Mark Souder

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. I thank our distinguished ranking member. I am very supportive of this bill, but I want to share some vague uncomfortability with what I think is potentially happening here in Head Start, and I think it's very important to clarify for this administration and for future administrations what this bill is intended to do and not intended to do. From the time the Republicans took over in Congress, I remember then Subcommittee Chairman Frank Riggs had a number of hearings talking about the lack of an academic focus to Head Start. There was a big debate about what the original role was, but it was supposed to certainly prepare kids who didn't have the same opportunities for their ability to be prepared when they started school. But there's a reason that Head Start, while it was in the old Department of HEW, didn't move with the Department of Education and stayed with HHS. If it was intended to be merely another education program run by educational bureaucrats, run the same way that every other education program was run, it would be over in the Department of Education. It wouldn't have been a grassroots Head Start program with parent councils that voted and participated and ran it. It would have been part of a pre-K program or a kindergarten program run by the public schools. Increasingly, we see this pressure where the public schools are trying to take over the Head Start program. The original origins of the Head Start movement came out of the sixties. Saul Alinsky was an organizer in Chicago. The populist movement and the community action organizations led to a wave of saying, we need programs where local low-income groups are empowered to make their own decisions. What this meant many times was it didn't exactly meet the professional goals or standards of where the public schools thought it should be, necessarily where the professionals in Washington thought it should be, but they were engaged at the community level, participating in a way that we have tried to reach in kindergarten and public schools forever. We can't get low-income parents engaged. It's one of the biggest challenges we have. Yet in the Head Start program, they were engaged all over the country, whether it was rural low income, urban low income. And then when you talk to those parents, you say, What's it like when you go to school? Well, they don't really want us at the public school. There they want us to do fundraisers or they want us to come to back-to-school night. But participating in the governance, participating in the organizations was different. Now, we had wide support in this body, 91 Members, including Mr. Davis and Congresswomen Loretta Sanchez and Maxine Waters, myself and Ric Keller and many conservatives on the right, who share the concept of empowerment. None of us want malfeasance in office or funding problems, people who aren't accounting. All of us would like to see more professional development. All of us would like to see quantified goals. But in this drift towards trying to use the word ``professional'' all the time, we need to make sure that that doesn't lead to an exclusionary concept that basically says, okay, now really the white middle class is going to take over and run this program like we would like it run. The fact is when you get groups of parents and give them votes, they're going to make some judgment mistakes. We need to have accountability. I am for accountability. We need to have measurement. We need to empower those people. But this can't be a typical takeover project, because I believe that the major reason Head Start has, in fact, worked in communities across the country is it's engaged with the people at the grassroots level. And sometimes when we use some of the language here, what we really mean is we're going to take it away from these people because they're not quite as skilled and that we don't quite trust their judgments as much. Now, I appreciate that there was a strong compromise to the side of parents in the conference committee, that, in fact, the language keeping the voting powers to the parents is still there. And it still says that in any major decision, they get a vote. It still says that when there is a conflict with the other people who are governing this, it has to be resolved. There was an additional clause added that seemed to potentially demean the parent councils, where it says ``meaningful consultation and collaboration.'' Now, that was originally going to replace the vote just like we saw in HIDTAs, the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas, where we tried to have the Federal Government, initially in the proposal of the Bush administration, take voting power away from sheriffs and local police chiefs and use the same words ``meaningful consultation and collaboration.'' That is usually a code word for we're going to pat you on the head and invite you to an occasional meeting but not put you in the decision power. What's great about this bill is we left the voting power there and no future administration or this one should mistake that the parents still have the voting power. Any meaningful decision, they have a right to have a vote, and there has to be a resolution with the policy councils. This additional language that was Senate language is supplemental and did not alter the policy council. Of course, parent councils should be a meaningful consultation and collaboration, not just as a ``term'' but real meaningful consultation. They should also have the vote. I want to thank the leadership on the Democratic side and the Republican side in the House and Senate in leaving the real vote to parents. It was a huge victory, a grassroots, bipartisan, liberal- conservative victory that should stand and hopefully will not be undone by administrative interpretation.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes. My amendment is very simple. It strikes paragraph 3 of 8(a). It does that because, what this clause does, in the name of protecting homosexuals, actually takes out any ability of any business, any youth home, any group, any organization to have any kind of marriage criteria. This doesn't go to the defense of marriage question directly, although it builds in inherent contradictions, because the last amendment, in attempting to address that, merely bred confusion and contradiction inside of the bill, which will have to be resolved by courts. Defense of marriage makes it so that, for example, somebody married in Vermont or Hawaii doesn't have to have their marital status recognized in Indiana. But it doesn't address the fundamental question of can marriage be a criteria. In fact, this bill even goes beyond that. It doesn't allow you to have any kind of criteria on any type of sexual behavior. It isn't just about homosexual behavior. It isn't clear that any organization can have any guidelines on adultery, on polygamy or anything else, because by eliminating marriage, by eliminating any kind of sexual standards, it's unclear what standards you can have that relate to sex at all. So if you have any kind of ministry goal and aren't a profoundly Christian organization that falls under the very narrow definition of the last amendment, you're in deep trouble here. So you can't find things like we've seen just recently on the Web site that says things like house parents, cottage parents, counselor parents, family teaching couples. Any organization that wants to try to do this cannot do so. This obviously comes in for Christian child care centers. This is going to come in, which are not overtly Christian missions, it's going to come into exercise centers that may be operated by religious organizations. It comes into all Christian bookstores, obviously, into different counseling centers that maybe both secular and Christian counseling will not be covered by their ability to say that in order to do family counseling you have to be married and you have to subscribe to certain kinds of sexual standards. They will be prohibited, because they aren't covered by title VII under a narrow definition of title VII. My amendment would eliminate all this. It doesn't fix the bill. I admit, it doesn't change my opinion on the underlying bill, but it helps solve a deeper problem that was created, and I understand why it was created, because those who want to protect homosexuals didn't want to have a back-door way to, in effect, discriminate against them. But by doing this, they set up another class of discrimination, once again pitting sexual discrimination up against the right to practice religious liberty. I'll reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SOUDER. I yield myself such time as remains.

Mr. SOUDER. Parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. SOUDER. Since I moved for a recorded vote before the amendment was withdrawn and because I had the right to close, how did she get recognized over my motion?

Mr. SOUDER. But why did you recognize her when I had the right to close?

Mr. SOUDER. I thank our distinguished ranking member. ``Perceived'' is, in fact, a real problem because many businesses simply won't go to court. Obviously they will negotiate or not bother with it. That's the type of intimidation tactics that occur. I am against the underlying bill. I have never hidden that I'm against the underlying bill. I think it's a disaster for Christian bookstores, at least 85 percent of which would fall under this, all sorts of Christian colleges. Even with the well-intentioned amendment that certainly improves the bill that Chairman Miller is offering, it still doesn't fix the underlying problems. One prominent attorney says that basically religious rights have to be trumped by sexual rights in the workplace, and that's the goal of this act, and that this gives religious rights a secondary status in our society to sexual rights. I want to address one other thing, and I apologize for bringing politics into this. In my last campaign, in the last 10 days of my campaign, a cookie-cutter ad was dropped on me that started with pictures of Speaker Hastert and Jerry Lewis. Then a little clip was inserted into the ad that said Speaker Hastert visited my district and that I was proud to have him visit my district. Then pictures of Duke Cunningham came up, and then a picture of Bob Ney came up, then a picture of Mark Foley. Mark Foley's picture came out from the screen, referring to ``Friends of Mark Souder'' and said that Mark Souder has friends who have even had unnatural sex with minors, which was a smear on Mark Foley; nothing was either proven or even directly alleged that way. But for a party that ran cookie-cutter ads, in order to get the majority against me, every half hour referring to unnatural sex with minors that wasn't proven and smeared me, Mark Foley, and others, to stand down here, not allow a vote on gender because they wouldn't want to divide their party on the vote, not allow any direct votes on ``perceived,'' not allow any religious protection votes, and then to attack us for being intolerant when your party used that ad against me and others is a tad cute.

Mr. SOUDER. Madam Chairman, I would like to insert into the Record a letter from Agudath Israel of America on how this impacts Orthodox Jewish groups and their reasons they are opposing this, and an article by Andrew Sullivan, a gay editor of The New Republic, who correctly points out that, in fact, this does not meet the discrimination standards in the sense of, if we were having a situation in America where gays, homosexuals couldn't get jobs, it would be a different challenge. But I wanted to make a couple of points. There is a great irony to this bill. In the faith-based debate, we couldn't get title VII included, and now the Democrats have included it in this bill. The Democrats opposed the Defense of Marriage Act, and now they are putting it in this bill. Why does the bill exempt the military? Why can government discriminate and the private sector not discriminate? How in the world is this going to be upheld in court, to be able to hold a standard that the military can discriminate, that religious groups can discriminate, but Christian bookstores can't discriminate? Clearly, in this bill the majority has tried to provide political cover, a fig leaf, so they can try to move a bill through, knowing full well that once you have the underlying bill, these other protections are going to be stripped out over time. It is internally inconsistent and ironic that the very people who oppose these things now insert them in this bill. Another irony in this bill is that apparently the Boy Scouts' paid employees fall under this, but their volunteers don't. But this raises a question, what if they get their mileage reimbursed? What if they get expense reimbursement? It leads to a question of what if they go on and off the payroll. What about if they get a tax deduction? A lot of the reasons religious organizations are concerned about this is that is, in fact, a government benefit. Once we have a law that states that discrimination against homosexuals is wrong, this is obviously open to court interpretation, as many others are. This is a bill fraught with so many problems that it should not see the light of day. Agudath Israel of America, Washington, DC, November 5, 2007. Honorable Members, House of Representatives. As the House of Representatives prepares to vote on H.R. 3685, the Employment Nondiscrimination Act, I write on behalf of Agudath Israel of America, a national Orthodox Jewish organization, to urge you to oppose the measure. In an earlier correspondence, we explained in detail our key concerns regarding the legislation, particularly the shortcomings of the exemption for religious organizations set forth in Section 6. We will summarize them here: Religious Freedom of Religiously-Controlled Charities Might be in Jeopardy. The exemption, by reference to Title VII, covers religious corporations and educational institutions controlled by religious corporations. Courts have given us no clarity as to whether Title VII protects independently- incorporated, secular, charities that are ``in whole or in substantial part controlled, managed, owned or supported by a particular religion, religious corporation, association or society.'' Because this bill on its face fails to settle this issue, thousands of charities could be adversely affected. Secular Institutions Employing Religious Workers will not be Protected. Secular social service agencies or religiously- related businesses that employ workers that abide by certain religious/traditional tenets would not be protected. Unlike Title VII, where discrimination based on religion, sex or national origin is permitted when such status is a ``bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ),'' no similar provision is included in ENDA when ``sexual orientation'' is a BFOQ. Religious Groups that Avail themselves of Protection May Face Retaliation. In recent years, traditional values groups that adhere to constitutionally protected membership policies based on sexual orientation have faced various forms of legal disability from local governments. Groups claiming ENDA's exemption should not be treated as pariahs. The bill should include protection against retaliation. Thank you for considering our views Rabbi Abba Cohen, Director and Counsel.

Mr. SOUDER. I want to thank Chairman Miller. As a former Republican staff director on the Children and Family Committee when he was chairman of that, and working with the committee, I found, as he said earlier, that he listened to the Hoekstra amendment committee and made some adjustments that, in fact, occasionally he is right. It's occasional, but occasionally he is right. This addressed some of our concerns. It did not address all of our concerns. As you know, when you are dealing with religious law or any law, it isn't at the heart of the matter, it's at the fringes. In communion, can minors take real alcohol and wine? Can Native Americans smoke peyote? Here we're not dealing, and this amendment helps clarify that, we're not dealing with religious colleges. We're not dealing with the church proper, but law in the United States is we deal with religious discrimination, the ability to deal whether sexual discrimination trumps religious discrimination, which is fundamentally what this bill is about, that people who hold deeply held religious beliefs, which is part of Orthodox Jewish teaching, fundamentalist Muslim teaching and, in the Bible, unlike civil rights, where civil rights were led by William Wilberforce in England, by the abolitionists in America because the Bible was not explicit. But here, in fact, the Bible is explicit. The Koran is explicit. The Torah is explicit. And people have deeply held religious beliefs. So 85 percent of the Christian bookstores in America would not be covered by this protection. Certain types of church camps would not be, depending on how it's handled. Group homes that are often independent and do not have an overt religious message that grew out of the faith message of a church but do not necessarily now have an overtly religious mission, they're part of the outgrowth of the religion, would be covered. They wouldn't be able to have a husband and wife be the house parents under this bill. Religious law is a lot more complex than it was presented today. One of the other challenges here is when we are trying to talk about how do we debate in public life over people of faith and which party are they going to be in, how are we going to reach out to this, the American people have heard in this debate today people who seriously are uncomfortable with this debate. We don't like to talk about this type of thing. I have tried to treat everybody in my life, regardless of how they have been in this Congress or friends back home or people I have worked with, with respect and dignity and do not practice personal discrimination. But I have heard my religion and my religious belief called prejudiced, bigoted, hate-filled, that the predominant religions in America have had their basic beliefs, those who believe in a literal Bible, have seen their faith smeared today on this House floor, and I am very disappointed in much of the tone. I understand the passion. I understand why people who have a homosexual life-style feel they have been discriminated against, but this is a classic question in our country. If, in fact, nobody could get a job, we would be facing a different challenge today. I openly admit that. But the challenge here is do people who have deeply held religious convictions based on the fundamental text of their faith have the right to practice their faith, too, or are they going to be trumped? This amendment is a step, but it's only a step.

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

Mr. SOUDER. I appreciate the Chairman's explanation, and there's no use to belabor a point when you've won. At the same time, I do want to clarify a couple of things inside that. A, my amendment is far too weak to reach my own goals, and I realize that. I was hoping it could be adopted because I think it improves the bill. B, I think that the chairman correctly stated the challenge here and the inherent inconsistency in the bill. By merely removing this clause, it didn't allow, in effect, a bill that was intended to protect gay people into other areas, in marriage criteria and other sexual things, because that could have been far more reaching because many organizations have in one man-one woman marriage clauses, also fidelity clauses with the marriage clause, which is why I refer to that. In this mix, however, I understand that in the purposes of the bill, without the protection that you announced, in fact, somebody could try to get around the intent of the bill. And I understand what you're trying to address. So, in conclusion, while my amendment, I think, doesn't fix or still has inherent contradictions, still is going to lead to lawsuits, still lead to all sorts of questions, nevertheless, it will improve the bill. I appreciate the chairman's willingness to support this amendment. It's an incremental improvement. It doesn't fix much, but at least it's another small step. I yield back.

Mr. SOUDER. Madam Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. SOUDER. If I may inquire, do I have the right to close?

Mr. SOUDER. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes. This amendment both would protect transgender in the sense of people who have had sex change operations, and transvestites, people who dress up as the opposite sex, who are not covered, apparently, under the underlying bill. This bill was to come in front of our committee. Ostensibly, partly because there was a major convention, a disruption occurred on the other party's side over this particular amendment, and the bill was withdrawn. Then continued debate occurred, and in committee a number of the Democrat members voted against the bill because this amendment wasn't included, and, presumably, that was going to be so the amendment could be offered on the floor and people would have a right to vote on this. I don't really need a right to vote on it. I think most people probably know where I stand on the issue. But I think that to not have a vote on an amendment like this is a political ploy. It's a political ploy in the sense of what appears to be happening here is that the majority doesn't want to have the embarrassment of their side dividing on an issue. Or maybe they're afraid that our people would actually vote for this amendment and put it over the top to kill the bill, but I would suggest on a vote like this, that would be extremely unlikely. I think it's more that they want to shield their Members from having a difficult vote. Therefore, they can go out and tell the transgender community, oh, we tried, but, in fact, in a very peculiar rule, it appears that the intention is to keep us from calling for a vote and having Members actually show where they stand on this issue, not where they give speeches on this issue but where they actually stand on this issue. Clearly, the word ``perceived'' in an amendment that I had been denied for this bill would have had a huge relevance also to this particular category. The challenge before us as we look at this, and from a conservative perspective, we have heard repeatedly today from multiple speakers, from the opening debate on rules, through the general debate, through here, that we are eventually going to move in this direction. And yet we are told that we as conservatives are paranoiac, that religious organizations are going to be protected, this and that, it's going to be protected. We have seen the Democrats move and add a title VII protection that they opposed over in the faith-based for years on this House floor. We saw them add a defense of marriage clause, which they had opposed for years. We've seen them move even to the point of including, contrary to what the majority leader said that the government is applying this, know that the military is exempt from having this bill applied to them, inconsistency. Clearly, they are willing to tolerate major changes in the majority's position in order to move the bill, which moves people on the other side to ask, what's the point of moving the bill if there are this many compromises? Oh, they've been saying all day long that they're going to expand this bill. Once it becomes law, it's going to go to court to resolve the different things. Hence, some of us believe that many of the things that were added today, on the marriage clause, on the religious exemption clause, the blocking of this amendment to be offered, were to make the bill more palatable. As my friend the chairman of Financial Services said, you can't get everything in the first thing. It's to make it more palatable to, in effect, move it in place. And this isn't the end of the day here. This is the start of a move that many of us who just simply don't approve of the lifestyle, there are many different things we don't approve of, but this is a deeply held position of faith by millions of Americans. And this is an attempt, a start, of what's likely to be an increasing effort to have sexual liberties trump religious liberties. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SOUDER. I have the right to close since I am defending?

Mr. SOUDER. I will reserve the balance of my time until she yields back. I have the right to close.

Mr. SOUDER. Madam Chairman, I strongly oppose this amendment. I believe the majority of the House opposes this amendment.

Mr. SOUDER. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time and call for a recorded vote.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. I thank my distinguished friend from Washington. Rather than comment generally on the bill here, I am going to focus on the rule. I will talk later on the bill itself. As a senior member of the Education Committee, we went through this debate in committee, and I find it reprehensible that the process we have been following increasingly in this House is to shut off debate, that ironically in a bill that is supposedly expanding rights, we have another narrowly drawn rule that deprived me of offering several amendments that I offered in committee, has a gerrymandered rule for another amendment that is unique in history, has several others put in in the Rules Committee that are very unclear. Let me go through a number of these different amendments. I offered an amendment in committee that was unanimously opposed by the Democrats in committee to eliminate the word ``perceived.'' This is a legal nightmare. There is no other law. There is talk about how ADA has some things vaguely familiar. But it does not say ``perceived.'' How in the world are you going to define ``perceived''? As anybody who has any friends who have worked with and been acquainted with people who have a homosexual lifestyle, there are all types. This is open-ended. There is no list here of what is perceived to be homosexual. How is an employer supposed to figure out whether it is perceived? Does that mean if he is a Christian and has made statements, somebody can file a suit because they perceived they were discriminated, not based on any kind of actions that occurred but something that was perceived? This is a legal nightmare and a precedent that is absolutely terrible, and we can't even vote. We can't even have a vote to strike the word ``perceived'' and have a full debate on the word ``perceived.'' What kind of an open process is that in the House? I also had an amendment that would have provided some protection for Christians who have strong views in the workplace and will insert into the Record at this point a number of cases. An AT&T employee was fired because he wouldn't sign a statement that contradicted his religious beliefs on accepting homosexual behavior. A man was fired at Red Cross for not participating in Gay and Lesbian Pride Month and forcing him to observe that. Others have been fired for other reasons. The question is not whether you can harass somebody in the workplace. That is already illegal. If you mock somebody, that is already illegal. If you commit a hate crime, that is already illegal. The question is, can you as a Christian express your views and not be persecuted? That, yes, in a sense it is at least a plurality of Americans profess Christianity, a smaller percent conservative Christianity, but we are moving so far as to restrict the rights in the workplace of Christians' even ability to hold or say anything about their views. People can't even have Bible studies in some places it has been ruled because that would be offensive to homosexuals in the workplace based on this law in some cities and have been upheld in the court. Now, moving past the two amendments that were unanimously defeated in committee and then we weren't allowed to debate as a whole House, we have an amendment that was added in response to another amendment from Pete Hoekstra in committee that would have exempted Christian colleges. It was unanimously defeated by the Democrats in committee. Then suddenly in the Rules Committee we have it added with a religious exemption. The problem with the religious exemption, and here I would like to put into the Record a number of cases that show the problem with this. Loyola University was deprived of a religious exemption because even though it was founded by Jesuits, its charter requires its president to be a Jesuit and more than one-third of their trustees, they were denied because they didn't meet one of those criteria. A Friends School, a Quaker school, was denied a religious exemption because it had to have multiple proof that everybody there was Quaker and was following every rule. A private religious school was denied for similar type things. A business that wanted to run as a religious world view was clearly denied the religious exemption. An orphanage by the United Methodist Church was denied the ability because it had gone secular. They wanted to come back and be a Methodist church again and they were denied, and these were all court decisions, because they were no longer purely Methodists and they didn't have a right to go back and be Methodist. This is in addition to the 2,500 Christian bookstores in America. Only 14 percent are run by a church. Eighty-six percent are either for-profit or not primarily religious organizations. Under this bill, they will be forced to hire homosexuals regardless of the personal views of Christian bookstores. This is going to happen in various independent organizations that are quasi-part of the church. Sometimes the church will operate a for-profit entity, that runs as a for-profit entity, that would not be predominantly for a religious purpose, but the proceeds go to the church, therefore, they will implement their church beliefs in it, even though it is a for-profit entity. None of that is exempted under this. We didn't even get a chance to debate this amendment. It just came in in the rule. Now, we move to another amendment that suddenly appeared, or I guess we will be debating here on marriage. Somehow in response to debate in committee, they are saying that this won't affect the Defense of Marriage Act. This is another lawsuit amendment because that is directly contrary to the fundamental part of the bill. My amendment tries to address part of this, but quite frankly, it is a legal quagmire. Then we come to amendments that are allowed. We have had some debate on this gender equity for transgender and transvestite. Now, the challenge here is not whether you favor it or are against it. I heard my friend from New York say he was going to vote for it. He can't vote for it. We are not allowed to vote for it. We have been banned from having a debate. What happened to the day when we have a debate, you win or lose? To come in unprecedented, I have never heard, as a staffer or a Member, a rule coming in prohibiting in the rule a vote. This is an in-your-face tactic as part of this bill to not let us debate the religious underpinnings and the religious stuff, not debate ``perceived,'' not debate protections for people who are individuals, not have a vote on transgender, and it's 5 minutes on each side to even debate it. This is an abominable rule. It is a precedent-setting, terrible, terrible rule. I urge people to support my colleague Mr. Hastings' motion on the previous question and to vote against that so we can have some amendments to this rule and then vote against this abominable rule because it sets precedents we will regret for a long, long time no matter which party is in the majority. Examples of Discrimination Against Religious Employees Christian employees who read Bibles during ``diversity training'' reprimanded and spend four years in lawsuits to obtain reversal. The ACLJ filed suit in April 1998 against the Minnesota Department of Corrections on behalf of Thomas Altman and Ken Yackly to force their employer to rescind the reprimands they received in 1997 after they silently read their Bibles at a state-mandated training session called ``Gays and Lesbians in the Workplace.'' The employees contended that the training session was little more than a state-sponsored indoctrination aimed at changing their religious beliefs about homosexuality. Four years later, and several appeals later, the employees were finally vindicated. AT&T employee in Denver fired for refusing to sign company- required pledge to recognize, respect and value sexual orientation differences within the company. In January 2001, an employee of AT&T was required to sign a new AT&T Broadband Employee Handbook with policies that conflicted with his religious beliefs by condoning the homosexual lifestyle. After notifying his supervisor that based on his religious belief he could not sign the certificate of understanding, he was fired. Christian firefighter suspended for handing out tract entitled ``The truth about homosexuality.'' Madison, Wis., firefighter Ron Greer nearly lost his job for giving his colleagues a tract entitled, ``The truth about homosexuality.'' He was suspended and ordered to attend diversity training for violating the city's anti- discrimination code. Hospice worker fired by gay supervisor for expressing Christian beliefs about homosexuality. Debra Kelly, a former hospice worker in Philadelphia, was fired for expressing her Christian beliefs about homosexuality. Her supervisor, a supporter of ACT-UP, a militant homosexual group, said Kelly was intolerant and unsuited for her position. At Hewlett Packard's plant in Boise, Idaho, an employee with a 21-year record of meeting or exceeding expectations was fired for refusing to remove Bible verses about homosexuality from his cubicle. The employee allegedly posted the Bible verses in response to a poster near his cubicle that he perceived to be promoting GLBT relationships. HP openly admitted that its reasoning for firing the employee was ``his overt opposition to HP's Diversity Advertising Campaign.'' Man fired by American Red Cross for not celebrating homosexuality Michael Hartman was employed by the Red Cross in San Diego. The company sent a mass e-mail to all employees in 2005 promoting ``Gay and Lesbian Pride Month,'' urging them to ``observe'' the celebration. Hartman, a Christian, communicated his religious objections to his supervisors and was promptly called in and told his communication was ``inappropriate.'' Hartmann was fired. Oakland city employees posting a flier on a company bulletin board forced to remove flier and threatened with discipline. Oakland, Calif., city employees Regina Rederlord and Robin Christy formed a group called the ``Good News Employee Association'' and posted a flier on a company bulletin board advertising a ``forum for people of faith to express their views on contemporary issues of the day, with respect for the natural family, marriage and family values.'' After a lesbian employee complained of being offended by the flier, the city removed the flier and threatened the two women with adverse employment action for placing the fliers ``in public view which contained statements of a homophobic nature and were determined to promote sexual orientation based harassment.'' A federal court upheld the city's action. In Portland, Maine, city officials canceled a $60,000 grant for a Salvation Army meals-on-wheels program for senior citizens. Why? As a Christian denomination, the Salvation Army won't provide marital benefits to homosexual employees, thus running afoul of the city's ``sexual orientation'' law. When the Portland's ``sexual orientation'' ordinance was introduced, proponents argued, as they do often today, that it would merely ensure that ``people won't be fired for being ``gay.'' A District of Columbia human rights commission ordered Georgetown University, a Catholic college, to violate church doctrine and sponsor a pro-homosexual group on campus. A court agreed, saying the District's ``sexual orientation'' law overrode the school's religious freedom. It didn't matter that neither ``sexual orientation'' nor sodomy are protected in the Constitution or that religion is specifically protected. In the hands of the judges, ``sexual orientation'' takes on a life of its own. In 2003 Atlanta Human Rights Commission ordered a local golf club to extend spousal rights to gay member partners, Thankfully officials intervened, and the Georgia legislature promptly passed a law exempting private clubs from local anti-discrimination obligations. In June, 2001, The District of Columbia's Commission on Human Rights fined the Scouts $100,000 and ordered them to reinstate two openly homosexual leaders. That decision was overturned in court, but the Scouts paid heavy legal fees. In Arlington, Virginia, a video duplicator had been ordered by the Arlington County Human Rights Commission to produce video material for a lesbian activist or pay for someone else to duplicate the videos. The videos Vincenz wanted duplicated were two documentaries entitled: ``Gay and Proud'' and ``Second Largest Minority''. Tim Bono, argued that he could not, in good conscience (him being a Christian), produce material that promoted homosexual activity. In 2006 the 9th Circuit Court in California ruled last year (06) that members of a Christian employees group for the city of Oakland could not use words like ``marriage,'' ``natural family,'' or ``family values'' in email correspondence or on posters in city offices where a wide variety of groups are allowed to post. The 9th circuit panel decided that such words were akin to hate speech because they made homosexual city employees uncomfortable. Cases Where Courts Wrongly Denied Religious Exemption Fike v. United Methodist Children's Home of Virginia, Inc., 547 F. Supp. 286 (E.D. Va. 1982)--an orphanage founded by the Methodist Church, trustees required to be Methodists, sought to teach Christian doctrine and belief to the children. New President sought to take group in more secular direction and was fired, despite the entity's desire to recapture its original founding mission to be a thoroughly Christian (and Methodist) charity service. Court held it had become too secular in the interim, and denied religious exemption. Pime v. Loyola University--Catholic University denied the general religious exemption under Title VII despite the fact that it was founded by Jesuits, its charter requires its President to be a Jesuit, and more than one third of its trustees are Jesuits. Doe v. Abington Friends School, 480 F. 3d 252 (3d Cir. 2007)--religious school run and funded entirely by Quakers not entitled to early dismissal on religious exemption grounds in an Americans with Disabilities Act case, but was required to submit to extensive discovery demands of the plaintiff. EEOC v. Kamehameha School/Bishop Estate, 990 F.2d 458 (9th Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 114 S. Ct. 439 (1993)--private Protestant religious school denied Title VII religious exemption even though it had numerous religious characteristics and activities. EEOC v. Townley Eng'g & Mfg. Co., 859 F. 2d 610 (9th Cir. 1988)--no exemption for manufacturing company whose owner had a clearly religious world view and wanted it to permeate the workplace.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I want to thank my friend and colleague who represents the University of Notre Dame. Unfortunately, I only come about 5 miles away as we circle around and share Elkhart County. It is great that we have six Domers in Congress. My colleague is actually a double Domer, which is a great honor. Before I go into my remarks, I want to share something I remember from campus when I was there. The story on campus was: Do you know the difference between God and President Hesburgh? And the answer is: God is everywhere; President Hesburgh is everywhere but Notre Dame. And the reason was, this is what we are honoring him here for today. He went throughout the entire world, not only raising money for Notre Dame, but working to serve justice, working to serve various causes around the world. I rise today in strong support of this resolution by Congressman Donnelly to honor Rev. Theodore Hesburgh for his contributions to the civil rights movement in America, his tireless work to reduce the threat of nuclear conflict, and for seeking peaceful resolution to international conflict. Father Hesburgh, who served as the president of the University of Notre Dame from 1952 to 1987, holds the world record for honorary degrees received at more than 150. He has been honored for his contributions to education, to athletics, to peace, as well as national and international issues. He has earned these degrees, these honors, this praise with his thoughtful approach to many of the most daunting challenges of our time. In the late 1970s, he served on a commission appointed by President Carter to study immigration reform. His commission found that securing our borders should be the first step toward an immigration policy that is thoughtful and beneficial to us and our neighbors. How fresh that sounds for a recommendation he issued three decades ago. His biography on the Notre Dame University Web site says: ``Justice has been the focus of many of his outside involvements.'' He was a charter member of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, created in 1957; and he served as its chairman from 1969 to 1972, when he was replaced by President Nixon after criticizing the President's civil rights record. He has argued that nuclear weapons present ``the greatest moral challenge of all time.'' He says nuclear weapons undercut the key just- war principles of discrimination, avoiding killing innocent civilians, and proportionality, using only the force necessary to achieve justifiable defense. While not everyone here may agree with these views, they are thoughtful, inspired by the will to do and represent good and representative of a man who holds peace and goodwill towards men as his central tenets. The title of his autobiography says it all: ``God, Country, Notre Dame.'' Hopefully, those three will never be separated; but if they are, he has the order: God, country, and Notre Dame. I would like to finish with one personal story. The only time I really got to spend with Father Hesburgh, I was head of the executive lecture series at the graduate School of Business at Notre Dame. He asked us to invite David Rockefeller in. He had served for many years on the Chase Manhattan board, and the Rockefellers had never contributed to Notre Dame. When we went to the airport, I saw one of the things my colleague mentioned, and that he was a priest first. He saw he had a few minutes, and so he went and did his prayers right on the airport runway. He made sure that every day he met his duties as a priest first and foremost. My privilege that afternoon, after he spoke to the business school and the graduate students, was to accompany David Rockefeller, the executive vice president of Chase Manhattan, and Father Hesburgh for one simple reason: my job was when President Hesburgh gave me the signal, was to get the Vice President away so Father Hesburgh could do the close because in his heart this man will go to his grave knowing he built the university. He took Notre Dame from a good university to a great international university, and that means you have to do many different things: one was fund-raising, making friends with leaders around the world, then making sure that they saw his dream in South Bend, actually Notre Dame, Indiana, is a separate town, but that they saw the dream of the Fathers of the Holy Cross to build the university there. While they built that university, President Hesburgh was really the transition figure that took it to the university it is today. So we thank him in the international region and for his civil rights commitment, and for building the University of Notre Dame into the great university it is today. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise today to urge passage of this resolution to congratulate the Warner Robins, Georgia, All Stars for winning the Little League World Championship in August in Williamsport, Pennsylvania. The achievements on the field, Dalton Carriker smacked a 2-1 curve ball from Junsho Kiuchi of Japan over the right field wall to give the Georgia team a 3-2 walk-off victory before 31,000 fans, were, of course, remarkable. Madam Speaker, what happened right after that was even more remarkable and speaks even higher of the players and coaches involved in this great victory. In fact, these boys taught a lesson that we here in Washington would do well to consider. When the Georgia boys saw the Japanese boys slump to the ground in defeat, they rushed to their sides, gave them hugs and physically and emotionally lifted their spirits. They knew the Japanese players were opponents, not enemies. They knew that good, worthy opponents are a blessing. Without opponents who push us, we never put forth our best effort, and our victories are empty and meaningless and trite. The winning pitcher for Georgia, Kendall Scott, summed it up best as to why his team reacted as it did, and, little did he know, why programs such as Little League and other youth sports are so valuable to the character of America's youth: ``They don't disrespect,'' Scott said. ``They are very disciplined, and they are some of the nicest kids you'll ever meet. Just seeing them fall down and cry, you just couldn't let them do that. You gotta pick them up.'' Madam Speaker, when these young men write their ``What I did on my summer vacation'' essays this fall, they will have a dazzling story to tell. They took on the world and won. But, better yet, they taught the world a lesson, that victories can come after the game as well as during it.

Mr. SOUDER. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. We're going to be saying lots of nice things about Brett Favre this afternoon, but I want to make sure that he understands the most important thing. In my fantasy football team, the Domers, he's my starting quarterback this weekend. I need a lot of points. I don't want this going to his head that we're passing this congressional resolution. In my little hometown of 700 of Grabill outside Fort Wayne, Indiana, when it was created, a man named Ben Neuenschwander brought a German over named Fred Marolf, and then Fred broke off, and up at the county line he formed a cheese company. And after many years and just a few miles from my hometown, they moved up to where all the cheeseheads go, to Wisconsin. County Line Cheese today is one of the more famous cheese companies in America. And I don't know whether they make the actual cheeseheads that you Wisconsinites wear, but they certainly make a lot of the cheese. That's kind of been my tie to the cheeseheads, because growing up near a plant, you could get the green curds and all that type of stuff. I followed the Green Bay Packers growing up, and they had Bart Starr and Fuzzy Thurston in the line and Jim Taylor, of course Paul Hornung, the Notre Dame great, and you kind of wondered whether Green Bay fans were going to be like Cub fans and all they did was talk about the past. Then along comes Brett Favre. So let me rise today in support of this resolution to Brett Favre of the Green Bay Packers for breaking the world record on career touchdown passes, and the way he handled this with Dan Marino was just amazing for the country to watch as they both praised each other. He adds to his record also for the most passes attempted, the most passes completed and, most importantly of all, the most games won as a starting quarterback. It's only fitting that Favre continue his run on the NFL record books because he's always been a man ahead of his time. He started on his high school baseball team as an eighth grader. He started at seven different positions, including offensive and defensive line, as a ninth grader on a varsity football team. In 1987, he arrived at Southern Miss, and at age 17, was listed as the seventh-string for the Golden Eagles. Midway through the third game of that season, he had become the starter. He would not relinquish that spot until he graduated 4 years later. He would lead stunning upsets of Florida State and, as a senior, Alabama. Two years later, Ron Wolf was hired as general manager of the Green Bay Packers. In his first speech to Packer fans, Wolf revealed that the Packers' next quarterback was a guy they'd never heard of, a guy who had languished as a third-string signal caller of the Atlanta Falcons, a guy named Brett Favre. He traded a running back you've never heard of to Atlanta for Favre, and the rest is history. Well, maybe not all the rest. The Packers are 5-1 this year, and Favre, at 38, is off to his best start in years. Teammates say he's in the best shape of his career; coaches say he is making the best decisions of his career. Could he do it again? Could he win his second Super Bowl? American cheeseheads hope so. For those of us Colts fans, we hope he does well in the final game but doesn't win. Madam Speaker, I yield back.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. There are probably no things more upsetting to Members of Congress than to know that the difficult decisions we have made here have resulted in the deaths of young men and women in battle. Lance Corporal David Fribley was actually the first Hoosier killed in action in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. One of the good things that we have seen in the Oversight and Government Reform Committee has been a number of post offices and various things being named after these young patriots. I was earlier at a dedication of a football field in Warsaw, Indiana, named Fribley Field, where the community went together and put together a statue and a number of things in tribute for him and his family and renamed the field and redid the field so that kids could continue to play athletics as he did in Warsaw. He is actually from Atwood. His parents are Gary and Linda. He has a brother, Steve, and a sister, Ann. Atwood is a very small town, not that Warsaw is all that big, in the big scheme of things, but Atwood is a very small town, similar to the one I grew up in, probably about 500 people or thereabouts, between 500 and 1,000, at most. It is on U.S. 30. Many people may go by it. Be careful if you do, there is usually often a policeman there who tries to catch people in a speed trap. The town is just a little ways away. But this is a big moment for Atwood. One of their stars that came out went to Warsaw High School; and even though he went to Warsaw High School, he was known as an Atwood boy. Warsaw is a large consolidated high school in the area, and all the small towns know their individuals there. Vicky Romine, the postmaster in Atwood, requested this from our office and said, because he was an Atwood boy, they wanted to name their post office after him. The three county commissioners in Kosciusko County, Brad Jackson, Ronald Truex and Bob Conley, all sent letters of support to rename this post office after Lance Corporal David Fribley. He graduated from high school in 1996, where he was an all-conference football player and a track and field star. He was on the track and field team at Indiana State from 1996 to 1998 and placed sixth in the shot put at the 1998 Missouri Valley Conference Indoor and Outdoor Championships. He went on to graduate with a bachelor's degree in recreational-business administration from Indiana State University. After college he moved to Fort Myers, Florida, where he began organizing activities for retirees at the Shell Point Retirement Community until September 11, 2001. Right after 9/11, he joined the Marine Corps, saying, ``The greatest gift one can give another is the gift of service. The following is my gift to you and others. With all the strength of my fellow marines, we shall always provide you with the comforting feeling of safety that you have each day.'' He was assigned to the 1st Battalion, 2nd Marine Regiment, 2nd Marine Expeditionary Brigade, Camp Lejeune, North Carolina. In 2003, he was deployed in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. On March 23, 2003, he died during a battle near Nasiriyah. He became the first Hoosier killed in action in support of Iraqi Operation Freedom. Corporal Fribley was always ready to pitch in, friends and family say. When an uncle took sick, he mowed his aunt's lawn. When a cousin wanted to attend Indiana State, he took her to the sprawling campus, showed her shortcuts and introduced her around. One of his fraternity brothers at Indiana State said: ``David was one of those simple, gentle people. You could ask him to do anything, and he would stop what he was doing and help you. He was one of those people that I trusted with everything. I could go to him with a problem. I could go to him with an issue, and he would always come through.'' Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in strong support of the resolution to congratulate the Phoenix Mercury for bringing the first professional basketball title ever to the Valley of the Sun. The Mercury became the first team in WNBA history to clinch the league title on the road when it defeated the Detroit Shock in Detroit on September 16 to win the championship series 3-2. The Mercury relied on a variety of stars, from point guard Cappie Pondexter to former Connecticut star Diana Taurasi. Penny Taylor, Kelly Miller and Tangela Smith also averaged in double figures as the Mercury set the league scoring record for the second straight year. I remember back in the 1960s when I was in college and things were a tad more sexist. You had half-court basketball. It has sure changed today when you watch the women in the WNBA outshoot and do things that most males wouldn't dream of being able to do. It has truly emerged as an increasingly popular sport and impressive sport. It is no coincidence that all the high scoring occurred under the watch of Coach Paul Westhead, a Shakespearean scholar who taught actual classes while serving as a men's basketball coach. He devised a style 20 years ago as coach at Loyola Marymount that made the Los Angeles school the epicenter and really the founder of the high-scoring, I shouldn't have said that quite that way because there were others who did run-and-gun basketball, but Loyola Marymount was the first team that regularly scored more than 100 points. He took that show to George Mason University in Northern Virginia before returning to the pro game as an assistant a few years later. In 2005, he resurfaced in Phoenix and helped turn a middle-of-the- pack team into a champion. At 68, with titles in both the NBA and WNBA to his credit, he has resigned, but not before helping to bring a trophy to a city that has long waited for one. Congratulations to Coach Westhead and to all the Mercury and its fans.