John Boehner

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the amendment offered by my friend, the gentleman from Indiana, a member of our committee. It is over a very sensitive issue of how to deal with the parent councils. Under the current law, the current practice, these parent advisory councils have actually had veto authority over the decisions of the Head Start grantee. Now, there is no one in this House who believes more in empowering parents to be active participants with their children, active and empowered parents with Head Start programs. But we have seen a number of problems in Head Start programs, from financial abuses to very poor results for children; and the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) and I have worked closely to develop this bill and to develop this proposal that continues to allow parents to be actively involved. It still requires the grantees to urge parents to be involved; but we do it, though, in a strictly advisory capacity. They are still going to play a big role. The only difference here is the veto power: whether, in fact, the parent councils can veto the decisions of the board or the management. Now, this bill came out of committee 48 to nothing with the language that we are trying to preserve. I appreciate my colleague from Indiana coming along at the eleventh hour, wanting to change it, but the fact is that the committee endorsed the underlying language, and I would ask my colleagues to reject this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), the ranking Democrat on the committee.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham).

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder).

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry).

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I do not oppose the amendment, but I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) brings a very good amendment to this debate. And I certainly support the good work of Jump Start and think that the amendment that she offers makes a valuable contribution to the bill. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), the chairman of the Labor-HHS Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations, and the Dean of the Ohio Delegation, for general remarks on the bill. (Mr. REGULA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Platts).

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, when our forefathers in the 1960s wrote the 1964 Civil Rights Act landmark legislation, they provided a specific exemption in hiring for religious organizations, understanding that religious organizations would probably want to hire someone of their own faith. Now, if you disagree with that, go to the Committee on the Judiciary and rewrite the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Nowhere in this exemption does it say that, well, you have the exemption if you use your own money, but if you participate in Federal programs, you lose the exemption. It does not say that anywhere in the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The fact is, that I understand there are deeply held beliefs here, but I do not think a religious organization should have to give up their rights under the 1964 Civil Rights Act just to participate in providing services to poor children who desperately need them. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. The underlying reauthorization bill here is a good one, to help Head Start children to get the head start they need if they are going to have a chance to succeed in school. And we know from all of the studies for low-income children to have a chance in school, going through an early childhood development program like Head Start is absolutely essential and that those children that are involved in Head Start and other like programs have a much better opportunity and a much better chance to succeed while they are in school. We are about to get into the amendment process where we will consider a number of amendments to perfect this bill, and I would ask my colleagues to pay attention to these amendments. I think for most of them there is quite a bit of agreement. But, clearly, the one amendment dealing with the rights of faith-based organizations will draw an awful lot of attention. But I would ask my colleagues, why should we not let the House work its will? If Members agree or disagree, we ought to have that right and we ought to respect the outcome of that vote.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. If what is being proposed under the Boustany amendment is so awful, why would President Bill Clinton, during his 8 years in office, have signed the following bills into law: the 1996 welfare reform law; the 1998 Community Services Block Grant reauthorization, the 2000 Community Renewal Tax Relief Act; the 2000 Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration Act. Why would President Bill Clinton have signed all of these bills into law if, in fact, this was such a bad idea? Because all of these acts, signed into law by President Clinton, have the same identical language that is going to be offered later today. The second point I would make is that what do we have to fear from allowing the House to work its will and letting the majority rule? Let us have the debate. Let us have the vote. Unfortunately, my colleagues know that we are likely to win, because we have won on this case time and time again as this debate has occurred in this House. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I suggest to my colleagues that the amendment the gentleman from Wisconsin offers, he and I have worked together on this closely over the course of this year. I think it is a good amendment and would urge my colleagues to adopt it. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), the author of the bill and the chairman of the Subcommittee on Education Reform.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. There has been a great deal of effort been put into this bill on a bipartisan basis, and it has been pointed out it came out of committee 48-0. One of the reasons that there is some concern is that Members on both sides of a question over the role of faith-based organizations, there are meaningful differences on both sides, but we have nothing to fear in allowing the House to work its will. I respect those views of others who do not believe that if a faith- based organization takes a dollar of Federal money, they should give up their rights protected by the 1964 Civil Rights Act, but there is no reason to fear allowing the House to make that decision. So, later today, we will have an amendment that I will offer on behalf of the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany) to allow those organizations to have their rights protected under the 1964 Civil Rights Act and still provide these necessary services. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam), my friend and colleague, for his efforts. His contributions and commitment to Head Start and the financial accountability that needs to exist within the program are so important. Many of the accountability principles that were outlined in the gentleman's bill, H.R. 778, have been included in the School Readiness Act, and these reforms I think are critical if we are going to ensure grantees are effectively managing taxpayer dollars and also to ensure that funding is targeted most effectively for purposes that support the program's goal of preparing kids for school. So, with that, I want to thank the gentleman for his contributions.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price).

Mr. BOEHNER

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. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes. Mr. Chairman, the previous speaker talked about how we brought this bill out of our committee and brought it to the House, with a unanimous vote out of the committee, 48 to nothing. One of the reasons that this language was not included in the original bill was to try to create a spirit of bipartisanship in moving the process along. But the American people elected us to come here and make decisions on their behalf. We are having a free and open debate about this issue. No one should denigrate the majority because we want to have a debate and want to have a vote. We have had this debate many times in this House. It has passed every time on a bipartisan basis, and I expect it will pass on a bipartisan basis again today. The issue here is a simple one. In the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and amendments to it in 1974, religious organizations were granted an exception in their hiring practices so they could hire people of their own faith. I think most people would understand that. Over the years, religious organizations have been involved in doing all types of good works, including providing programs in their communities. But, for far too long, these organizations have been denied the use of Federal dollars in order to preserve their religious heritage. Over the years, a number of programs passed by this Congress have been signed into law that have allowed religious organizations to maintain the rights given to them under the 1964 Civil Rights Act and provide services with Federal funds. As a matter of fact, Bill Clinton, Bill Clinton, during 8 years in office, signed 4 laws into law that had the same identical language as being offered to this bill today.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 3784, as amended.

Mr. BOEHNER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, each year millions of Americans, young and old, participate in higher education programs at this Nation's colleges and universities. Higher education has become more important than ever with a changing marketplace and increasing international competition; and that is why the Federal investment in higher education is so important. For more than 2 years, my colleagues and I have been working to strengthen and renew the Higher Education Act so that we can better serve the millions of low- and middle-income students aspiring for a college education. And while we have made great progress this year, the reauthorization process is still not complete. Today, I stand in support of the Higher Education Extension Act so that we ensure these vital programs continue to serve American students. The measure extends critical programs for a brief time frame, 3 months, to give Congress the additional time it needs to complete this process in the best interests of students and taxpayers. In February, the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon) and I introduced the College Access and Opportunity Act to complete the Higher Education Act reauthorization. That bill, similar to legislation of the same name we offered last year, was the culmination of a comprehensive effort to expand college access by focusing on fairness, accountability, affordability, and quality. That bill contained a number of reforms that I had hoped would be enacted by today. The College Access and Opportunity Act would have realigned our student aid programs to place first priority back where it belongs, on the millions of low- and middle-income students who have not yet received a higher education. The bill would have strengthened Pell grants, college access programs, and campus-based student aid. It would have broken down barriers and eliminated outdated regulations that are preventing nontraditional students from achieving their higher education goals. It would have significantly realigned the multibillion-dollar student loan programs to expand access for current and future students and restore fairness so that all student borrowers would be treated equally. Consumer protection for borrowers would have been strengthened, red tape would have been reduced, and because accountability is the cornerstone of American education reform, colleges and universities would have been held more accountable to students, parents, and taxpayers, the people they serve, through increased sunshine and transparency. Now I remain committed to a comprehensive reauthorization and hope to complete that process this year. In the meantime, the bill before us is critically important. We cannot allow programs under the Higher Education Act to expire. Too many students depend on this assistance as they strive for a higher education. Yet it is equally important that we remain committed to comprehensive reforms that will build upon these programs in strengthening them in order to expand college access. Madam Speaker, I strongly support the extension of the Higher Education Act. Millions of American students depend on these programs, and we must not let our commitment to higher education lapse. But it is equally important that we remain focused on the ultimate goal of enacting comprehensive reforms that will strengthen and renew the Higher Education Act so it can meet the needs of current and future students. I encourage my colleagues to support this bill and work with us in the coming weeks and months to complete this comprehensive reform package so we can better serve American students who are pursuing a college education. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BOEHNER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's support of the bill today to extend the Higher Education Act; but I find myself in a position of having to rise and respond to some of the criticisms of H.R. 609, the reauthorization bill for the Higher Education Act that is in process. The gentleman is right, we do over the next 5 years save $9 billion in taxpayer funds while at the same time we reduce origination fees for students, we expand loan limits for students, and better equalize the campus-based aid programs around the country. Now, my colleague and his friends on the other side of the aisle came up with proposals to save money as well. The only difference here is that we decided that net of $9 billion ought to be saved for the taxpayers because, after all, it is their money. My friends on the other side of the aisle decided to spend it. Well meaning, well intentioned, but at some point we in Congress have a responsibility to enact public policy that is fair for all. Some people do not go to college. As my friend knows, I am the only one of my 11 brothers and sisters to go to college. To the extent we are providing loans, they are being paid for by taxpayers, some of whom do not get a higher education. So what is fair? I think the underlying bill, providing college loans, providing Pell grants for underserved students, is a very good thing for our country. But how much is enough? We are going to spend about $75 billion this year in Pell grants and student loans to help low- to middle-income students achieve the dream of a higher education. I think that it is an important part of our responsibility to help improve our society. But at the same time, we also have a responsibility to people who pay taxes, and people who pay taxes watching money flowing out of this institution like water over a dam. At some point I am not going to stand here and be embarrassed because we help improve access to higher education, we help improve the ability of students to pay for their loan programs, and at the same time save $9 billion over 5 years for the taxpayers. I think it is a pretty good deal for all. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BOEHNER. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3784) to temporarily extend the programs under the Higher Education Act of 1965, and for other purposes, as amended.