Mark Souder

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. I want to thank the subcommittee chairman and ranking member for plussing up our National Park Service. We are at a very critical junction. We are approaching the 100th birthday, in the year 2016, of the National Park Service. Why do I say we're approaching? Because there are certain moments in time where you can gather and build public support for something that will last from generation to generation. When the first kind of preserved areas were preserved at Yellowstone and the Yosemite Grant and a few of those in the 1800s, it took dramatic intervention from Theodore Roosevelt and the creation under Stephen Mather of the National Park Service. Then it really took in the World War II era, the Great Depression era, the different relief projects that built much of the architecture in our parks because we put people to work, and much of the historic architecture that we see in our national parks came in the WPA and CCC programs. Then nothing really much happened until it started to approach the 50th birthday. When I say ``started to approach,'' when you did Mission 66 and most of the visitor centers you see in our parks today, most of the lodging that you see, much of it at least in our parks, much of the road infrastructure, the sewage infrastructure, everything, came heavily out of this Mission 66 commitment. But you don't just do that in 1 year. If you wanted to be prepared for the 50th birthday, you started a decade ahead. We are getting inside that decade. If we are going to have a vision of where our National Park Service is going to be at 100 years and where it's going to go, we need to start making the investments now. I support, as our Parks Caucus does, the Centennial Act, which also would as part of this build a better foundation as to how we're going to fund parks. But this particular bill puts $50 million in above what we would normally get to start this process. Because if we don't start now, by the year 2016 we won't be able to be ready for the 100th birthday. Part of the question which the National Park Service has been going around talking to Americans all over the country is, where do you want our Park Service to be? How is it going to be different? We need to preserve our natural sites. We have preserved many of those, but we can expand that. We need to expand our cultural sites because our history is a constantly evolving thing, just as Congressman Miller just referred to, the Rosie the Riveter Park and that type of cultural heritage. As we look at Hispanic sites, at African American sites, at Angel Island and various Asian sites, as we look at more urban sites and what's the role of the National Park Service in urban sites, but also how are we going to deal with the Internet age. How can we expand? The National Park Service has more fish and wildlife, has more natural resources at Carlsbad Caverns with bats. How can we use this at other places with grizzly bears, with wolves, with frogs, with trees? And we can learn much of science. How can we interconnect that with our educational institutions? How can we take the Park Service in its 100th birthday to the next level? What are we going to do with interpretive rangers? What are we going to do with our visitor centers? How can we make our heritage, cultural and natural, something that we can preserve for generations and generations? To do that, we need to do that now. We need to start laying the foundation in these appropriations bills, what this bill does. We also need to be looking at a permanent way so the Park Service doesn't have the up-and-down cycles, where we pass additional land things, they don't have money to do it. We give them new homeland security things, and they don't have enough money to do it. We say we want this done and that done by a Park Service but don't give them the annual funds to do it. I'm very pleased that it's in this bill. I hope this is the start of moving towards the 100th birthday. It's a very good start. I thank the chairman and the ranking member for doing that.

Mr. SOUDER. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Mr. SOUDER. Thank you.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, this debate has been crystal clear. You know, at times we've kind of passed over each other, but it isn't about abortion. I also want to thank the gentlelady for putting clauses on abortion in the bill. And it's not about family planning, because this doesn't change the family planning fund. There is only one debate here, and that is, should family planning money go to organizations that advocate or perform abortion? And that is really what this is about. Those organizations are restricted under the Mexico City Policy. And that is in fact, in the view of people who are against abortion, providing public funds if you provide the condoms or whatever you're giving in in-kind aid. Now, for example, as a Republican candidate, I'm not likely to get cash funding from anybody on your side of the aisle. But I have a feeling that if somebody donated stamps to me or donated a mailing to me or donated things in my office, your side would view that the same as a cash contribution. And people back home can understand that money this direct is, in fact, fungible. We have had this debate since I've been in Congress on faith-based. Every time the faith-based argument comes up, your side of the aisle argues that giving money to pay for preachers' expenses, for electricity at a Christian organization, is in fact the same as a direct contribution to those faith-based organizations. You can't have it both ways. In fact, this is fungible money. The debate if you're against abortion is, you do not believe that money should go to organizations, taxpayer money, taken and collected from people who have a passionate opposition to abortion as well as those who favor abortion, should go to organizations that advocate that. If you're for abortion, you believe that should be allowed. And that's clearly what we've established in this debate. It's crystal clear.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3\1/2\ minutes. Ever since we created the Department of Homeland Security, we have had a problem of what to do with our air assets. This amendment would hold $100 million from the Customs and Border Protection, CBP, Air and Marine interdiction, operations, maintenance, and procurement account until a report is received detailing the number of requests CBP receives from the use of assets and the number of those requests that are denied. One of the problems we had when we, in effect, set up ICE and CBP was to to do with the division called Air and Marine. Air and Marine Division did not stay parked right along the border. The Air and Marine Division has assets down in Colombia. They have assets in the Caribbean, assets in the Eastern Pacific, assets at various points, because the whole point of the Air and Marine Division was both with boats and air to be able to follow in particular drug traffickers, other traffickers of contraband in high value or mass targets in the sense of illegal immigration or of terrorism. But when we put the air assets underneath CBP and they put them under Border Patrol, the nature of what we were doing with our Air and Marine assets have fundamentally changed. As the now ranking member of the Border Subcommittee and a member of the Homeland Security Committee since its creation, I have spent a lot of time on this issue, as well as being head of Speaker Hastert's drug task force. I have spent my entire career working on narcotics issues. This has been a huge issue. In particular, one of our problems right now is that many, if not all, of the critical assets are now more or less chained to the border; that one of the P-3s, which are critical for long-range surveillance, right now, because of their usage, and it hasn't been made a priority because the maintenance is going to the helicopters along the border, all 16, and let me repeat, all 16 air assets that are supposed to be used in counternarcotics are now down for serious maintenance, leaving the counterdrug mission severely impacted. And if we can't work out to some degree over in the Florida and the Gulf of Mexico range, they fixed this short term by having legacy Air and Marine or Customs pilots be the regional Border Patrol people and managing their assets. But along the border, we don't have that luxury. We have been trying in the authorizing committee for some time to get a report from the agency, and I have spent hours with the relevant people in my office, as well as questioning at hearings, trying to get the data of how exactly they are using these assets. What are they denying? ICE can't get the assets to do the big-risk things. This has been one of the historic conflicts between these agencies. I support a picket fence. We need to have a border fence. But you also have to have the ability to go behind and forward and track and take down systems. And Air and Marine is a critical part of this, and we need this report. And I hope that if we can't work this out tonight, that it can be worked out in conference committee, because this must be resolved. May I inquire of the chairman of the subcommittee for a brief, informal colloquy here, would you be willing to continue to work with me on this subject and with the Department of Homeland Security, because it is very critical to how we are going to do counternarcotics and high-risk terrorism and how CBP is going to work with ICE in resolving the Air and Marine issue?

Mr. SOUDER. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. SOUDER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman, and with that assurance, I am not really anxious to hold up any money in this bill either. But I would like them to be accountable to Congress because they have not resolved how they are going to move and deal with Air and Marine assets related to ICE and investigations. They sometimes have even sent helicopters where we needed a P-3. This just isn't functioning, and narcotics terrorism is ripping up this country. We have 20,000 to 30,000 deaths a year. And if we have loads of cocaine coming in, loads of heroin coming into our society, because we have got all our planes lined up on the border and our P-3s down, it will not function. And with your assurance that you will continue to work with this, watch this, and we continue to talk about it between the authorizing and the appropriators, I will be happy to withdraw my amendment tonight.

Mr. SOUDER. I will yield.

Mr. SOUDER. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Chairman, this amendment in effect transfers money from the alteration of bridges account, $8 million, and $21.5 million allocated from the operating expenses allocated to airborne use of force account, and moves it over to buy a Coast Guard maritime patrol aircraft. The challenge here in Deepwater, which has had admitted problems, but which is one of the most important long-term programs of the Coast Guard for reaching out into beyond just harbor patrol to be able to protect our country, whether it be illegal contraband, such as narcotics or anthrax or whatever, or high risk terrorists, is that we don't have enough assets that are operating and functional, and part of this is aircraft. The MH-68, the HITRON, leases have expired, and we have moved to the M-65s, which are replacing them in the field. The Coast Guard then requested four more, to bring it up to 12, of assets that go out with the Deepwater Program. This bill already cuts Deepwater $197 million. This is the only Coast Guard plus-up that we would have related to Deepwater. They deeply need these air assets. Now, one of the challenges here is, what is this $8 million alteration of bridges account? The Coast Guard in the report language here, it suggests that the Coast Guard has asked and said we don't have people who maintain bridges and we don't want to do this. The committee is ordering the Coast Guard to do the bridges, rather than the Department of Transportation. We also have a question of what is this $21.5 million, and it looks like it is for an MH-68 that the Coast Guard didn't want in a lease that expired. A former Homeland Security Department official now works for a lobbying firm who has been lobbying the Hill to continue this lease, in spite of the fact that the Coast Guard doesn't want the lease. We have been unable to identify which Members have actually been advocating renewing the lease that the Coast Guard doesn't want for a helicopter we don't need, and they cut the committee request from four to two for a helicopter the Coast Guard desperately needs and wants. This would put that back in. While it is not absolutely clear whether this is a closet earmark, it hasn't exactly been coming forward on the helicopter part or the designation in this bill, which actually doesn't designate the $21.5 million. It asks the Coast Guard to submit a plan. But the lobbyist has been all over the Hill today and recently saying this is for the MH-68 helicopter we don't want. My amendment merely says, let's help Deepwater. Let's give them the helicopter they need and want, rather than giving them money they don't want for something they don't do that the Department of Transportation does in bridges and for a helicopter they don't want with an expired lease.

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I believe that what the chairman was referring to was a general account of the things that I referred to which were inside the general account. I am not trying to cut funding for personnel. There is $8 million in the bill for alteration of bridges. The report language says the committee denies the request to transfer personnel devoted to maintaining safe passage of marine traffic. That means that the Coast Guard had requested to the committee that they didn't want these funds. The reason they don't want the funds is they don't have personnel that does bridges. They said this should be, according to your report language, within the Department of Transportation's Maritime Division to do bridges. I don't know what kind of fight is occurring between Transportation and Coast Guard here, but basically the Coast Guard wants the money to do their mission, not to do bridges, and this amendment tries to address this. Then also in the airborne use of force, there is a discussion about the $21.5 million, which just happens to be the amount that the lobbying firm is seeking to continue the MH-68 HITRON helicopter, which is a great helicopter, I have been in it, but it is not armed. It is outdated and they are moving to the M-65s. They have the M-65s on line or in production, the ones that you said that are off-the-shelf helicopters that they are now adapting, of which they had eight and they wanted four more and you gave them two more. The money for the account that they don't want and don't have people to do and the 21.5 for a contract they don't want would buy the additional helicopter that they do want that's off the shelf and merely would need to be added to. I would ask the chairman respectfully, can you identify who is requesting this, because we haven't been able to figure out who's pushing this MH-68 contract of which the amount of money is the exact amount of money. And the lobbyist is all over the Hill saying that that's what this is for.

Mr. SOUDER. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.

Mr. SOUDER. Reclaiming my time, can I ask the chairman a follow-up question?

Mr. SOUDER. I agree with that. My question then would be, given what we've been hearing and we have been suggested and it is all over that this amount just happens to be the amount that was proposed for the lease and that it's intended for a lease. Will the chairman assure me that in fact the Coast Guard is submitting an independent request to you for 21.5 and it's not intended to buy an MH-68?

Mr. SOUDER. Thank you very much.

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I hope to address several questions more deeply in general debates, as well as with some amendments; but as the ranking member of the Border, Port Security and Global Antiterrorism Subcommittee of Homeland Security, I have been spent much of my congressional career working narcotics, immigration and terrorism issues on the border, particularly as narcotics coordinator in Congress. I worked this even before 9/11. In the year 2002, we issued the most comprehensive border report ever done by Congress. We had 11 hearings, include many hearings on the north and south borders. In addition, I have visited every major border crossing, north and south border, multiple times and, in particular, the largest southern border crossings many, many times, almost annually. I have several amendments in this bill related to counternarcotics and terrorism with CBP and with the Coast Guard. But I want to talk briefly here at this point on the border. Thanks to continued funding and the hard work of the people in the Department of Homeland Security, we have made some progress, particularly since 9/11. That said, in case you haven't heard, our borders are still not secure. Not even close. We have three basic interrelated challenges. And if you can't fix one, you can't fix any: terrorism, contraband and illegal immigration. Last week we had an irresponsible individual who decided that despite being told not to travel to Europe, he did. Flying home, he flew to Canada and then crossed our border crossing. The screen was absolutely clear. It said, ``Refer to INS secondary.'' Even though all our border personnel had very clear instructions to place mask on subject, place in isolation, well-ventilated room, if possible, subject has multiple resistant TB, public health risk, among other things, he was waved on through after very brief screening. In spite of this, he was waved on through. Now that means we cannot even keep people we have caught. Then there was this from yesterday: Homeland Security busted three Texas National Guardsmen for smuggling illegals using National Guard vehicles. That was just yesterday. Last year, when I was subcommittee chairman, we heard horror stories on illegals being deported multiple times and coming back in and committing additional felonies. Yet the President of our country is coming over to lobby the other body about bringing a terrible amnesty bill back to life. There is not a Member in this body or the other body who doesn't understand that we have to deal with the people that are here, with H-1B visas, with the huge challenges we have in this country. But this bill demonstrates the fraud of the Senate bill because it has unrealistic border controls that we are just asking in this bill, in clause after clause, for them to report on the costs. We cut the money intended for the travel initiative. How in the world can you do a 380-page amnesty bill if you can't even begin to deliver the basics? Fortunately, the bill before us today starts to address those. The cost is horrendous. I want to go through, item by item, the challenges, the premises behind what the President is arguing.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. I thank the distinguished ranking member and chairman of the subcommittee. Mr. Chairman, I want to point out a tremendous irony that is happening here in the Capitol Building today. In the other body, the President of the United States has come over to lobby for an immigration bill and the other body is considering this. Yet we are debating a homeland security bill where we have had Republicans come down to the floor who say it's too expensive, that it's spending too much money, but if you took this times four on an annual basis for 5 years, you couldn't begin to meet the standards that are in the Senate bill. We have people like Mr. Rogers of Kentucky pointing out that we're mandating Homeland Security to go check everybody in these detention centers but without any money for it. Unless your intention is complete and pure amnesty, how would you do that if you don't fund programs? Mr. Rogers of Alabama pointed out that we don't have a realistic program for training Border Patrol, that it's costing too much. Yeah. Well, how are we going to ramp this up two or three times if we don't have money to do the Border Patrol people? This bill is an advertisement, a walking billboard for the gaping holes in the bill of the other body. On pages 12 and 13 of this bill, and I agree with all these criticisms as we worked through our subcommittee, it says that they have to define activities, milestones and costs of implementing the program for the Secure Border Initiative. You mean they don't have that? You mean they're promising that we're going to have a secure border and they don't even have the cost estimates? Yes, that's correct. Number 2 here on page 12 says, demonstrate how the activities will further the objectives of it and have a multi-year strategic plan. You mean they don't have a multi-year strategic plan? No, they don't. Identify funding and staffing. You mean they haven't done that? Describe how the plan addresses security needs at the northern border. They don't even have the date set for when they're going to develop a plan for the northern border, yet we're debating a bill in the other body that says that we're supposedly securing our border? On page 37, it says, complete the schedule for the full implementation of a biometric exit program or certification that such program is not possible within 5 years. Well, I've talked to US-VISIT. They haven't even been talked to about it. Of course they can't meet 5 years. We're talking 10 years minimum. What are they debating over in the other body? When the American public looks at what's happening in the Capitol Building on the same day and we're passing an appropriations bill that has theoretically looking at a biometric exit maybe in the next 5 years and the other body is acting like it's done, what's going on here? On page 59, there's a direct challenge to the question of our matching system. Now, the other day we had somebody with TB who had the warning on the screen, one we actually caught and we released him. But what we have is a question of are our lists even valid and there are restrictions on that. Other parts of the bill are actually going to delay the implementation of the fence by saying that, for example, 75 percent of the land in Arizona is actually either government-owned, Native- American-owned, it's a wilderness area, it's a range; and it says we have to work out each of those things before we can put any fence in. Another part of the bill says we have to work with State and local governments in their areas. How in the world can the other body be making these promises when this bill points out the gaping holes?

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, it is my intention to withdraw this amendment because of the strong opposition of Chairman Skelton and Ranking Member Duncan Hunter, but I appreciate the Rules Committee making this in order. I believe it is an important step. I know I am going to rain a little bit on the general parade here. I think this is an important bill, it is an important step, but we have oversold the success of Afghanistan. Before my first trip, I knew then that our then Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, wanted to separate the military effort in Afghanistan from other challenges the country faced, just like in Iraq. In Afghanistan, the question was heroin. On my first trip there, I heard our own soldiers reflect the Pentagon attitude by mocking heroin and minimizing its efforts to get rid of it. I attended the briefings back here in Washington as the heroin problem began to pass anything we've ever seen under the Taliban by a factor of four to five times of anything we have ever seen under the Taliban. I asked the question, since we had not removed the regional drug lords from office, how many of the people who voted in that much heralded election could vote against their local drug lords. State Department, Defense Department, DIA and CIA disagreed on the exact number. The highest was 30 percent, the lowest 20 percent. In other words, 70 to 80 percent of the people who voted in that election did not have a free vote because we did not remove the regional druglords from office, and we let the heroin poppy grow without controlling their sources of financing that had penetrated the early parts of the government. This government has, in fact, started to act, as they attempted to assassinate President Karzai, who was clean, and he removed gradually some members of his cabinet. But by that time, the heroin, once again, four times world record, five times world record, four times world record, three times world record, approaching eight to 10 times the total cumulative effect that ever happened before the United States went into Afghanistan. We had sites that we could not hit because we were afraid they were going to shoot down our own planes. What do we think they are buying the new IEDs with? What do we think they are buying the other equipment with? Of course they are getting it from profits from poppy. I did a hearing in our subcommittee, because the British had this effort, ``Afghanistan: Have the British Counter-Narcotics Efforts Gone Wildly?'' On April 1, 2004. This is no new problem. Go arrest the druglords. Our military is afraid they are going to get exploded. How can you go arrest the drug lords? My amendment was simply to say the military needs to support the antinarcotics efforts and the DEA to take down these. You can't send 10, 25 agents out and say go arrest and take down the Helman province. When I went with Congressman Hoekstra and Congressman Ruppersberger and Congressman Shadegg, the four of us went into the Helman province, possibly the only four Members that will ever get there. And when we got there in a Blackhawk ride for 45 minutes, heroin as far as the eye can see going at a high rate of speed. Dwarfed Columbia. This is an incredible problem. The military needs to engage. I agree with Chairman Skelton; we don't have enough troops in Afghanistan. And that makes it a problematic thing of how to support the DEA. This bill is a first step. But we need the military engagement and support, because you cannot get order, you cannot do alternative crops unless you eradicate the heroin and change a little bit of the market force. We can't subsidize the difference between other products and heroin. It is not possible. We can't do those efforts, and INL and the State Department and DEA and the other agencies cannot do this without military support. This needs to be addressed in the defense bill. It needs to be addressed here in conference. I hope that the chairman here can do it. I hope Chairman Skelton can do it. I hope the administration can do it. But let's understand there is no terrorism funding in Afghanistan. There is no insurgency efforts. There is no corrupt government if you get rid of the heroin. This is a difficult problem. It is multi-faceted. But you need real protection, with real guns, with real transport, with real time, saying that they are going to give logistical support rather than force protection and extremist support, means and effect. For most of the time, the DEA agents are on their own, go in. With 10,000 Taliban, good luck in taking them down. They need more than good luck. They need some help. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos).

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished chairman for his leadership for the start of this bill. I hope we can really tackle the underlying problems. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

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 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 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.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Madam Speaker, today I am delighted to honor the NorthWood High School Red Regiment for being the only Indiana high school invited to march in the Washington, D.C., Memorial Day parade on Monday, May 28, 2007. The NorthWood High School Bands, under the expert direction of Mr. Barry Houser, have enjoyed unparalleled success over the last six years. Their accomplishments have gained regional and national prominence, and include the following: Chosen to represent the State of Indiana in the National Memorial Day Parade in Washington, D.C., May '07; Chosen as one of Indiana's bands to partner with the great Purdue University Bands in 2007; 74th Annual Hollywood Christmas Parade, Hollywood, CA, 2006; Disneyland Main Street Parade, CA, November 2006; Hollywood Bands at the Bowl, Hollywood, CA, November 2006; Indiana Music Educator's Association State Convention Wind Ensemble Performance, January 2004; Outback Bowl Halftime Show, 2500 students nationwide, Tampa, Florida '04; Outback Bowl Parade, 2nd Place, Tampa, Florida '03; Walt Disney World's Mickey's Very Merry Christmas Parade '03; Indianapolis 500 Opening Ceremonies Spectacle of Bands '03; Chicago's Target Thanksgiving Day Parade '02; Indianapolis 500 Opening Ceremonies Spectacle of Bands '02; Indianapolis 500 Festival Parade '02. The Red Regiment continues to achieve the very highest awards everywhere they perform and have been an ISSMA State Finalist in 1991, 1998, 1999, and 2003. In addition, the bands have earned consistent gold ratings in all marching, concert, and jazz ISSMA contests. The NorthWood Bands have had the opportunity to perform with the internationally famous Dallas Brass, open for Maynard Ferguson and His Big Bop Noveau Band, and also appear on the front cover of the JW Pepper's Sheet Music Magazine, which was distributed nationwide. I congratulate the following staff and members of the NorthWood High School Red Regiment on all of their achievements and am proud to have them representing Indiana in the Washington, D.C. Memorial Day parade: Barry L. Houser, Director of Bands; Jeanne Focht, Performing Arts Secretary; Tom Schiefer, Staff; Cristal Osbourn, Guard Director. Abel, Stephen; Ammerman, Carter; Beachy, Staria; Bechtold, Amanda; Brovont, Natasha; Campbell, Tyler; Capre, Laure; Carney, Samantha; Christianson, Taylor; Clark, Felisha; Clark, Rebecca; Dougherty, Sarah; Douwsma, Seth; Eagan, Harlan; Figueroa, Lissette. Ford, Alicia; Ghigliotto, Bianca; Ghigliotto, Brenna; Grabill, Jacob; Hall, Samantha; Hapner, Edith; Henke, Corrie; Hochstetter, Chandra; Huber, Danielle; Hurst, Colton; Hurst, Trenna; Johnson, Brett; Johnson, Taryn; Kaufman, Michael; Koch, Stacie. Korsmo, Amanda; Korsmo, Ashley; Kronk, Shawn; Kurtz, Hannah; Leavitt, Benjamin; Lengacher, Katelyn; Lentz, Kendra; Loutzenhiser, Samantha; Lucas, Ann; Maltos, Marisella; Marsh, Andrew; Martin, Andrea; McDonald, Jennifer; McFerren, Amanda; McFerren, Molly. McWilliams, Hannah; Messick, Patrick; Metzler, Alisha; Miller, Drew; Minnich, Kimberly; Minnich, Kristen; Moorhead, Ian; Nelson, Stephanie; Nisley, Garret; Nissley, Bradlynn; Palmer, Tiffany; Peterson, Ben; Phillips, Tyler; Reed, Adam. Reid, Tabitha; Reid, Thomas; Rensberger, Heather; Reynolds, Britney; Riege, Kyle; Riege, Matthew; Schaffer, Lucas; Schieber, Brett; Schloke, Kirsten; Schmitt, Ashley; Schmitt, Christina; Schmitt, Katelyn; Schmitt, Michael; Schmitt, Rochelle; Smith, Kayla. Smith, Kyle; Smith, Lindsay; Sonner, Jaclyn; Stahl, Amanda; Stahl, Jeremy; Stephens, Stewart; Stevens, Derrick; Stutzman, Shelby; Stutzman, Trenton; Taylor, Qwatecia; Teske, Bradley. Truex, Corey; Wakefield, Karen; Wegmiller, Jillian; Weldy, Kory; Wenger, Rachel; Wilson, Breanna; Yoder, Andrew; Yoder, Emily; Yoder, Sarah; Zimmerman, Krystal.