[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 8]
[House]
[Pages 11007-11016]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1429, IMPROVING HEAD START ACT OF 
                                  2007

  Ms. CASTOR. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 348 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 348

       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. 1429) to reauthorize the Head Start Act, to 
     improve program quality, to expand access, 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 except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule 
     XXI. 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 Labor. 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 Labor now printed in the bill. The committee 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered 
     as read. All points of order against the committee amendment 
     in the nature of a substitute are waived except those arising 
     under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. 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

[[Page 11008]]

     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 except those arising under clause 
     9 or 10 of rule XXI. 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.
       Sec. 2. During consideration in the House of H.R. 1429 
     pursuant to this resolution, notwithstanding the operation of 
     the previous question, the Chair may postpone further 
     consideration of the bill to such time as may be designated 
     by the Speaker.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor) is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Ms. CASTOR. For the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 
minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart). All 
time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.


                             General Leave

  Ms. CASTOR. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks 
and insert extraneous materials into the Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. CASTOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 348 provides for consideration of H.R. 
1429, the Improving Head Start Act of 2007, under a structured rule.
  The rule provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by 
the chairman and the ranking minority member of the Committee on 
Education and Labor. The rules waive all points of order against the 
bill except those arising under clauses 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The rule 
makes in order and provides appropriate waivers for 12 amendments, all 
contained in the committee report.
  Mr. Speaker, for more than 40 years Head Start has served as the 
premier educational and developmental program for more than 20 million 
American children and families. Head Start works. It works because it 
is a well-researched, comprehensive initiative that combines children's 
educational needs with health care and parent outreach.
  This comprehensive approach to child health, nutrition and learning 
is one of our best tools to tackle the achievement gap in education for 
children living in poverty across our Nation.
  The achievement gap begins far before children enter elementary 
school. Head Start tackles the achievement gap through cognitive, 
social and emotional child development, each of which is a key 
contributor to entering elementary school prepared to succeed.
  Today 20 percent of America's 12 million children under age 6 live in 
poverty. We know that a family's income level greatly affects their 
children's access to educational opportunities. The reality of poverty 
for so many children, unfortunately, is tied to low success rates in 
our classrooms. This is true in my home State of Florida. In my 
community in the Tampa Bay area, over 5,300 children currently are 
served by Head Start, but many thousands more are on waiting lists and 
are eligible.
  They are on waiting lists because for so many years previous 
Congresses have failed to reenact Head Start, and the White House has 
proposed flat-line budgets, so our kids merely have been treading 
water. With no improvements or increases in funding since 2003, and 
inflation going up, it has become more difficult to maintain the well-
known, high-quality elements in Head Start.
  The good news is that this new Congress will change that today and 
make the smartest investment for our country's future workforce. We are 
going to put more kids on the path to success when we pass this bill 
and rule today.
  This bill will improve teacher and classroom quality, strengthen the 
focus on school readiness, expand access to thousands more children 
across America, strengthen comprehensive services, increase the number 
of children in early Head Start, because we are a lot smarter these 
days based upon the research that has been done on early child 
development and the development of the brain. We are going to allow 
homeless children to enroll, and we are going to do a better job, my 
colleague from Florida, for children who are just learning English.
  On Monday, I paid a visit to the West Tampa Head Start Center and 
delivered books to the kids and teachers to mark the four decades of 
smashing success of this holistic, wraparound initiative that empowers 
all of us. These children are eager and ready to learn if we give them 
the tools.
  We need to raise strong and healthy children. Head Start prepares 
children to succeed in school and in life. The administration's slow-
motion cuts of Head Start over past years will now be reversed. The 
American people stood up in November and asked for change, and today we 
are going to stand up for them.

                              {time}  1130

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would like to 
thank my friend, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor) for the 
time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  It is very important for the future of our children that they develop 
the skills and receive the education necessary to make them a success 
later in life. Unfortunately, many children begin their education 
without the proper foundation, putting them at a disadvantage that has 
long-term effects on their education.
  We must do all we can so that low-income children do not begin their 
education at a disadvantage. That is why the Head Start program was 
created.
  In order to give children the proper foundation they need to begin 
their education, the Head Start program provides comprehensive early 
childhood education development services. These services include child 
development, educational, health, nutritional, social and other 
activities. These services prepare children to enter kindergarten and 
for their continued educational success.
  In fiscal year 2005, the Head Start program provided developmental 
services to over 900,000 children, 35,000 of them in my State of 
Florida. Most of the children that receive the critical developmental 
skills offered by the Head Start program come from low-income families, 
and at Head Start they receive the early educational foundation to do 
well in their later education and hopefully break the chain of poverty.
  The underlying legislation being brought to the floor today builds on 
the success of the program and improves its weaknesses. It authorizes 
over $7 billion for fiscal year 2008, strengthens Head Start's academic 
standards by emphasizing cognitive development and topics critical to 
school readiness.
  It is important that the children in Head Start receive the best 
education possible. There are, Mr. Speaker, several provisions in the 
underlying legislation that I believe will help with this goal. First, 
the bill seeks to ensure that a greater number of Head Start teachers 
are better trained and educated in early childhood development, 
particularly in fundamental skills such as language, pre-reading and 
pre-mathematics, within 2 years.
  Competition encourages better quality. As recommended by a 2005 GAO 
study, the bill seeks to increase competition among Head Start grantees 
to help weed out poor performers and offer stronger programs.
  The bill also seeks greater transparency and disclosure regarding how 
Head Start funds are spent. This will help to fight financial abuse and 
further ensure that Federal Head Start funds reach the disadvantaged 
children that they are meant to serve.

[[Page 11009]]

  Yesterday, in the Rules Committee, Mr. Speaker, Resident Commissioner 
Fortuno offered an amendment to this legislation to allow religious 
organizations to not ignore religion in their hiring practices. The 
provision was included in previous Head Start reauthorization bills. 
However, the majority on the Rules Committee blocked that amendment 
from consideration today by the full House.
  Head Start has a proud history of inclusion of faith-based 
organizations. Approximately 80 grantees have religious affiliations. 
Without the Fortuno amendment, faith-based Head Start grantees may 
decide to stop offering Head Start programs. That would hurt the 
children in those programs.
  In 2004, the Department of Health and Human Services issued 
regulations requiring any organization that receives direct financial 
assistance from the Department, such as Head Start, to not engage in 
inherently religious activities such as worship, religious instruction 
or proselytizing as part of the program or services funded by HHS. So 
objections to the Fortuno amendment, in my opinion, are unfounded.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. CASTOR. Mr. Speaker, I anticipate on the floor of the House today 
we will hear some debate over the role of faith-based organizations in 
Head Start. Republicans would like language that would repeal existing 
civil rights protections in this Head Start law that ensure the 
program's Federal funds discriminate, and we are opposed to that.
  No citizen should have to pass a religious test to qualify for a 
publicly funded job. That is exactly what some on the other side of the 
aisle will attempt to do today.
  Religious organizations who run Head Start programs are not asking 
for this change. They have written us to oppose it. Head Start teachers 
and staff should be chosen because they are qualified and they are 
effective teachers who will help children succeed and thrive. Hiring 
and firing decisions should not be made because of a teacher's 
religion.
  This is part of an ongoing attempt, I am afraid, by some on the other 
side of the aisle to make religion a wedge issue.
  Democrats strongly support faith-based organizations running Head 
Start programs, and H.R. 1429 on the floor today specifically reaffirms 
that faith-based organizations may run Head Start programs.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. 
Welch), my colleague from the Rules Committee.
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague 
from Florida for her national leadership on an issue of national 
importance, Head Start.
  Later today I will be joining with my colleagues, Representative 
Space from Ohio, Representative Hare from Illinois, and Representative 
Altmire from Pennsylvania to offer an amendment that will require the 
Secretary of Health and Human Services to pay special attention to the 
unique needs and challenges that our rural kids face to have access to 
Head Start.
  This is a great program, as was described by my colleague from 
Florida, but there is a misconception oftentimes that Head Start is 
about urban America, poor kids from cities. In fact, there are many 
poor kids from rural America that benefit from access to Head Start, 
and as a federally funded national program, we know the different 
communities have different needs.
  The National Advisory Committee on Rural Health and Human Services, 
in fact, acknowledged this when it issued a report that found several 
issues to be particular challenges for rural America in access to Head 
Start: transportation, workforce, enrollment fluctuation, performance 
standards, health requirements and financial matching.
  What we know is that one size does not fit all, but what we also know 
is the opportunity for all is an essential American goal.
  This amendment, when it is offered, is directing the Secretary to 
make certain that those special challenges that our rural kids face in 
America are included in an execution plan so that there will be 
opportunity for the rural kids as well as the urban kids.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to 
the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon), the distinguished ranking 
member of the Education and Labor Committee.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule and 
appreciate the gentleman yielding time.
  To be blunt, the rule before us is not worthy of the bill we will be 
debating in just a short while. Let me be clear at the outset. I 
support the improving Head Start Act and will vote for its final 
passage later today. However, the rule before us restricts debate and 
provides very little opportunity to improve this bill.
  While I appreciate the Rules Committee making in order a few 
Republican amendments, including ones offered by my Education and Labor 
Committee colleague, Mr. Price of Georgia; my former committee 
colleague, Mr. Porter of Nevada; and my friend, Mr. Putnam, this rule 
is defined more by what it does not include than what it does include.
  Yesterday, Mr. Fortuno submitted to the Rules Committee an amendment 
to protect the civil rights of faith-based organizations wishing to 
provide services to Head Start children. In the aftermath of September 
11, Hurricane Katrina or any other tragedy, faith-based organizations 
have been among the first to reach out a hand in service to those 
impacted by the event. It does not take a large-scale catastrophe to 
rally faith-based organizations into action, however. These groups are 
working to assist their fellow Americans each and every day, focusing 
on issues from job training to child care and everything in between.
  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. Mr. 
Fortuno's amendment would have protected the rights of faith-based 
groups to fully participate in serving Head Start children without 
relinquishing their religious identities. And the majority turned it 
away.
  Mr. Speaker, they turned it away even though the 1964 Civil Rights 
Act made clear when faith-based groups hire employees on a religious 
basis, it is an exercise of the group's civil liberties. They turned it 
away even though in 1987, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously upheld 
this right. And they turned it away even though former President Bill 
Clinton signed four laws explicitly allowing faith-based groups to 
staff on a religious basis when they receive Federal funds.
  In its place, they allowed us to debate an amendment that applauds 
the work of faith-based providers but fails to protect their civil 
rights. This hollow amendment may provide certain Members of the 
majority political cover, but in reality, it does nothing to protect 
the constitutional rights of faith-based organizations seeking to serve 
Head Start students.
  This is just one example, the most significant of all, of how this 
rule is not worthy of the bill we will be debating later today, and so 
I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule.
  Ms. CASTOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Ohio (Ms. Sutton), my colleague from the Rules Committee.
  Ms. SUTTON. I thank the gentlewoman for her leadership and for 
yielding the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the rule and of H.R. 
1429, the Improving Head Start Act of 2007.
  Head Start is vital for our children in high-need areas, providing 
them with programming critical to their cognitive development, from 
math and reading instruction, to nutritional and social services for 
students' families.
  In 2006, over 900,000 children, almost all of them under 5 years old, 
participated in Head Start.
  In my home State of Ohio, Head Start serves more than 38,000 young 
people, including more than 2,500 children in my congressional district 
alone. These children come from some

[[Page 11010]]

of the most high-need families in our Nation, and Head Start does 
exactly what its name suggests. It gives these children a head start, 
helping them achieve at or above their age level by the time they leave 
the program.
  Unfortunately, children in families facing difficult economic 
situations often begin school behind their wealthier peers. Head Start 
achieves amazing results for these children and is often the only 
program keeping them from falling behind.
  Despite the crucial role Head Start plays in the lives of hundreds of 
thousands of American children, Congress has neglected them has 
neglected to reauthorize or adequately fund this program for the past 4 
years.
  This important legislation authorizes funding for Head Start through 
fiscal year 2012 and makes a number of long overdue improvements to the 
program.
  Our bill increases funding for teacher and staff salaries and 
benefits and will improve the classroom environment by lowering the 
student-to-teacher ratio. These changes will give our hardworking 
teachers and other educational staff more opportunity to work with 
their students and improve their academic performance.
  This legislation also helps program hire and retain qualified 
teachers and staff by increasing salary and benefits and supporting 
professional development plans. And this bill will expand access to 
10,000 additional children.
  This Congress is making a commitment to our children and the Head 
Start program, and it is critical that we do so. Research has shown 
that children attending Head Start are more likely to graduate from 
high school than other low-income children. Research has also proven 
that children who attend Head Start are less likely to enter special 
education, are less likely to repeat a grade and are less likely to end 
up in the criminal courts in adolescence.
  Mr. Speaker, this legislation will give more of our children the help 
and assistance they need. With passage of this legislation, we are not 
only providing our children with the opportunity for a brighter future, 
we are building a brighter future for our country.
  I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this bill so we can keep our 
promise to America's children.

                              {time}  1145

  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to 
the distinguished gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle).
  Mr. CASTLE. I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule. While I appreciate 
the Rules Committee making in order several of the proposed amendments, 
including an amendment offered by Mr. Price of Georgia to create a 
State demonstration program that allows up to eight States to 
coordinate Head Start with other State-run early childhood development 
programs, this rule unfortunately limits improving the Head Start Act 
further by not allowing for debate on several Republican amendments.
  Although I oppose this rule, I do support the underlying bill, the 
Improving Head Start Act of 2007 to reauthorize the Head Start program. 
This legislation improves the Head Start Act by emphasizing that every 
child, regardless of their economic status, should have the best chance 
possible to succeed.
  We all can agree on the need for Head Start and its successes. We 
must also recognize that Head Start can produce even greater results 
for children. Students who attend Head Start programs generally start 
school more prepared than those with similar backgrounds that do not 
attend Head Start. However, Head Start students continue to enter 
kindergarten well below national norms in school readiness. By moving 
to close the school readiness gap, this bill will improve results for 
almost 1 million Head Start students across almost all of the Nation.
  Towards the goal of closing the readiness gap, the Improving Head 
Start Act of 2007 strengthens Head Start's academic focus while 
maintaining its comprehensive nature. The bill improves the academic 
focus of the program by establishing new quality standards that ensure 
enrolled children develop and demonstrate language skills; prereading 
knowledge, including an interest in and an appreciation of books, 
reading and writing either alone or with others; premathematics 
knowledge, such as recognition of numbers and counting; cognitive 
abilities related to academic achievement; and social development 
important for environments constructive for child development, early 
learning and school success.
  The Improving Head Start Act of 2007 builds upon the reforms of 
previous reauthorizations of Head Start, as well as the requirements of 
the landmark No Child Left Behind Act, and the vision of President Bush 
and Secretary Leavitt. We all want to do what is best for our children, 
and I truly believe the underlying bill does that.
  Ms. CASTOR. Mr. Speaker, I would inquire of the gentleman from 
Florida if he has any remaining speakers.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. We have two speakers remaining.
  Ms. CASTOR. Our side has no remaining speakers, except for my 
closing.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5\1/2\ 
minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder).
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this bill, but 
in opposition to this rule.
  I would first like to talk a little bit about some of the unique 
history of Head Start that I think is important as we move into the 
discussions of the amendments and the bill itself.
  Head Start is a moderately successful program. Because it's a 
moderately successful program, often it's oversold. It's only 
moderately successful, but it's very difficult to get any program to 
succeed in the highest-risk populations of America, as we learned in No 
Child Left Behind and other programs trying to reach those who have 
been left behind by the economic growth of America, by the 
opportunities in America, in the low-income urban communities and the 
low-income suburban communities.
  To have modest success is actually a tremendous accomplishment in 
Head Start. So how did Head Start perform differently, and what was the 
concept behind it that made it unique?
  On the left and on the right, there would be, for lack of a better 
word, a populist empowerment faction in both parties. In the sixties, 
the community action movement said we need to stop the top-down 
approach and do a more bottom-up approach and involve the communities 
in poverty themselves in making their own decisions.
  That entails certain risks, because they may not, when you let people 
vote their own decisions and make their own decisions, do what 
government exactly wants them to do, or what college-educated Ph.D.s 
come into that community and think is best for that community.
  One of the key debates last year when this came to the floor was 
whether the Head Start policy councils should allow the parents to have 
a vote. The bill was altered to take that vote away from parents and 
basically make the parents hood ornaments; say we have parental 
involvement, but take the breathing lifeblood of those Head Start 
programs away.
  I am very pleased that in this Congress, after seeing the probable 
defeat on the House floor, had it not been blocked by the leaders of 
both sides, it is now in this year's bill. Parents will continue to 
have a vote and continue to make this a grassroots program.
  But there is another part of this bill that I oppose, and there is an 
amendment made in order under this rule that makes it even worse, and 
that is to require 50 percent of the teachers to have a college degree. 
That sounds like a great goal, but if you understand that this is 
preschool, and part of the goal here was to get the parents involved, 
unlike what's happening in the elementary schools and the high schools 
in many of these urban and rural areas, the parents don't get involved.
  Partly what happens in Head Start councils is parents get involved. 
Often

[[Page 11011]]

they get hired as teachers and teachers' aides. They are from the 
community. There is research suggesting, and no research to the 
contrary, that the net impact of moving to this 50 percent requirement 
in 2013 is going to result in less teachers of color in the urban 
areas. That's the practical net result.
  Fewer parents will go to literacy courses and evolve then into 
getting a GED and helping to teach their own kids. You will miss the 
magic of this program, which is empowerment and getting the parents 
involved, which is what we should be looking for in elementary schools. 
There is an amendment to take the 2013 goal down to 2011, I believe. 
That makes a bad clause worse. I hope that amendment gets defeated on 
the floor.
  There is one other amendment in this bill that is a bad amendment. 
There is nothing wrong with the amendment, it's existing law. It's what 
I would call a fake faith-based amendment. If an organization follows 
all the secular rules in hiring and in principles, they have always 
been, always been, eligible for government grants. The dispute that has 
arisen in faith-based is not whether, if you have a secular board and 
don't impose any religious principles on your organization, you can't 
proselytize. That has already been ruled by the courts. You can't pray 
if you get government funds during the time that any program is funded 
by government. You can't refuse to cover somebody.
  The question is can a faith-based organization that may have church 
rules, for example, can only males be preachers or priests? Can you 
have somebody who is homosexual in a church position in your church? 
Can you fire somebody for adultery, things that many, if not most, 
major Christian denominations, Orthodox Jews, Muslim organizations have 
as rules in their denominations? They are not eligible under the 
Democrat faith-based rule.
  This is a legitimate debate. I grant that it's a legitimate debate, 
and we have had it on the House floor. But we should not pretend that 
we are protecting faith-based organizations, when we are, in fact, 
taking away the historic civil rights protection that has always been 
granted under, quote, faith-based. A religion is exempt from normal 
rules in how they hire, because they believe they reflect their faith.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask to include into the Record an article by Ron 
Sider, who has written a book that was much ballyhooed in the last 
election cycle about the faith-based movement not just being 
conservative right-wingers.

                          [From First Things]

                    The Case for ``Discrimination''

                          (by Ronald J. Sider)

       I'm a long-time Democrat. In 1972, I organized a group 
     called ``Evangelicals for McGovern/Shriver'' and helped 
     McGovern sweep--well, the great state of Massachusetts.
       As a Democrat, I have been deeply dismayed by how out of 
     touch with the American mainstream the party has proven to be 
     on the issue of faith-based initiatives, particularly on the 
     issue of the so-called hiring exemption. (For a discussion of 
     other aspects of the initiative, see Joseph Loconte, 
     ``Keeping the Faith,'' FT, May.)
       A vast majority of Americans believe that as a society we 
     have lost our moral moorings and that we must reaffirm the 
     role of religious faith in nurturing persons of integrity and 
     fostering a just, stable society. It is in that context that 
     we must evaluate the Democratic leadership's opposition to 
     allowing faith-based organizations that accept government 
     funds to show preference in hiring to those who embrace the 
     organization's basic religious beliefs and practices. 
     Democratic President Bill Clinton signed three Charitable 
     Choice bills that explicitly included this hiring exemption. 
     Presidential candidate Al Gore embraced Charitable Choice. 
     But when the Bush Administration's legislation expanding 
     Charitable Choice moved to the Senate in mid-2001, the 
     Democratic leadership blocked even the consideration of such 
     legislation--largely on the charge that the hiring exemption 
     amounted to employment discrimination.
       In other words, the Democratic leadership has come to 
     believe that religious organizations must give up their long-
     recognized right to hire staff who share their faith 
     commitments in order to receive federal money that provides 
     needed services to the public. In this, the Democrats are 
     wrong.
       To begin with, a religious organization's decision to hire 
     staff who share its religious beliefs and practices is not an 
     example of intolerant discrimination, but rather a positive 
     act of freedom. In a free society, a wide variety of 
     organizations--environmental organizations, feminist groups, 
     unions--are left free to select staff who share their core 
     commitments and who agree with their agenda. This right does 
     not disappear if governments choose to request these private 
     organizations to perform some desired tasks. Planned 
     Parenthood, for example, does not lose its right not to hire 
     pro-life staff simply because it has a government contract. 
     It is precisely the denial of this right to religious 
     organizations that would amount to intolerant discrimination 
     instead of the promotion of a free and open society.
       To equate this positive good with the evil of 
     discrimination on the basis of things like race or disability 
     is pure confusion. Whether we think that religion is a 
     medieval superstition or a true and good contributor to 
     social well-being, all who believe in religious freedom 
     should insist that religious organizations be permitted to 
     hire staff who share their religious beliefs.
       The obvious fact is that the ability to choose staff who 
     share a religious organization's core beliefs is essential if 
     that organization wishes to retain its basic identity. As 
     Justice William Brennan wrote in Corporation of the Presiding 
     Bishop v. Amos (1987): ``Determining that certain activities 
     are in furtherance of an organization's religious mission and 
     that only those committed to that mission should conduct them 
     is . . . a means by which a religious community defines 
     itself.'' A Jewish organization forced to hire substantial 
     numbers of Baptist staffers, for example, will not long 
     remain a significantly Jewish organization.
       Having staff who share a religious organization's essential 
     religious beliefs shapes the group's identity in a variety of 
     ways. Shared motivation, common values, a sense of community 
     and unity of purpose, shared experiences of prayer and 
     worship (even if they are outside work time in the 
     organization) all contribute to an esprit de corps and shared 
     organizational vision. As law professor Ira C. Lupu said in 
     testimony before a House subcommittee (June 7, 2001), ``The 
     sense of religious community and spirit on which [the] 
     success of the group's efforts depend'' may be hampered if it 
     is forced to hire those who do not share its beliefs.
       This is important even when, for example, a faith-centered 
     organization chooses to separate by location or time (and 
     fund with private money) sectarian worship, instruction, and 
     proselytization in a program in order to receive direct 
     government grants. This is true for several reasons.
       First of all, religious activities may be important to the 
     social service program, even though they are voluntary, 
     privately funded, and segregated from ``secular'' government-
     funded activities. In such programs, holding certain 
     religious beliefs and practices is a legitimate qualification 
     for a staff position, equally as valid as having the right 
     skills and experience.
       Second, enforced religious diversity can have the effect of 
     stifling religious expression of staff within the agency, 
     creating a climate of fear of offending other staff members 
     with religious speech or actions. Since personal faith is 
     very important to many who choose to work in a religious 
     organization, such a climate can diminish staff motivation 
     and effectiveness. Forced religious diversity can sap a 
     program's spiritual vitality and lead to its secularization.
       Third, staff often play multiple roles in small 
     organizations. For example, an agency might seek someone to 
     work part-time as a youth minister and part-time as a social 
     worker for its youth mentoring program. Implementing a policy 
     in which religion could be considered as a factor in hiring 
     for some job duties but not others would lead to 
     unnecessarily complicated and impermissibly entangling 
     regulations.
       But even leaving aside the effects of such regulation on 
     religious organizations themselves, the rationale behind it 
     makes little sense. The fact that a religious organization 
     accepts some federal funds does not mean that it ceases to be 
     an independent, autonomous entity and becomes an arm or agent 
     of the state. Law, precedent, and common sense all argue that 
     a private organization that accepts some government funds 
     still retains its separate identity. This is clearly the case 
     with colleges and universities that receive government 
     funding, scholars engaged in federally subsidized research, 
     and artists and artistic organizations funded by the National 
     Endowment for the Arts. All of these receive government 
     funding, and all maintain their autonomy from the government. 
     Similarly, a religious organization that receives government 
     funds to provide a public service that serves a public good 
     would maintain its autonomy and not be co-opted by 
     government.
       Moreover, not only does allowing hiring preferences based 
     on religious belief within religious organizations pose no 
     social danger, it is the only way to avoid discrimination and 
     governmental preference of one religious view over another. 
     Using the typology of different types of faith-based 
     organizations recently published by the Working Group on 
     Human Needs and Faith-Based and Community Initiatives chaired 
     by former Democratic Senator Harris Wofford helps explain 
     this point.
       ``Faith-saturated'' and ``faith-centered'' programs both 
     include substantial religious

[[Page 11012]]

     content in their programs and hire (primarily or exclusively) 
     employees who share their beliefs precisely because their 
     religious beliefs tell them that persons are spiritual as 
     well as material beings and therefore the best results follow 
     when spiritual and material transformation are combined. 
     ``Faith-related,'' ``faith-background,'' and ``secular'' 
     providers do not include significant religious content in 
     their program or consider religious belief in their staffing 
     because their worldview tells them that all that is needed to 
     correct dysfunctional social behavior and social problems is 
     socio-economic, material transformation. All these providers, 
     not just the first two, are grounded in an explicit or 
     implicit religious perspective. Secular providers work at 
     least implicitly within a naturalistic worldview (nothing 
     exists except the natural world) that functions in effect as 
     a religious perspective. Functionally, faith-related and 
     faith-background providers operate with deistic religious 
     beliefs (God exists but never intervenes in the natural world 
     of cause and effect). Naturalism and deism, however, are just 
     as much particular religious worldviews as the historic 
     theism that undergirds most faith-saturated and faith-
     centered programs.
       Obviously, if government only funds some private providers 
     of services (i.e., the naturalistic and deistic ones that do 
     not explicitly use religious criteria for staff), government 
     clearly discriminates among religions.
       Thus far, I have argued that as a matter of principle 
     religious freedom is such a fundamental right that it ought 
     to prevail even if on occasion embracing that overriding 
     principle has the secondary effect of, for example, reducing 
     the number of job opportunities for a particular group. For 
     example, the Catholic Church must, as a matter of principle, 
     be free to live out its religious belief (which I do not 
     share) that only men should be priests, even if the practice 
     has the effect of reducing the number of job possibilities 
     for women.
       My last point offers an argument, not about principle, but 
     about practical effect. The recent suggestion that extending 
     the hiring exemption to faith-based organizations (FBOs) 
     would in practice mean that African-Americans or gay 
     Americans would suffer a loss of job opportunities is simply 
     wrong.
       There is a certain tension between two treasured values: on 
     the one hand, protecting the religious freedom and identity 
     of FBOs as they expand their effective services to the most 
     needy; on the other, our society's conviction that except in 
     the case of a narrow range of specific situations, employers 
     should not discriminate on the basis of religion.
       But do such hiring preferences really result in job 
     deprivation? Hardly at all.
       First, we are talking about a small percentage of the total 
     jobs in the society. Second, many FBOs pay almost no 
     attention to the religious beliefs of staff. Third, in the 
     case of those evangelical Christian, Orthodox Jewish, and 
     Muslim FBOs that do, virtually all the different religious 
     groups have their own FBOs offering a hiring preference to 
     people who share their own beliefs.
       For very understandable historical reasons, African-
     Americans have been concerned that racial discrimination 
     might find cover under the hiring exemption based on 
     religious belief. This is extremely unlikely to happen. FBOs 
     working in minority communities are run either by people of 
     the same racial group or by whites who have been at the 
     forefront of fighting racial prejudice.
       What about sexual orientation? Few FBOs ask about or select 
     staff on the basis of sexual orientation. It is true that a 
     number of FBOs do say that staff should not be sexually 
     active outside marriage. But is that really so terrible--
     especially for FBOs working to overcome poverty in a society 
     where a child growing up in a single-parent household is 
     eleven times more likely to be persistently poor than a child 
     growing up in a two-parent family?
       Even if the hiring exemption in Charitable Choice were 
     expanded to a lot more government funding streams, sexually 
     (and openly) active gay Americans would face extremely little 
     job deprivation. The number in that group is very small and 
     the number of jobs affected is a minuscule fraction of the 
     total number of jobs. Gay FBOs exist and others can be formed 
     that give a hiring preference to those who share that 
     ethical/religious belief. Surely the well-educated gay 
     community does not want to block an enormously promising way 
     to overcome poverty and social decay for millions of 
     desperate Americans to avoid what in practice would at worst 
     mean only the loss of a handful of possible jobs.
       Constitutionally, Charitable Choice strikes the right 
     balance between the no-establishment and free exercise 
     clauses of the First Amendment. Morally, it offers promise 
     for major progress in overcoming some of our most intractable 
     social problems. Politically, Charitable Choice and the 
     broader Faith-Based Initiatives have rightly become 
     identified with the widespread sense that we have lost our 
     way morally as a society. By remaining steadfastly opposed to 
     allowing religious organizations to contribute to solving 
     social problems, the Democrats harm our country as well as 
     their future electoral prospects. Only at great peril dare 
     Democrats be on the wrong side of today's widespread embrace 
     of religious faith's crucial contribution to social 
     wholeness. If that happens, they will deserve a repetition of 
     1972.

  The fact is whether you are left or right in the faith-based 
movement, you have to agree that you have to keep the principles of 
religion if you are going to keep your spiritual vitality. Particularly 
in urban America and in rural America, the churches and the vitality is 
what needs to be brought into poverty and reaching out.
  We can have a legitimate debate over whether government funds should 
go in there. I believe it would help the programs. It has been an 
historic right. But the amendment that is in front of us is not a 
faith-based amendment. It's only allowing faith-based groups to 
participate if they secularize and drop their unique faith.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to insert into the Record a statement on 
the policy councils from Congressman Danny Davis and me.

                                     House of Representatives,

                                    Washington, DC, March 9, 2007.
     Hon. George Miller,
     Chairman, House Committee on Education and Labor, Rayburn 
         House Office Building, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Howard ``Buck'' McKeon,
     Ranking Member, House Committee on Education and Labor, 
         Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Miller and Ranking Member McKeon: For more 
     than forty years, one of the most unique and important 
     aspects of the Head Start program has been its emphasis on 
     parental involvement Head Start has enabled parents, as 
     representatives on Head Start policy councils, to participate 
     in making important decisions regarding budget, programming, 
     and personnel. As the Committee plans to mark up its Head 
     Start reauthorization bill this coming week, we believe that 
     preserving this structure of governance is fundamental to the 
     continued success of the program.
       Under current law, Head Start boards of directors and 
     policy councils share the responsibility of managing a Head 
     Start program. This partnership helps to ensure that there is 
     a system of checks and balances in place and that the 
     important voices of experts in accounting, finance, and early 
     education are balanced with the equally important voices of 
     parents who have children in the program. Many of our 
     constituents who are involved with Head Start have told us 
     that policy council members, especially parents, often have a 
     much greater day-to-day knowledge of the program than the 
     board of directors and are thus better able to provide 
     accountability. Indeed, a 2005 GAO report found that calls 
     from parents are often the first signal to Head Start 
     regional offices that a program is struggling with 
     mismanagement.
       As the Education and Labor Committee prepares for its 
     markup, we want to ensure that it does not diminish the role 
     of parent policy councils. We believe this would undermine 
     the future success of the Head Start program and, in turn, 
     the success of thousands of at-risk children and their 
     parents. Like both of you, we believe there should be 
     stronger accountability within Head Start programs. The 2005 
     GAO report, for example, cited a lack of oversight from the 
     HHS regional offices and Head Start boards of directors as 
     sizable obstacles to improved accountability. However, these 
     reforms need not come at the expense of parental involvement 
     in the program. Any Head Start reauthorization bill must 
     preserve the current oversight role of the policy councils 
     with regard to board actions in key areas such as budget, 
     programming, and personnel, if they are to maintain their 
     current vital role within the program.
       Again, we ask that the chairman's mark of the Head Start 
     reauthorization bill retain the current shared governance 
     structure of the policy councils and board of directors. The 
     current structure has helped to successful1y prepare hundreds 
     of thousands of low-income children to enter kindergarten and 
     empowered thousands of parents to take greater roles in the 
     lives of their children and communities. Thank you for your 
     attention to this matter. If you have any questions, please 
     contact Jill Hunter-Williams with Rep. Davis at 225-5006 or 
     Brett Swearingen with Rep. Souder at 225-4436.
           Sincerely,
         Danny K. Davis; Donald M. Payne; Robert C. Scott; Linda 
           T. Sanchez; John F. Terney; David Wu; John A. Yarmuth.
         Mark Souder; Ric Keller; Todd Russell Platts; Rob Bishop; 
           Timothy Walberg; Raul M. Grijalva; Virginia Foxx.

  Ms. CASTOR. Mr. Speaker, we do have one final speaker before my 
closing remarks.
  I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).
  Mr. KIND. I thank the gentlewoman from Florida for yielding me this 
time.

[[Page 11013]]

  Mr. Speaker, I do rise in support of the rule and strong support of 
the reauthorization of the Improving Head Start Act of 2007.
  As a former member of the Education and Workforce Committee over the 
last 10 years, I have been heavily involved in Head Start programs, the 
reauthorization process in previous Congresses, and had an opportunity 
to visit many of the Head Start centers throughout my congressional 
district throughout western Wisconsin. They are doing a terrific job 
not only helping our children, typically, who are very high-risk, high-
need children, get off to literally a head start when it comes to their 
individual development and education, but also working very closely, as 
my friend from Indiana just highlighted previously, the close 
partnership with the parents of those children, which is crucial to the 
success of this program.
  I want to commend the members of the committee for producing this 
product, in particular Chairman Miller and chairman of the 
subcommittee, Dale Kildee, along with Ranking Member Castle and Ranking 
Member Buck McKeon. I know a lot of them have collaborated and worked 
closely to produce this.
  There are two features in particular that I want to highlight and 
commend. One is making sure we get the measurements of these kids done 
right. I led the effort in previous Congresses to see if we could 
suspend the National Reporting System. This was based on studies that 
the National Academy of Sciences had made asking us to slow down in 
this assessment and standard practice until they could develop what 
they feel are the proper forms of measurement for kids at this age, 
because if we get that wrong, they said, we could actually do more harm 
to the children with improper measurements and assessments than doing 
good.
  I am glad to see that this legislation now recognizes that suspension 
of the National Reporting System gives the National Academy of Sciences 
a chance to report back with recommendations and guidelines on what 
proper measurements of these children should be.
  The second feature is requiring programs to consult with child care 
health experts in developing proper nutrition and physical education 
programs for kids at this age.
  In light of childhood obesity and type 2 juvenile diabetes, it's 
going to be important that we do everything we can to make sure that 
our kids are getting off to the right start when it comes to quality-
of-life issues, make sure that they are not going to start smoking or 
taking drugs, but also taking the proper nutrition and involved in the 
proper physical activities to make sure that they have healthy bodies 
to go along with the healthy minds that Head Start is meant to produce.
  Those two provisions in particular I commend, and I encourage a 
strong bipartisan vote for this important bill.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to 
my distinguished colleague and friend from Florida (Mr. Weldon).
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, the Democratic majority pays lip service to their 
support of religious people and faith-based groups, but now they are 
here today, in this House, enacting a piece of legislation that I 
believe is a shot across the bow to all faith-based organizations that 
are involved in social services in this country. The Head Start bill 
today says that if you participate in the grant process, you will not 
be able to hire like-minded people to work in your child-care facility.
  The Democrats are saying that a bureaucracy in Washington, D.C., has 
more wisdom to decide who you can and can't hire than the hundreds, 
thousands of small businesses that run these Head Start programs. The 
Democrats are essentially saying, with this legislation, while we thank 
you for your tireless dedication and recognize that you are an integral 
part of this process, we don't trust you to make fair choices in the 
employees that you hire.
  Don't be misled. This is in direct contradiction to the Civil Rights 
Act of 1964 and the Supreme Court, both of which came to the conclusion 
that faith-based organizations had the right to hire employees on a 
religious basis. Faith-based organizations such as churches, synagogues 
and other faith-based charities are a central part of the fabric of 
communities all across America. Many of these organizations provide 
assistance and services to the neediest members of society, offering a 
helping hand to the less fortunate among us. Many faith-based 
organizations can and want to make a vital contribution to the Federal 
assistance programs.
  The landmark 1964 Civil Rights Act explicitly protects the rights of 
religious organizations to take religion into account in their hiring 
practices. In fact, the Civil Rights Act made clear that when faith-
based organizations hire employees on a religious basis, it is an 
exercise of the organization's civil liberties and does not constitute 
discrimination under Federal law.
  The freedom to hire those who share religious beliefs was upheld in a 
unanimous 1987 Supreme Court decision, Corporation of the Presiding 
Bishop v. Amos, in which the Court observed, ``A law is not 
unconstitutional simply because it allows churches to advance religion, 
which is their very purpose. For a law to have forbidden 'effect' . . . 
it must be fair to say that the government itself has advanced religion 
through its own activities and influence.''
  Now, in an attempt to appease Republicans and conservative Democrats, 
an alternative amendment will be provided by the gentleman from North 
Carolina. This amendment, in effect, praises the work of faith-based 
organizations, but tells them they have to give up their right to hire 
who they want to hire to participate in Head Start.

                              {time}  1200

  Current Federal law protects the Civil Rights Act hiring protections 
for faith-based organizations and providers. And, indeed, as was stated 
earlier by a previous speaker, President Bill Clinton signed four laws 
protecting religious organizations in this context.
  Now, I want to close by just pointing out a very, very simple fact. 
There is a reason why on the floor today the amendment to correct this 
problem will not be allowed, and the reason is because it will pass. A 
majority of this Congress, Republicans working with Blue Dog Democrats, 
would pass the Fortuno amendment which would protect these faith-based 
religious organizations. We had many of the Blue Dogs vote with us on 
this issue in the past. But, alas, under this rule, and it is why I am 
imploring my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote ``no'' on 
this rule, that amendment will not be allowed and we will be asked to 
stifle the freedom of religion in the United States.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Again, I thank my friend, Ms. 
Castor, for the time and her courtesy, and all those who have 
participated in this debate.
  Mr. Speaker, I will be asking for a ``no'' vote on the previous 
question so that I can amend this restrictive rule to make in order the 
amendment offered by Congressman Price of Georgia, which seeks to make 
regulations for emergency rear door exits and safety belts on vehicles 
used to transport children effective upon enactment of H.R. 1429. This 
extremely important amendment was denied by the Democrats in the 
majority last night in the Rules Committee.
  In 1992, Congress required the issuance of regulations related to 
rear door emergency exits and safety restraints on Head Start 
transportation. Since the final rule for these new regulations was 
published in 2001, the effective date has been delayed three times.
  Mr. Speaker, Congress required these regulations in order to ensure 
the safe operation of vehicles by Head Start agencies. Currently, the 
leading cause of death for children ages 3 to 7 is motor vehicle 
traffic crashes. Further delaying these requirements means allowing 
Head Start grantees to transport children using vehicles that are not 
designed specifically for the safe transport of children.
  If the previous question is defeated, the Price amendment would be 
made in

[[Page 11014]]

order and this delay would be put to an end. This issue, Mr. Speaker, 
needs to be resolved, and it needs to be resolved now and this 
authorization bill is clearly the most appropriate forum in which to do 
so. Any further delays in the implementation of these crucial safety 
regulations for children may endanger the lives of children.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the 
amendment and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the 
previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pastor). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance 
of my time.
  Ms. CASTOR. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the Improving Head 
Start Act of 2007 and this rule so that we infuse Head Start with the 
necessary investments and program enhancements that will sustain Head 
Start for years to come. We will chart a new course in the right 
direction by ensuring family incomes do not impede a child's access to 
educational opportunities.
  The fact that the administration and the past few Congresses did not 
keep the promise to America's children is unfortunate. We have lost 
ground. But the good news is that this new Democratic Congress is 
charting a new direction. This includes wise investments in the 
education and health of our kids, which are certain to pay dividends 
for years to come.
  Mr. Speaker, this is an important day for America. The Congress is 
going to keep the promise made 4 decades ago to children who are born 
with the same potential but, because of their life circumstances, are 
in need of a little extra attention, health care, nutrition, the 
guiding hand of a knowledgeable, talented, devoted teacher, and a true 
head start.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of 
Florida is as follows:

                        Amendment to H. RES. 348

             Offered by Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida

       At the end of the resolution, add the following:
       Sec. 3. Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     resolution, the amendment printed in section 4 shall be in 
     order as though printed as the last amendment in the report 
     of the Committee on Rules if offered by Representative Price 
     of Georgia or a designee. That amendment shall be debatable 
     for 30 minutes equally divided and controlled by the 
     proponent and an opponent.
       Sec. 4. The amendment referred to in section 3 is as 
     follows:
       Page 36, after line 12, insert the following (and make such 
     technical and conforming changes as may be appropriate):
       ``(3) Emergency exit doors.--
       ``(A) Effective date.--Section 1310.12(a) of title 45, Code 
     of Federal Regulations, shall become effective on the 
     effective date of this paragraph.
       ``(B) Covered vehicles.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, any vehicle used to transport children for 
     a Head Start program after effective date of this paragraph, 
     shall be subject to a requirement under such section 
     (including a requirement based on the definitions set forth 
     or referenced in section 1310.3 or any other provision set 
     forth or referenced in part 1310 of such title, or any 
     corresponding similar regulation or ruling) concerning rear 
     exit doors.''.
                                  ____

       (The information contained herein was provided by 
     Democratic Minority on multiple occasions throughout the 
     109th Congress.)

        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Democratic majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an 
     alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be 
     debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       Because the vote today may look bad for the Democratic 
     majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is 
     simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on 
     adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive 
     legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is 
     not what they have always said. Listen to the definition of 
     the previous question used in the Floor Procedures Manual 
     published by the Rules Committee in the 109th Congress, (page 
     56). Here's how the Rules Committee described the rule using 
     information form Congressional Quarterly's ``American 
     Congressional Dictionary'': ``If the previous question is 
     defeated, control of debate shifts to the leading opposition 
     member (usually the minority Floor Manager) who then manages 
     an hour of debate and may offer a germane amendment to the 
     pending business.''
       Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives, 
     the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a 
     refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a 
     special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the 
     resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21, 
     section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: Upon rejection of the 
     motion for the previous question on a resolution reported 
     from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member 
     leading the opposition to the previous question, who may 
     offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time 
     for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Democratic 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

  Ms. CASTOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART 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 and clause 9 of rule XX, this 15-minute vote on 
ordering the previous question on H. Res. 348 will be followed by 5-
minute votes on adoption of H. Res. 348, if ordered; and adoption of H. 
Res. 350, by the yeas and nays.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 226, 
nays 194, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 273]

                               YEAS--226

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Castor
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Giffords
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee

[[Page 11015]]


     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--194

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Jindal
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Platts
     Poe
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Saxton
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Tancredo
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Cubin
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Engel
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Gillibrand
     Lampson
     McMorris Rodgers
     Ortiz
     Pitts
     Schmidt
     Sullivan

                              {time}  1231

  Messrs. REGULA, BILIRAKIS, BURGESS, WALSH of New York and HUNTER 
changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the 
yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 226, 
nays 196, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 274]

                               YEAS--226

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Castor
     Chandler
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Giffords
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--196

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Jindal
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Platts
     Poe
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Tancredo
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner

[[Page 11016]]


     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Davis, Jo Ann
     Engel
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Gillibrand
     Lampson
     McMorris Rodgers
     Ortiz
     Pitts
     Sullivan


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised we are 
at the 2-minute mark.

                              {time}  1239

  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.

                          ____________________