John Boehner

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. 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. 3873.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 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. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Res. 557, commemorating the 1 year anniversary of the liberation of the Iraqi people. In the past year, our soldiers, sailors, and airmen have performed magnificently, first liberating an oppressed country and now stabilizing peace and security. We could not be more proud of their efforts and dedication, and we thank them and their families for their commitment and sacrifices. Solid progress has been made in the past year in reconstituting an Iraqi civil society and public infrastructure--after nearly 30 years of oppression under Saddam Hussein. One sector I want to highlight is the work being done in improving the education system for Iraq's children. This is a critical step in giving them a viable, independent future, and it is necessary in order to secure Iraq's place in the world as a prosperous and peaceful country. More children are attending school--currently 5.5 million are in school. All universities and technical schools have been re-opened. The curriculum now focuses on teaching reading, writing, and math--not instilling fear of the government. As far as the Iraqi people have come in the last year, we know there is still more work to be done. Our troops and Iraqis still face threats from terrorists who have no future in a peaceful and prosperous Iraq. Some during this debate have questioned the wisdom of our decision in liberating Iraq and removing Saddam Hussein as a threat to the international community. Some have focused on what has gone wrong, rather than on what has gone right. The recent terrorist attack in Spain should drive home the point of why we must take the fight to the terrorists--rather than waiting to fight with them here on our soil. This is not a clash of cultures, peoples of religions--this is about fanatic fundamentalists who despise their peaceful fellow countrymen and believers. The new central front on the war on terror is Iraq. In order to defeat the fundamentalists, who love death and destruction more than they love life, we must stay the course in Iraq and in other parts of the globe where we and our allies work to defeat terrorism. The war on terrorism is a global effort; it is a long-term effort. Terrorists have many agendas and capabilities. Their supporters hide in dark shadows and are elusive. But the one thing they have in common is the desire to change our way of life. America is strong in its resolve in fighting terrorism. We will succeed, and we will continue to be patient, deliberate, and consistent in defending our citizens and interests.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the Committee on Education and the Workforce, we were pleased to have a hearing on No Child Left Behind and its impact on special education students. For the first time in history, those students in special education will be judged based on results and the fact that we know that children with disabilities can, in fact, learn. We had four distinguished witnesses from around the country talking about how special education is changing as a result of No Child Left Behind. School districts now must focus in on results for our special needs children. These four witnesses, a parent, a school superintendent and two education experts, talked about how special education students are in fact learning more and improving their capability. For most children with special needs, there really is no excuse that they cannot read and write and become literate like all other children. Many children in special education can do far more than that; and by focusing in on results for children with special needs, we can in fact meet our goal with No Child Left Behind, which is just that: let us leave no child in America behind.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 3108) to amend the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to temporarily replace the 30-year Treasury rate with a rate based on long-term corporate bonds for certain pension plan funding requirements and other provisions, and for other purposes, with House amendments to the Senate amendment thereto, insist on the House amendments to the Senate amendment, and agree to the conference asked by the Senate.

Mr. BOEHNER

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

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, under the rules outlined here in the House, we are debating the rule to consider the bill. Once this rule is approved, we will spend, I would imagine, the better part of the afternoon discussing the protections granted to religious organizations under the 1964 Civil Rights Act. I think that would be a more appropriate time to have this debate.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne), the author of the bill before us.

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

Mr. BOEHNER. If the gentleman will yield further, the Congress in 1964, and as amended in 1965, passed landmark civil rights legislation in America, and it was the Congress in the mid-sixties who saw fit to provide religious organizations with one small exemption, and that in the case of employment, to religious organizations. And if you read the comments of the debate and the record of that debate, it was because those civil rights laws guarantee Americans full access to jobs, to all types of programs in our country. But they did understand that religious organizations, by their very nature, ought to have an exemption in employment so religious organizations can, if they want, not all do, hire people of their faith. The only issue here is whether those organizations, faith-based organizations, that do in fact provide community services with Federal funds, whether they should continue to have that exemption.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield further, let me pose the opposite question to you. Why should a faith-based organization that is providing tremendous community services give up the protections granted to them under the 1964 Civil Rights Act just because they accept Federal dollars in their mission to help low-income people?

Mr. BOEHNER. If the gentleman would yield further, if that organization in their beliefs want to hire people of their faith, because in many cases the people they may hire will not only participate in a job training program, they may also teach Sunday school, they may also do other things for that religious organization. But I would bring the gentleman's attention back to the bill we have before us, and the bill before us, that is the Community Services Block Grant reauthorization bill, last passed and reauthorized by the Congress in 1998 and signed into law by then President Bill Clinton, that act in 1998 and the President's signature in 1998 contains the identical language that this bill contains. Now, the Congress passed this overwhelmingly in 1998, and the President signed it into law. Now here we are 6 years later and we are saying, oh my goodness, there is a problem. If I could just finish, if over the last 6 years it would have been clear that there was a problem with faith-based organizations maintaining their rights under the 1964 Civil Rights Act, I think we would have heard about it. I have not heard a word.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, this is not the only statute on the books that allows religious organizations to maintain their 1964 protections under the Civil Rights Act; there are at least a half a dozen others. But the point I would make is that if we want to debate the merits or changes to the 1964 Civil Rights Act, let us do that out of the bill that comes out of the Committee on the Judiciary, where it was rightfully debated and processed. The fact is, the 1964 Civil Rights Act is very clear in providing this exemption to these organizations. And if the gentleman disagrees with the 1964 Civil Rights Act, as amended in 1965, let us take that debate to the Committee on the Judiciary, let us bring the bill out here and have that debate. But that is the law. What we are trying to do here is to comply with that. And in the underlying bill here, the Community Services Block Grant bill, we have had this exemption, maintained this exemption for those organizations. All we do in this bill today is to maintain it.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding, and I clearly recognize that there is a difference of opinion on this. I do not castigate any aspersions on the feelings of my colleagues. But both of my colleagues on the other side here who have engaged in this debate have referred to the intent of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) even used Senator Ervin's name in terms of there was no intent for these organizations to give up, to give up their religious exemption. I have a quote here from Senator Ervin during that debate and he said, ``This amendment is to take the political hands of Caesar off the institutions of God where they have no place to be.'' I would suggest to both gentlemen that Senator Ervin from North Carolina clearly intended for the hiring exemption under title VII to be there.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, before I get into my remarks on the underlying bill, the Community Services Block Grant reauthorization, let me take a moment to welcome our colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), and the ranking democrat on my committee, back to the House. He had some surgery over the break in December and has been in a period of recuperation. And we just want to welcome him back, back to the House and hope that he is in a very pliable and amenable mood. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3030, improving the Community Services Block Grant Act, a bill that strengthens the popular and valuable Community Services Block Grant program. I want to thank my colleague from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne) who is the author of this legislation, who, along with his staff and our committee staff, has worked hard to guide this legislation through the committee where the bill received bipartisan support. The CSBG provides Federal money to State and local agencies to lessen the effects of poverty. States pass at least 90 percent of the Federal funds they receive through to community action agencies who run programs to help with finding and retaining a job, getting food on the table, and providing emergency services. Since 1981, this program and the agencies it funds have helped millions of fellow Americans. Mr. Osborne's legislation makes improvements to this popular initiative by increasing accountability and efficiency while preserving the successful framework of this proven program. The bill requires the community action agencies to set clear, locally determined goals and to work each year to meet those goals. Agencies that repeatedly fall short of their own goals will be subject to action by the States. H.R. 3030 works with the local centers while making sure taxpayer dollars are carefully accounted for. In the interest of improving the quality of local programs, this bill requires States to reevaluate their lowest performing grantees and justify to the Secretary of Health and Human Services why those organizations should continue to receive Federal funding. Again, this bill makes sure that agencies using Federal funds are delivering high- quality services. Finally, this bill maintains the current law regarding faith-based organizations. We are all aware that some of the finest social service organizations in this country are run by religious charities; and I, along with a majority of my colleagues on the committee, believe that these faith-based organizations ought to be able to continue to provide help to their neighbors in need. In 1998 when this bill was last reauthorized, then President Clinton signed into law the same language that we have in the bill of the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne) today. It allows faith-based community services to continue to maintain the character of their organizations with regard to their own hiring decisions. In fact, a broad group of faith-based organizations including Catholic charities, the American Association of Christian Schools, the Salvation Army, World Vision, and the Coalition to Preserve Religious Freedom have expressed strong support for the faith-based protections included in this bill. There are some on the other side who would like to strip these rights to deny religious charities the rights they are granted under the 1964 Civil Rights Act and as upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court and current law. Now, should the minority succeed in depriving these groups of their rights, I do think it would have a chilling effect on the participation of faith-based organizations in the Community Services Block Grant program. We can expect that at least some of these groups would choose not to participate in CBGC, rather than compromise their character. As we all know, the group most likely to suffer the consequences are the most vulnerable in our society, those who need the help most. This legislation makes some key improvements to ensure quality and accountability in the Community Services Block Grant program but leaves the essential character of this popular and successful program unchanged. I want to urge my colleagues to support this valuable antipoverty program that the funds in this bill promote and vote ``yes'' on H.R. 3030 to improve the Community Services Block Grant program. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that we limit the remaining time on this amendment and all amendments thereto to 30 minutes equally divided between myself and the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, over the course of this debate I am sure that my colleagues from the Committee on Ways and Means that have jurisdiction over the extension of the unemployment benefits and the unemployment program will be here to handle that debate. But to hold up the Community Services Block Grant program, a program that helps the community action agencies in all of our communities, helps them with their assistance to the poorest of the poor, to hold it up over this kind of a political stunt, I think, is regrettable. It does not deserve the support of our colleagues.

Mr. BOEHNER. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I really do not know where to begin. I have been around the political arena for the better part of 20 years, and I have seen every political stunt that I think there is; but I have never seen a more cynical attempt to exploit American unemployed workers for political gain. Now, let us talk about the facts that are contained in the gentleman's amendment. The gentleman's amendment would create a new program within the Community Services Block Grant program. This is nothing more than an authorization. It has no money attached to it. The Community Services Block Grant program helps poor people in all of our communities across the country. They have no capability to pay out unemployment benefits. So we have only here an authorization for a program that cannot deliver the funds. And if they were to deliver, it would take years to implement such a system. Yet there is no money that has been appropriated to actually pay these. Now, these are the kinds of political stunts that occur in the middle of even numbered years divisible by four. But to exploit American workers here in the House of Representatives is wrong, and the gentleman fully well knows that unemployed workers will wait years to get their extended unemployment benefits under the language that is being offered here today. Mr. Chairman, I might add that last March this Congress provided $8 billion additional to the States for the extension of unemployment benefits, $8 billion. As of January of this year, the States were sitting on $5.4 billion of that money. The States were sitting on it. Thus, if you look at nearly 2 years since Congress provided this $8 billion in Federal funds, States have spent less than half of this to assist unemployed workers. A total of 45 States still have some of their share of the original $8 billion. 31 States, 31 States still have over 90 percent of the money that Congress allocated to them still in their accounts today. Now, what we ought to be doing is encouraging the States to take care of those who have extended unemployment problems. But my colleagues know and all the Members ought to know that this is not the way to do it and that this is nothing more than a hollow, empty promise, exploiting American workers for political gain; and I do not think this Congress is worthy of that kind of gamesmanship. We as a House ought to stand up and say no. If we want to have a debate about extending unemployment benefits and to help those who are in need and looking for a job, then let us have that debate. But this is not the place to do it, and the gentleman knows this is not the place to do it.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, our friend from Virginia (Mr. Scott) offers the second amendment, which is very close to the language that was contained in the Woolsey substitute, striking the ability of faith-based providers from their protections under the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The current law, which was signed by President Clinton in 1998, makes clear that when faith-based organizations participating in the Community Services Block Grant program take religion into account in their hiring practices, they are not discriminating. That language is consistent with the protections provided to religious organizations under the 1964 Civil Rights Act. What the gentleman seeks to do is to take that protection away from those faith-based providers who would participate in the Community Services Block Grant program. It has been the subject of debate for hours here on the floor today; and to save all of us a little time and effort, the amendment would, in fact, have a chilling effect on the willingness of faith-based providers to participate in the Community Services Block Grant program; and, therefore, I believe it is a bad amendment and does not deserve our support.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, the Community Services Block Grant program has a proud history of inclusion of faith-based organizations in the coordination of poverty reduction services, and we should continue that tradition of inclusion and reject attempts to add new barriers to faith-based organizations who are already serving in this program. This amendment offered by my good friend from Virginia (Mr. Scott) does two things. It adds new language that is duplicative and redundant to the current program or the current operation of the CSBG program; and, second, it complicates the operation of the program by adding a new paperwork requirement only for faith-based providers, I might add, and requiring them to certify to the funding agency that they are in compliance with the law. On the first issue, the amendment seeks to add language regarding the voluntariness of participation by beneficiaries in religious activities and the separation of these activities from the services under the program. Both of these issues are duplicative and redundant to the current requirements of the program. Specifically, under section 1050.3(b) of the Community Services Block Grant regulations, the requirement is clear that direct funds under the program may not be expended for inherently religious activities such as worship, religious instruction, or proselytizing. The same section goes on to state that if an organization conducts such activities, it must offer them separately in time or location from the programs or services directly funded under any applicable program, and participation must be voluntary for program beneficiaries. The second issue is purely a new paperwork requirement, again targeted only at faith-based providers, and based on the unsubstantiated assumption that these organizations are somehow violating the current requirements of the law. This requirement seeks to erect new, unnecessary barriers to the participation of faith-based providers by requiring that they, and only they, certify to the funding agency that they have read the law and will comply. Other program operators that are not faith-based will not have this requirement under the language offered by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott). Unfortunately, its real purpose, I think, is likely a bit more insidious. In adding this new requirement solely for faith-based providers, it creates further barriers designed to limit the participation of faith-based providers and will likely lead to a chilling effect for both current and potential faith-based providers. Should this amendment pass, we expect at least some of those groups would choose not to participate in the Community Services Block Grant program. As we all know, the group most likely to suffer the consequences are the most vulnerable in our society and those who need the help most and those who the Community Services Block Grant program is designed to serve. So I would suggest to my colleagues that we do not need this language. It will drive faith-based providers away from the program, and the amendment deserves to be defeated.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. As we near the end of the debate on the Woolsey substitute, let me remind my colleagues that the two bills that we have before us are identical, with one exception, that exception being the language that we preserve in the current law to allow faith-based organizations to participate in Community Service Block Grant programs without giving up the protections granted to them under the 1964 Civil Rights Act. That is the only difference. We have worked the rest of the bill out in a bipartisan basis, but this one issue that we have argued on this floor, we have done so on numerous occasions, whether it be the 1996 Welfare Reform Act, several times last year when we considered the Workforce Investment Act, and when we considered the reauthorization of the Head Start bill, we had the same debate here in the House about whether faith-based providers using Federal funds would have to give up the protections granted to them under the 1964 Civil Rights Act. As we have heard today from numerous Members, these faith-based organizations do very good work with the poorest of the poor in many of our communities. And to deny them their protections under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, we believe would in fact have a chilling effect on their willingness to take Federal funds and to work in the community to help deal with many of the problems that are there. When I listen to the debate today, there are a lot of examples used of discrimination, discrimination in hiring. And I would suggest to most of my colleagues that use these examples, if you don't like the 1964 Civil Rights Act that provides religious organizations an exemption in hiring, then we ought to change it. But that is the law. And what we are trying to do is trying to continue to comply with the law, and we should not deny those organizations that are faith-based the protections that are granted to them under the 1964 Civil Rights Acts. I would ask my colleagues when we near the vote on this substitute, that we vote no on the substitute and to support the underlying bill which, in fact, has been the law since 1998.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. One of the points the gentleman made is that organizations should not be forced, faith-based organizations should not be forced to hire people that do not share their same opinions. As a matter of fact, in a hearing, a field hearing, a Reverend Tony Marciano, Executive Director of the Charlotte Rescue Mission in Charlotte, North Carolina made this statement: ``The first 677 words of our mission is to minister the good news of Christianity. So yes, in our application, we ask for your church affiliation. Our statement of faith is attached to the application so that there are no questions who we are and who we are hiring. We expect people, as they sign off on the application, to sign on to our statement of faith. And that is key,'' he says, ``because even though we have people from different denominations, Presbyterian, Baptist, Methodist, et cetera, we need to make sure that everybody is on the same page, you know, as we work with the chemically addicted homeless.'' It is not just these organizations, faith-based organizations, that are doing such great work and who are supportive of this language. We have a number of associations: Agudath Israel of America, American Association of Christian Schools, Association of Christian Schools International, Call to Renewal, Catholic Charities, Catholic Health Association of the United States, Center for Public Justice, Christians for the Faith-Based Initiative, Christian Community Health Fellowship, Christian Legal Society, Council of Christian Colleges and Universities, Evangelicals for Social Action, the General Conference of Seventh-Day Adventists, the Heritage Foundation, Latino Coalition for Christian, Community, and Faith-Based Initiatives, the National Association of Evangelicals, the National Center for Neighborhood Enterprise, Prison Fellowship, the Salvation Army, Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, We Care America, World Relief, and World Vision, all of these organizations are supportive of the underlying language in the bill.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of our time under general debate.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, we will reserve the balance of our time.