Bobby Scott

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in reluctant opposition to H.R. 3222, the Literacy Involves Families Together Act. Before I go into the purpose of my opposition, I would like to take a moment to thank and honor the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Goodling) for his service to the Committee on Education and the Workforce. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Goodling) cares about education passionately, and many would say that he is an educator before he is a legislator. Today it is fitting that we honor the Even Start program, a program that he authored, with his name. Mr. Speaker, I rise, however, in reluctant opposition to the bill because it contains a provision known as charitable choice. Charitable choice permits religious organizations to participate in various grant programs but allows them to discriminate on the basis of religion in their hiring with public funds. Even Start is an excellent program that attacks education problems at the most fundamental level: The family. Family literacy programs such as Even Start are particularly important for my own congressional district because adults in the Third Congressional District of Virginia have the lowest level of literacy skills in the State, but I will not support a program that turns the clock back on civil rights laws by allowing publicly funded employment discrimination as charitable choice does in this bill, and several other bills. The majority accommodated several of my concerns about the original charitable choice provisions in order to provide better protection for beneficiaries and to ensure that no proselytization would occur during the federally funded program. However, the bill still affords religious organizations participating in the Even Start program the right to discriminate in their hiring with public funds. Now let me make it clear that I am not suggesting that we take away a religious organization's ability to discriminate in their hiring with their private funds, as protected under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and as protected by the First Amendment. Here we are talking about discriminating and hiring on the basis of religion when using public funds. That is wrong. It is important to note that this marks the first time the charitable choice has been added to an elementary and secondary education program. Mr. Speaker, public education programs ought to be the last place that we should tolerate religious discrimination. Even the original author of the charitable choice in his legislative proposals to expand charitable choice provisions to other programs specifically carved out education programs. Mr. Speaker, a number of organizations have expressed opposition to discrimination based on religion with Federal funds, and I would like to read part of a letter which states the charitable choice provision also allows the government to give taxpayer money to religious institutions and then allows those religious institutions to refuse to hire certain taxpayers for taxpayer-funded positions because they are not of the right religion. While allowing religious institutions to discriminate on the basis of religion in their privately funded activities is quite appropriate, tax-funded employment discrimination is not. Mr. Speaker, that letter is signed by the American Association of University Women; the American Federation of Teachers; the American Jewish Committee; the American Jewish Congress; the Americans United for Separation of Church and State; the Anti-Defamation League; the Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs; the Central Conference of American Rabbis; the Council of Chief State School Officers; Friends Committee of National Legislation; Hadassah, the Women's Zionist Organization of America; the National Alliance of Black School Educators; the National Council of Jewish Women; the National Education Association; the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force; the National PTA; the National School Boards Association; People for the American Way; School Social Work Association of America; the Service Employees International Union, AFL-CIO; the Union of American Hebrew Congresses; and the Women of Reform Judaism. Mr. Speaker, I submit the complete text of the letter into the Record. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Washington, DC. Dear Representative: We, the undersigned religious, civil rights, civil liberties, and education organizations, are writing to urge you to oppose the ``charitable choice'' section of H.R. 3222, the Literacy Involves Families Together, or ``Even Start'' bill. We urge you to oppose this section because charitable choice is a frontal assault on the First Amendments guarantee of the separation of church and state. Attaching ``charitable choice'' to Even Start represents the first time this controversial proposal has been included in education legislation. Although ``charitable choice'' was never envisioned to govern education programs, Even Start opens the door to tax funding of religious schools in all education programs in the future. The charitable choice provision also allows the government to give taxpayer money to religious institutions and then allows those religious institutions to refuse to hire certain taxpayers for tax-funded positions because they are not of the ``right'' religion. While allowing religious institutions to discriminate on the basis of religion in their privately funded activities is quite appropriate, tax-funded employment discrimination is not. The charitable choice provision further threatens to excessively entangle the institutions of church and state. Despite the provisions in charitable choice that purport to protect the religious autonomy of institutions that receive tax money, the government will regulate what it funds. This will result in government oversight, accounting and monitoring of houses of worship and other religious institutions. For these reasons, we strongly urge you to oppose the ``charitable choice'' section of the ``Even Start'' bill. Sincerely, American Association of University Women American Federation of Teachers American Jewish Committee American Jewish Congress Americans United for the Separation of Church and State Anti-Defamation League Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs Central Conference of American Rabbis Council of Chief State School Officers Friends Committee on National Legislation Hadassah, the Women's Zionist Organization of America National Alliance of Black School Educators National Council of Jewish Women National Education Association National Gay and Lesbian Taskforce National PTA National School Boards Association People For the American Way School Social Work Association of America Service Employees International Union (SEIU), AFL-CIO Union of American Hebrew Congregations Women of Reform Judaism Rachel Joseph, Legislative Associate Mr. Speaker, family literacy programs are extremely important; and we should not be required to tolerate religious discrimination as a condition for the passage of this bill. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I regret that I cannot support the bill and support the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) in this worthwhile endeavor, although I appreciate his hard work and dedication to education.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to join my colleagues in the Virginia delegation and the House in support of the resolution and to praise Herb Bateman for his hard work and dedication to the constituents of the First Congressional District of Virginia, which he always referred to as ``America's First District.'' Herb and I served neighboring districts in the House, and during my service in the Virginia Legislature, he was either my State senator or my congressman, so we had many opportunities to work together to represent the interests of the residents of the Hampton Roads, Virginia area. Having worked side-by-side, I can tell you that Herb Bateman was a decent, hard-working, and effective legislator. During his many years of public service, he conscientiously promoted the needs of a district with a strong military and Federal presence. As a Member of the Committee on Armed Services, he made military readiness and concerns of military families his highest priorities. Because of his total dedication, America enjoys a strong military, and school districts with a large military presence receive additional Federal funding through Impact Aid. In the Hampton Roads area, we have been particularly grateful for Herb's leadership because we continue to build aircraft carriers and submarines. NASA budgets reflect a higher priority for the aeronautics research proudly done at NASA Langley Research Center, and the Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility continues to excel. The Virginia delegation is particularly saddened by Herb's passing. He was well thought of and highly respected by all of us. The delegation has always worked cooperatively and in a bipartisan fashion on issues affecting Virginia, and Herb steadfastly contributed to that spirit. I want to extend my deepest sympathies to his wife Laura; his children, Laura and Bert; and his grandchildren, as well as to his staff in the Washington, D.C. and Newport News offices. America's First District and the United States House of Representatives have lost a friend.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 45 seconds. First of all, on the question of whether or not you can discriminate against who you serve, the second part of this amendment deals with that directly, and that is you cannot under any circumstances discriminate on who you serve based on religion. The bill includes a loophole, and this amendment will close that loophole. On the question of whether you can proselytize during a federally funded program, that is clear, Mr. Speaker. You should not be able to proselytize; you should not be able to run a program that does that. This amendment makes it clear. The bill as it is leaves it open, that you can run a federally sponsored sectarian worship program with Federal funds.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, no, I do not, because under the bill it only includes direct funds. So if you are running the program and have someone come into the program during the program to proselytize with indirect funds, or volunteer, you have got your captive audience, and that is wrong.

Mr. SCOTT. I am in its present form, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, the amendment has three provisions. One is to disallow any proselytization during the program. It says in the wording ``a participant in a program assisted by Federal funds.'' It also prohibits any discrimination in terms of who you serve, and it provides for civil rights protections under Federal law that apply to every other Federal program. I would hope that we would adopt this amendment.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The important word here, Mr. Speaker, is ``direct,'' that you can run especially a church program indirectly with a captive audience that you have got, and that is the essential word. When you say you cannot proselytize, in fact you can, if you do it indirectly. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson).

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to indicate that if this amendment does not pass, we will have people having the ability to tell people that they do not hire their kind because of their religion. This amendment would prohibit that practice, would prohibit discrimination based on religion in federally funded programs. I would hope that we would take a stand against religious bigotry and adopt the motion to recommit. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to make it clear to my colleagues that the motion does not kill the bill. It simply strikes the provision contained in the bill which allows employment discrimination and reports the bill immediately back to the House for consideration without that provision. Mr. Speaker, the motion makes it clear that a religious organization participating in a fatherhood program may not use Federal funds to discriminate in their hiring based on religion. Mr. Speaker, the idea that religious bigotry might take place with Federal funds is not speculative. During several debates that we have had on this issue, it has been established that it is the intent of the sponsors to allow a religious organization using Federal funds under charitable choice to fire or refuse to hire a perfectly qualified employee solely or based on that person's religion. One said that a Jewish organization could fire a Protestant if they choose. Furthermore, some proponents of charitable choice have gone so far to suggest that charitable choice would not work unless one could discriminate. One proponent was quoted in Congressional Quarterly stating that groups should not be barred from Federal funds because they are a Christian organization and like to hire Christians. Mr. Speaker, there was a time when some Americans, because of their religion, were not considered qualified for certain jobs. In fact, before 1960, it was thought that a Catholic could not be elected President. Before the civil rights laws passed, people of certain religions were routinely subject to invidious discrimination when they sought employment. Fortunately the civil rights laws of the 1960s put an end to that practice, and we no longer see signs suggesting that those particular religions need not apply for jobs. Mr. Speaker, it is disappointing to know that at the same time that we are considering the first person of the Jewish faith to be our Vice President that at the same time we are considering legislation which will allow religious organizations to practice religious discrimination in federally funded programs. Federally funded religious bigotry is wrong, and so I urge the adoption of the motion to recommit with instructions. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) for yielding the time to me. Later in the debate, I will be offering an amendment and a motion to recommit. The amendment prohibits the use of Federal funds and proselytization. It requires that there should be no discrimination against the beneficiaries based on religion and to make sure that civil rights laws will apply to these Federal funds. The motion to recommit will provide that we should not discriminate in employment during the course of these programs. I just wanted to read a list of organizations supporting both the amendment and the motion to recommit, because I would not have time during the consideration of the amendment and the motion. Those who support both the amendment and the motion to recommit will be the American Baptist Churches USA; the ACLU; the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees; the American Jewish Committee; the American Jewish Congress; the Americans United; the ADL; Antidefamation League; the Central Conference of American Rabbis Council on Religious Freedom/Friends Committee on National Legislation; Quaker; Hadassah; the Jewish Council for Public Affairs; the Na'amat USA; the National Association of Alcoholism and Drug Abuse Counselors; the National Council of Jewish Women; the National Education Association; the National PTA; People for the American Way; Service Employees International Union; the AFL-CIO; the Union of American Hebrew Congregations; the Unitarian Universalist Association; the Women of Reform Judaism; the National Gay and Lesbian Taskforce; and the Presbyterian Church USA Washington Office.

Mr. SCOTT. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes and 40 seconds. Mr. Speaker, all of the provisions in this amendment have been previously accepted by the majority in the other bills, H.R. 3222, Even Start, and H.R. 4141 the Safe and Drug-Free Schools, which contained the charitable choice provisions. In the charitable choice part of this provision that allows the Federal funding of faith-based organizations, the first provision of this amendment clarifies that any eligible entity request not subject a participant during the course of a publicly funded fatherhood program to sectarian worship instruction or proselytization. Under the bill, the charitable choice provision only provides that no direct funds can be used for that purpose. This would not, of course, cover privately paid employees or volunteers, who could use the Federal-funded program to promote their sectarian agenda. The concern here is that you have individuals seeking assistance in a federally funded fatherhood program, and in essence they become a captive audience. It is wrong to take advantage of their need for services and essentially require them to participate in a federally sponsored sectarian worship program. I say ``federally sponsored'' because, according to the bill, the bill allows the programs to be paid for with 80 percent of the expenses being paid for by Federal funds. The majority had previously accepted this provision, and in the committee report accompanying the Even Start bill, H.R. 3122, that report outlines the acceptance of that amendment. Another portion of this amendment closes the loophole contained in the bill which would allow discrimination against some beneficiaries based on their religion. There should be no circumstance in which a person is denied benefits under a federally funded program solely because of that person's religious beliefs. Finally, my amendment clarifies that programs using Federal funds are technically in receipt of Federal financial assistance. This makes it clear that in the cases of insidious discrimination, the Department of Justice could use enforcement procedures under title VI of the Civil Rights Act to enforce civil rights of beneficiaries and employees. Mr. Speaker, these provisions have previously been accepted by the majority in two other bills. The amendment will protect beneficiaries from unwarranted proselytization and discrimination, and it ensures that civil rights protections available to all other Federal programs will apply to this legislation.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding me this time. I would like to thank the Committee on Rules for making one of my two amendments in order. The first amendment that was made in order allows us to consider the question of proselytization, Federal assistance, and discrimination against beneficiaries in one of the provisions of the bill. The bill, as it is written, allows Federal funds to be used to essentially subject the program participants to proselytization. That is wrong, and that is why the amendment should be in order, and it is in order. It also provides that the receipt of Federal funds will bring with it the civil rights attachments. The bill as it now stands is silent on that. It also prohibits on any circumstance discrimination against beneficiaries based on religion. All of those amendments should be adopted. One amendment that I had offered that was not found in order would prohibit the discrimination based on religion by the program. We have a situation where the programs now may discriminate based on religion against perspective employees. I would like to read, Mr. Speaker, a part of a letter from the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, which says that ``charitable choice language will permit religious institutions that receive government funds to discriminate in their employment on the basis of religion. This amounts to federally funded employment discrimination and allows religious organizations to exclude people of different faith from government funded programs.'' Mr. Speaker, that is obviously wrong, and we ought to be able to address that. We will be addressing it in the motion to recommit. Because all of these issues will be allowed under the rule as presented, I will not oppose the rule.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Chicago, Illinois (Mr. Davis). (Mr. DAVIS of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce), the ranking member of the Committee on Banking and Financial Services. (Mr. LaFALCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds at this point to comment on some previous speakers, one of whom said there is no new ground. Research has found that under the Welfare Reform and Community Development Block Grant, the recipients of those programs have not taken advantage of the opportunity to discriminate that is specifically provided in those bills. They have not taken advantage of it, but that would be new ground if we expand it, and organizations do take advantage of it. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, a 1998 GAO report found the following: Other treatment approaches such as faith-based strategies have not yet to be rigorously examined by the research community. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah). (Mr. FATTAH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Request to be Added as Cosponsor of H.R. 4923

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds, and that is to comment from a letter that I have received from several national organizations which says that the National Institute of Drug Addiction said that it is not the position to support these claims of 60 to 80 percent cure rates. One commonly cited study which is nearly 30 years old has never been repeated and was not published in a peer review journal. This letter was signed by, as I indicated, about 20 or 30 national drug abuse organizations. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kanjorski).

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones). (Mrs. JONES of Ohio asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes).

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt).