189, not voting 23, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 486]

                               YEAS--221

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Bradley (NH)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Schwarz (MI)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--189

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Case
     Chandler
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--23

     Boswell
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brown, Corrine
     Camp
     Conyers
     Davis (IL)
     DeLay
     Doolittle
     Fattah
     Green, Gene
     Hefley
     Hinojosa
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     McMorris
     Millender-McDonald
     Murtha
     Ortiz
     Peterson (MN)
     Poe
     Rush
     Sabo
     Weller


                Announcement By The Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote) (Mr. Latham). There are 2 
minutes remaining in this vote.

                              {time}  1151

  Messrs. FRANK of Massachusetts, SCOTT of Virginia, RANGEL, and 
MOLLOHAN changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:

[[Page 21074]]

  Miss McMORRIS. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 486 I was unavoidably 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

                          ____________________