[Pages H11860-H11867]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3073, FATHERS COUNT ACT OF 1999

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, by the direction of the Committee on
Rules, I call up House Resolution 367 and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

H. Res. 367

Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 3073) to amend part A of title IV of the
Social Security Act to provide for grants for projects
designed to promote responsible fatherhood, and for other
purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed
with. All points of order against consideration of the bill
are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and
shall not exceed 90 minutes, with 60 minutes equally divided
and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of
the Committee on Ways and Means and 30 minutes equally
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Education and the

[[Page H11861]]

Workforce. After general debate the bill shall be considered
for amendment under the five-minute rule. In lieu of the
amendment recommended by the Committee on Ways and Means now
printed in the bill, it shall be in order to consider as an
original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-
minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute
printed in the Congressional Record and numbered 1 pursuant
to clause 8 of rule XVIII, modified by the amendment printed
in part A of the report of the Committee on Rules
accompanying this resolution. That amendment in the nature of
a substitute shall be considered as read. All points of order
against that amendment in the nature of a substitute are
waived. No amendment to that amendment in the nature of a
substitute shall be in order except those printed in part B
of the report of the Committee on Rules. Each amendment may
be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be
offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be
considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified
in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent
and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall
not be subject to a demand for division of the question in
the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of
order against the amendments printed in the report are
waived. The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may: (1)
postpone until a time during further consideration in the
Committee of the Whole a request for a recorded vote on any
amendment; and (2) reduce to five minutes the minimum time
for electronic voting on any postponed question that follows
another electronic vote without intervening business,
provided that the minimum time for electronic voting on the
first in any series of questions shall be 15 minutes. At the
conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the
Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with
such amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may
demand a separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted
in the Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the amendment
in the nature of a substitute made in order as original text.
The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the
bill and amendments thereto to final passage without
intervening motion except one motion to recommit with our
without instructions.

{time} 1045

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms.
Pryce) is recognized for 1 hour.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I
yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms.
Slaughter), my friend, pending which I yield myself such time as I may
consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is
for the purpose of debate only.
Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 367 is a structured rule providing for
the consideration of H.R. 3073, the Fathers Count Act of 1999.
The rule provides for 90 minutes of general debate. One hour will be
managed by the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Ways and
Means, and 30 minutes will be managed by the Committee on Education and
the Workforce. Both of these committees have jurisdiction over portions
of the bill and the compilation of their work is embodied in a
substitute amendment which will be made in order as base text for the
purpose of further amendment.
The rule designates which amendments may be offered which are printed
in the Committee on Rules report. Out of the nine amendments filed with
the Committee on Rules, six are made in order under the rule and five
of those six are Democrat amendments.
In addition to giving my Democratic colleagues five out of six
amendments, the rule offers the minority a motion to recommit with or
without instructions. So I think it is accurate to say that this bill
treats the minority very fairly, especially considering that both
committees of jurisdiction reported their versions of the bill by voice
vote, suggesting very little controversy.
Mr. Speaker, the Fathers Count Act builds on the welfare reforms that
Congress successfully enacted in 1996. Those reforms were based on the
principles of personal responsibility, accountability, as well as the
value of work. And with this foundation, welfare reform has been a
great success. Since 1996, we have seen our welfare rolls shrink by 40
percent. We now have the lowest number of families on welfare since
1970.
But our work is far from done. There are still families struggling to
make ends meet and many of them are single-parent households and more
often than not, the lone struggling parent is the mother.
For those of us who have raised children with the help and support of
a spouse, it is hard to fathom the energy, patience, and stamina
required to face such a task alone. And for those of us who were
fortunate enough to be raised by two parents, it is hard to imagine the
void of a fatherless youth or how our personalities and life experience
would have been altered had our fathers not been there to guide us.
But as we know, this is the reality for many low-income American
families that have their financial challenges compounded by the absence
of a father and a husband. The fact is that kids in two-parent homes
are generally better off than those raised in single-parent homes. Kids
who have only one parent to rely on have a harder time in school, a
lower rate of graduation, a greater propensity toward crime, an
increased likelihood of becoming a single parent themselves, and a
higher chance of ending up on welfare.
The Fathers Count Act recognizes these hardships as well as the
significant role that fathers play in family life. The bill seeks to
build stronger families and better men by promoting marriage and
encouraging the payment of child support and boosting fathers' income
so that they can better provide for their children.
Specifically, the Fathers Count Act provides $140 million for
demonstration projects that are designed to promote marriage, encourage
good parenting, and increase employment for fathers of poor children.
Congress and the President will appoint two 10-member review panels
who will determine which programs receive Federal funds. Preference
will be given to those programs that encourage the payment of child
support, work with State and local welfare and child support agencies,
and have a clear plan for recruiting fathers. The number of programs
selected and the amount of funding they receive is not dictated by the
bill. Members of the selection panels will have the flexibility to make
these decisions based on the quality and number of programs that apply.
The bill also encourages local efforts to help fathers by requiring
that 75 percent of the funding be given to nongovernmental community-
based organizations.
The Fathers Count Act also seeks a balance in terms of the size of
programs and their geographic locations. The fact is that we are not
sure what the best way is to get fathers back into the picture and
engage in their children's upbringing, but we think some community-
based organizations might have some good ideas and would meet the
unique needs of the fathers in their own cities and towns.
The Fathers Count Act is designed to try to tap into these
communities, try some new things, and then scientifically evaluate the
results so that good programs can be duplicated.
Despite its name, the Fathers Count Act is not just about fathers. It
also improves our welfare system by expanding eligibility for welfare-
to-work programs. The program was designed to help the hardest-to-
employ, long-term welfare recipients. But in an attempt to ensure that
the most needy individuals are served by the program, Congress made the
criteria a bit too stringent and the States are not able to find enough
eligible people to fulfill the program's purpose. So this bill adds
some needed flexibility to the program by requiring recipients to meet
one of seven defined characteristics rather than two out of three. As a
result, we should see many more families move successfully from welfare
dependency to self-sufficiency.
Further, the bill gives relief to States who are making a good-faith
effort to meet Federal child support enforcement requirements, but
which are facing devastating penalties for missing an October 1
deadline.
These penalties were established with the thought that if States
missed the deadline by which they were to have a child support State
distribution unit set up and running, they would be doing so in willful
disobedience of Federal law. In fact, there are eight States that have
been working very hard to comply, but have hit some bumps in the road
which have slowed them down a bit.
The alternative penalties provided in this bill provide incentives
and encouragement to meet child support enforcement goals without
crippling these States' welfare systems in the process.

[[Page H11862]]

Finally, I am pleased that the Fathers Count Act includes important
funding for the training of court personnel who are at the center of
our child protection system.
As we implement new laws that seek to move more children out of the
foster care system into safe, loving and permanent homes, we must
ensure that our courts have the resources necessary to make the very
best decisions for our children.
Mr. Speaker, all said, the Fathers Count Act takes a number of
important steps forward in our Nation's efforts to redefine welfare and
make it work for families. But most importantly, this legislation
values responsible parenting, in this case, fatherhood, by giving the
support and encouragement for fathers to be there for their children,
physically, emotionally, and financially.
I hope my colleagues will support this rule, participate in today's
debate, and take another step forward in making our welfare system work
for all families.
Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and the Fathers Count
Act.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms.
Pryce), my dear friend and colleague, for yielding me this time; and I
yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend
her remarks.)
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, the rule governing the debate of H.R.
3073, the Fathers Count Act, makes in order a number of amendments
which greatly improve the underlying bill. This rule should have been
an open rule. The legislation should be fully debated without
unnecessary restrictions. We were unable to achieve that, but a number
of important amendments are made in order.
Mr. Speaker, let us all agree that fathers count. Fathers have a
major impact on every child's life either through their presence or by
their absence.
We can go through the voluminous research or rely on our common sense
to understand the important role that fathers play in the lives of the
children whom they helped to bring into the world. But fathers must
also stand up and be counted. Sadly, in our Nation, the majority of
single-parent families with minor children are maintained by the
mothers of those children. Too often, single mothers must struggle to
balance the demands of a household, raising children, and holding a
job. If they are not receiving child support payments from the fathers
of their children, this task can be all but impossible.
In my own home district of Monroe County, New York, alone, only $35
million of the $46 million due to local children was collected, meaning
that one quarter of the child support went unpaid.
Mr. Speaker, it has taken heroic efforts just to get where we are
today regarding the public perception of child support payments. We
have made great strides in educating people that they are not casual
obligations.
In seeking to promote marriage, I am concerned about whether or not
this bill may have an unintended effect of trying to keep together some
unions which should, in fact, be separated, specifically, those with an
abusive, physically violent spouse. When as many as one-fourth of the
women on public assistance are living with violence in their lives, let
the us not try to force them to remain in a violent marriage.
Promoting and encouraging fatherhood is a laudable goal. We need to
focus on men and their roles as fathers. But that cannot happen
independent of the women who are their partners and who quite clearly
have a very important part in creating children and the family which
results.
There will be an amendment offered which will help clarify this point
and which emphasizes the notion that parents count. This amendment
offered by the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink), also puts proper
emphasis on providing resources to organizations dealing with domestic
violence prevention and intervention.
Finally, the rule does allow for an amendment by our colleague who is
perhaps the most consistent and thoughtful voice on the separation of
church and State, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards). The
separation of church and State is a brilliant and practical gift of our
Founding Fathers. It is expressly intended to help preserve our
religious freedoms, not to threaten them. And this notion serves as a
firewall from government regulations of religious practice.
Thus, even when it might be more convenient or expeditious to bridge
this separation, it must be vigilantly maintained. I strongly encourage
Members to consider the Edwards amendment. It will help us to maintain
the tradition which has served this country well by clarifying the
eligibility of faith-based organizations to participate in the programs
provided under this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, this bill was cleared by the Committee on Ways and Means
on a voice vote and sped down a fast track to consideration here on the
House Floor, but a hasty process sometimes needs to be slowed down so
that we can more fully consider how to best make fathers count and how
to make fathers accountable.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I do not have any requests for time,
so I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, before I comment on the
underlying bill, let me add my appreciation, gratitude and
congratulations to Chaplain Ford in support of the resolution honoring
him, for he has given this Nation and this Congress a great, great and
wonderful service.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the rule and to support the underlying
bill as well. I am very gratified that the Committee on Rules saw fit
to acknowledge a number of the amendments that I think will enhance
this legislation. But I think it is important to start my support
debate on this bill with a referral to a 13-year-old in Pontiac,
Michigan, by the name of Nathaniel Abraham. Nathaniel Abraham came from
a family that I am sure wanted the best for him. Nathaniel Abraham is a
13-year-old who has been certified as an adult for murder.
His mother, as the newspapers report, is a hard-working single parent
with a number of other children who loved all of her children and cared
for them, but Nathaniel's father was not in the home. When interviewed
on 60 Minutes about what he thought about that, his response was first,
yes, he was unhappy and hurt, but that he was angry.
I think the statistical analysis will point to the fact that children
who have fathers who are absent from their lives and their homes turn
out to be dysfunctional adults or youth. It is important to have a bill
that emphasizes fathers, but emphasizes parents and emphasizes
families.
Recent studies show that 59 percent of teenage children born in poor
families are raised by a single parent with little or no involvement of
fathers, and 90 percent of teenagers who have children are unmarried,
and 28 percent of all families are headed by a single parent.
Mr. Speaker, I am very delighted that this legislation will
liberalize welfare-to-work provisions which will allow monies to be
given in a more liberalized manner, and that it will also provide
monies for children or young people who are coming off foster care, an
area of interest that I have had for a number of years. I am as well
pleased that there will be a focus on low-income fathers through
marriage and job counseling, mentoring, and family planning, but that
mothers similarly situated will not be left out.

{time} 1100

I think it is vital to understand that we do have a responsibility to
liberalize or loosen the regulations to ensure that we put our money
where our mouth is. For a very long time Members of this body have
argued about the devastation of families who have been divided, of
fathers who are incarcerated, or fathers who are unable to take on
their responsibility as a parent. We have cited the devastation that
comes sometimes from a single parent who may happen to be a mother.
In this instance, this legislation responds to that concern, and as
it responds to that concern it promotes

[[Page H11863]]

family, it promotes the unity of family, and it enhances fathers who
may not have had the right kind of training to be a father. How tragic
it is in all of our communities to come upon households who are
absolutely trying, Mr. Speaker, but they do not have the support
system.
I am likewise appreciative that we will have an opportunity to debate
the amendment of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards), because all of
us believe that there should be the spiritual aspect in our families'
lives, but we do want to ensure that there is no proselytizing, there
is no promoting of religion in the course of trying to help these
single parents, mothers and fathers.
Mr. Speaker, I support the rule, I support the legislation, and I
would hope many of these amendments will pass as well.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Woolsey).
(Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule because I
believe it should be an open rule. It fails to make in order an
important amendment that I offered, which was supported by the
Democrats on the Committee on Rules and all of the Democrats on the
Committee on Education and the Workforce.
My amendment increases the time that a person is allowed to receive
vocational education or job training while participating in a welfare-
to-work program from 6 months to 12 months. Six months of vocational
education or job training is just not enough to prepare an individual
for a job that will pay wages leading to self-sufficiency.
I know that 6 months is not enough because studies that compare
women's education to their earnings prove it. I know that 6 months is
not enough because I have testimonials from training programs
nationwide, the people in the field who work with welfare recipients
day in and day out, and they all agree that more education is needed to
make families self-sufficient. And I know that 6 months is not enough
because there was a time when I was a young mother raising three small
children without any help from their father. Even though I worked full
time, I depended on welfare to supplement my paycheck to give my
children the food, the child care, and the health care that they
needed.
Eventually, I was able to leave welfare and never go back. I was able
to leave welfare because I was healthy, I was assertive, and I was
educated and had good job skills. That education was my ticket off of
welfare into a better job, into better pay, and into benefits that my
family needed. It gave me the means to support myself and my family
and, believe me, it cannot be done without education or training.
My amendment would have given other families the same fair chance I
had to move from welfare to work, a chance to earn a livable wage.
Remember, my colleagues, we should not be giving opportunity only to
those who have opportunity to begin with.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule until all individuals are
given the opportunity to earn a livable wage.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Cardin).
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York and
the gentlewoman from Ohio for bringing forward this rule that I
support.
In response to the comments of the gentlewoman from California about
job training, I agree with her. I am sorry that was not made in order.
But without this rule, without bringing this bill forward, we are going
to be with current law that does not allow any opportunity for
independent job training. The bill provides for a new 6-month period,
and I would hope that we would have her support so we could move this
important bill forward.
Mr. Speaker, I wanted to compliment the Committee on Rules for
allowing us to debate this issue fully today. I want to thank my
colleague, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Human Resources of the
Committee on Ways and Means, for the bipartisan way in which the
Fathers Count Act of 1999 has been brought forward.
And let me just also, if I might, read from the statement of the
administration's policy that we received today: ``The administration
supports House passage of H.R. 3073. The President is deeply committed
to helping parents of low-income children work and honor their
responsibilities to support their children. H.R. 3073 is an important
step in this direction.''
And we received last week a letter from the Center on Budget and
Policy Priorities, the Center for Law and Social Policy, and the
Children's Defense Fund, writing in support of H.R. 3073, the Fathers
Count Act of 1999. The letter goes on to point out how important this
is to help low-income custodial and noncustodial parents facilitate the
payment of child support; and it assists parents in meeting their
parental responsibilities.
Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill, and I would encourage my colleagues
to support the rule and to support the legislation.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 8 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Edwards).
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me
this time, and as the father of two small boys, I would hardly stand in
the well of this House and oppose the concept of encouraging fathers to
be part of their family and to take responsibility for their children.
But I rise today because I want to bring to Members' attention what I
think are two fundamental flaws in this bill unless we pass the Edwards
amendment in debate today.
The first is, without my amendment, this bill would allow direct
Federal tax dollars to go directly into churches, synagogues, and
houses of worship. Clearly, in my opinion, and more importantly the
opinion of Justice Rehnquist in the 1988 decision, something that is
unconstitutional.
Secondly, without the Edwards amendment, under this measure, because
it adopts language that was originally put into the welfare reform bill
that not a handful of Members of this House were aware of when that
bill passed, and listen to me, Members, on this, this bill, without my
amendment, would allow a church to take Federal tax dollars and put up
a sign saying, if you are not of a particular religion, we will not
hire you because of your religious faith. Signs in one church using
Federal dollars may say, no Jews need apply here, and another church
say, no Christians or no Protestants need apply here. I find that
offensive and I would hope every Member of this House would join me in
support of changing that fatal flaw in this legislation.
Since the Committee on Rules was gracious enough to give me my
amendment, I will have a chance to debate it further. Unfortunately, I
will only have 10 minutes to debate the issue of separation of church
and State that our Founding Fathers spent 10 years debating. So let me
discuss my amendment now.
My amendment is straightforward and direct. It says that Federal
funding of this bill can go to faith-based organizations but not
directly to churches, synagogues, and houses of worship. My amendment
will be a short amendment and it will be a short debate. But, Members,
the principle of opposing direct Federal funding of churches,
synagogues, and houses of worship is as timeless and as profound as the
first 10 words of our Bill of Rights. Those words are these: ``Congress
shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion.''
Those words have protected for over 200 years American religion from
government intervention and regulation. In a 20-minute debate today on
this floor when our attention is focused on appropriations bills, let
us not carelessly throw away the religious freedom and tolerance our
Founding Fathers so carefully crafted in the establishment clause and
the first words of the first amendment of our Bill of Rights.

Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, there is nothing wrong, given some basic
safeguards, with faith-based organizations, such as the Salvation Army
or Catholic Charities receiving Federal money to run social programs.
However, if my colleagues would listen to the words of Madison and
Jefferson, there is something terribly wrong about Federal tax dollars
going directly to churches, synagogues, and houses of worship.
Our Founding Fathers, as I stated, debated at length the question of
government-funding of churches. They not

[[Page H11864]]

only said no, they felt so strongly about their answer that they
dedicated the first words of the Bill of Rights to the proposition that
government should stay out of religion and should not directly fund
religion and houses of worship.
Our Founding Fathers did not build the establishment clause in the
Bill of Rights out of disrespect for religion, they did it out of total
reverence for religion. Why? Because our Founding Fathers understood
the clear lesson of all of human history, that the best way to ruin
religion is to politicize it. The best way to limit religious freedom
is to let government regulate religion. Millions of foreign citizens
have emigrated to America and even put their lives on the line to do so
precisely because of the religious freedom we have here guaranteed
under the establishment clause.
Why in the world would we in this Congress want to tear down a
principle today that our Founding Fathers so extraordinarily fought for
and that has worked, a principle that has worked so well for over 2
centuries? Why in the world would this Congress today want to emulate
the failed policies of other nations who have direct Federal
involvement in funding of their churches and of their religions and, as
a consequence, have had religious fights, discord and, yes, even wars?
What is wrong with direct Federal funding of churches and synagogues
and houses of worship? With less eloquence than Jefferson and Madison,
let me mention four serious specific problems.
First, it is clearly unconstitutional. Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote
in 1988, in the case of Bowen vs Kendrick, ``There is a risk that
direct government funding, even if it is designated for specific
secular purposes, may nonetheless advance the pervasively sectarian
institution's religious mission.''
The second problem. This bill, if not amended, as I have said, would
allow Federal dollars to be used, and listen to me, my colleagues,
would allow Federal dollars to be used to discriminate against citizens
in job hiring and firing based specifically and only on their religious
faith. I find that repugnant.
One church, as I said, could put up a sign saying, Jews may not apply
for jobs for this federally funded position. Another community, perhaps
a church, that says, Protestants may not apply, or Catholics may not
apply, Hindus may not apply, using Federal dollars. And that is wrong,
my colleagues; and we ought to change it with the Edwards amendment.
The idea of government-funded religious discrimination, I hope, would
find great offense in this House today. It is anathema to the most
fundamental rights embedded in the very core of our constitution.
The third problem with this bill and its direct Federal funding of
our churches, synagogues, and houses of worship should be obvious to
all of us, but especially to my conservative Republican friends, direct
Federal funding will lead to massive Federal regulations of our
religious institutions. Does anybody question that?
If we dislike Federal agencies regulating our businesses and our
schools, why in the world would we, through this and the welfare reform
legislation language that it adopts, why would we want to invite the
Federal Government to regulate our churches and our religious
institutions on a daily basis?
The fourth problem with this bill, without my amendment, is that it
will pit churches and synagogues against each other in the pursuit of
millions and ultimately billions of Federal dollars. Just look at the
dissension that it has caused this Congress, professional politicians
fighting over the annual appropriation bill. Think what is going to
happen when we have Baptists and Methodists and Jews and Muslims and
Hindus and all of 2,000 religious sects in America all competing for
the almighty Federal dollar?
This bill has many good provisions in it that I could support, but it
has these two fatal flaws. I urge, on a bipartisan basis, my colleagues
to vote for the Edwards amendment, allow funding of faith-based
organizations with safeguards, but prohibit direct funding of churches,
synagogues, and houses of worship. And let us say clearly today on the
floor of this House with our vote on my amendment that we do not
support using Federal dollars to discriminate against American citizens
based solely on their religious beliefs.
And, Mr. Speaker, I want to finally thank the Democratic sponsor of
this bill, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), for his strong
support of the Edwards amendment.
Mr. Speaker, following is the case summary I referred to previously:

Bowen v. Kendrick, 487 U.S. 589 (1988) (Justice Rehnquist Wrote the
Majority Opinion in Which Justices White, O'Connor, Scalia and Kennedy
Joined)

Facts: Challenge to federal grant program that provides
funding for services relating to adolescent sexuality and
pregnancy. Plaintiffs claimed that the federal program, the
Adolescent Family Life Act (AFLA), was unconstitutional on
its face and as applied.
Ruling: The Court held that the statute was not
unconstitutional on its face. It also ruled, however, that a
determination of whether any of the grants made pursuant to
the statute violate the Establishment Clause required further
proceedings in the district court. ``In particular, it will
be open to [plaintiffs] on remand to show that AFLA aid is
flowing to grantees that can be considered `pervasively
sectarian' religious institutions . . .''
Reasoning: Although the Court did not believe that the
possibility that AFLA grants may go to religious institutions
that could be considered `pervasively sectarian' was
sufficient to conclude that no grants whatsoever could be
given under the statute to religious organizations, it left
the district court free to consider whether certain grants
were going to such groups and thereby improperly advancing
religion. By contrast, Court made clear that religiously
affiliates could receive tax funds for secular purposes.
``Of course, even when the challenged statute appears to be
neutral on its face, we have always been careful to ensure
that direct government aid to religiously affiliated
institutions does not have the primary effect of advancing
religion. One way in which direct government aid might have
that effect is if the aid flows to institutions that are
`pervasively sectarian.' We stated in Hunt v. McNair, 413
U.S. 734 (1973) that: ``[a]id normally may be thought to have
a primary effect of advancing religion when it flows to an
institution in which religion is so pervasive that a
substantial portion of its functions are subsumed in the
religious mission.''
The reason for this is that there is a risk that direct
government funding, even if it is designated for specific
secular purposes, may nonetheless advance the pervasively
sectarian institution's `religious mission.' ''
Court also noted difference between pervasively sectarian
and religiously affiliated entities when it stated that grant
monitoring expected under statute did not amount to excessive
entanglement, ``at least in the context of a statute
authorizing grants to religiously affiliated organizations
that are not necessarily `pervasively sectarian.' ''
Note on Justices Kennedy and Scalia's separate concurrence:
Justice Kennedy wrote separate concurrence, in which Justice
Scalia joined, to emphasize that they did not believe the
district court should focus on whether the recipient
organizations were pervasively sectarian, but instead on the
way in which the organization spent its grant. ``[T]he only
purpose of further inquiring whether any particular grantee
institution is pervasively sectarian is as a preliminary step
to demonstrating that the funds are in fact being used to
further religion.''

{time} 1115

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my distinguished
colleague, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller).
(Mr. WELLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule as
well as H.R. 3073, the ``Fathers Count Act of 1999.''
This is pretty important legislation, fundamentally important
legislation. We were successful in doing something 3 years ago in 1997
we were told we could not do when I came to Congress in 1994; and that
is, we reformed our welfare system, a system that was failing so bad
that more children were in poverty in 1993 and in 1994 than ever before
in history.
One of the reasons that so many children were in poverty was because
their fathers were not involved in the families. And when the father
was not involved, the family's income was a lot less and the
struggling, working mom trying to make ends meet and raise children was
having a hard time.
We passed into law in 1997 the first major welfare reform in over a
generation that emphasized work and family and responsibility. Clearly
it is one of the great successes of this Congress, because we have seen
a drop in the welfare rolls in my home State of Illinois of over 50
percent, meaning more families are now paying taxes and in the work
rolls and successfully participating in society.

[[Page H11865]]

Well, this legislation, the ``Fathers Count Act of 1999,'' is the
next logical step. Let us remember, the old welfare was biased against
dad. The old welfare system discouraged dad from being involved in the
family. In fact, it rewarded the family if dad stayed away. We have
changed that successfully over the last several years.
This legislation is the next step. What is great about this
legislation is that it reinforces marriage, the most important basic
institution of our society, and it promotes better parenting,
encourages and rewards the payment of child support.
More children are in poverty today in Illinois because of the lack of
the payment of child support, and we want to turn that around. But,
also, this increases the father's income and encourages and rewards
fathers for being involved in family. It is good legislation.
I just listened to the argument of my friend, the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Edwards), who believes that we should deny faith-based
organizations the opportunity to be part of this program.
I think of Restoration Ministries in Harvey, Illinois, a program that
successfully has worked over the last decade to identify men in the
community, particularly in urban communities in the Southside of
Chicago, and help give them the opportunity to participate in society.
It has been a successful program. I think Restoration Ministries is one
of those programs which works that we should enlist in our effort to
involve fathers in this program.
The fact that 75 percent of the funds, under this program, will go to
faith-based organizations, whether they are Jewish or Muslim or
Christian or other faiths, is a right step because they care and they
want to be involved.
Organizations like Restoration Ministries are successful because the
people that are involved believe in their programs, they want to help
people, they are part of the community. Let us enlist them.
I would also point out that this idea has bipartisan support. Not
only do we have the leading Presidential candidate on the Republican
side saying they support this, but the leading candidate on the
Democratic side supporting this, as well.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Scott).
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding the
time.
Mr. Speaker, I oppose the rule because the Committee on Rules ruled
out of order an amendment that I offered which would ensure that the
Civil Rights Act and civil rights laws would apply to the use of these
Federal funds.
The Edwards amendment would address many concerns. This amendment
would address one specific concern, and that is that the bill provides
an exception to civil rights laws and specifically allows religious
organizations to discriminate on hiring with Federal funds.
Now, many religious groups now sponsor Federal programs: Catholic
Charities, Lutheran Services. But they cannot discriminate in hiring
people with those Federal funds.
This bill changes that and says that a program funded under this
bill, the sponsor can say that people of the Jewish faith need not
apply for jobs funded by the Federal Government or Catholics only will
be hired by the Federal funds. That is wrong.
The amendment should have been allowed, and it was not. Therefore, I
oppose the rule.
Mrs. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Indiana (Mr. Souder).
(Mr. SOUDER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, one of the more devastating amendments today
that we will be debating is the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Edwards) that would strip out the opportunity to have
religious and faith-based organizations participate in the fatherhood
initiative and the fathers count program and the other initiatives that
we have in front of us today.
We in the House have now passed this three times, in the Human
Services bill, in the Welfare Reform bill, and in the Justice
Department bills. It would seem only appropriate in this very critical
area that we would allow the faith-based organizations to become
involved.
We can get into all kind of legal technicalities here about whether
we should have types of separate organizations and how it should be
structured. But the plain fact of the matter is that at the grass roots
level, in urban America and African American and Hispanic communities,
the organizations that are by far the most effective are faith-based.
They do not run around looking for attorneys as to how to set it up.
They are actually trying to help kids in the street. They are trying to
help get families reunited like Charles Ballard has in Cleveland. He
did not ask about the structure. He went out and tried to go door to
door with thousands of families over 15 years to get dads reunited with
their families.
Eugene Rivers, in Boston, has put together a coalition in the streets
of Boston, who, with all the other Government programs that have been
wasting, in my opinion, for the large part millions of dollars, he and
the other pastors and young people working with the churches of Boston
have accomplished more to reduce youth violence than all the rhetoric
about all the other programs in Boston.
But they do not even have health insurance for their employees, the
volunteers in the streets and the people that are working for their
churches there. They do not have adequate money with which to get
people out doing the things that are working. Instead, we put it into a
lot of the traditional programs because we are worried that somebody
might actually say that character matters.
What Vice President Gore has said, which the Republican Party and our
logical leading contender at this point, Governor Bush, has said, and
as well as this House three times, is that faith-based organizations
need to be included when we look at how to address these social
problems.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to first point out two
inaccurate and I assume unintentional statements made by my colleagues
on the other side of the aisle. Two of their speakers have
misrepresented my amendment, saying that it would deny funding to all
faith-based organizations.
Let me be clear what my amendment does or does not do so Members can
know the facts and make their own decision on that amendment.
My amendment says that the Federal funds under this bill may go to
faith-based organizations. And there are hundreds, if not thousands, of
faith-based organizations out there. Catholic Charities, Lutheran
Services of America, Jewish Federation, Salvation Army, Volunteers of
America, Boys and Girls Clubs of America. Even 501(c)(3) organizations
associated directly with the church would not be prohibited from
receiving money under my amendment.
What my amendment simply does is deal with, as the previous speaker
said, the legal technicality. I do want to point out, when we talk
about legal technicality, we are talking about the first 10 words of
the First Amendment of our Constitution, the first words that our
Founding Fathers chose to put in the Bill of Rights, which said,
``Congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion.''
The legal technicality that the gentleman kind of demeans in his
comments refers also to Chief Justice Rehnquist's majority statement in
writing the opinion in the 1988 case of Bowen v. Kendrick that direct
Federal funding to pervasively sectarian organizations is
unconstitutional.
So perhaps if they want to take the position that the Bill of Rights
is the legal technicality, that the First Amendment of the Constitution
is a legal technicality, and that Justice Rehnquist and the Supreme
Court are simply a legal technicality, then perhaps they should go
ahead and vote against the Edwards amendment.
But if they take seriously and deeply the commitment of our Nation
for two centuries not to the have direct Federal funding of churches
and houses of worship, I would suggest that they should vote for the
Edwards amendment and, recognizing the fact of the actual language,
that it will continue to allow Federal dollars to go to faith-based
organizations.

[[Page H11866]]

I hope the gentleman might have a chance to review my amendment again
so that he would make it clear that we do hot prohibit money from going
to faith-based organizations. We do try to be constitutional and help
this bill in its constitutionality in prohibiting money from going
directly to churches.
Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield to the gentleman if he wants to
explain why the Bill of Rights, the First Amendment, and Judge
Rehnquist's decision in 1988 in the Supreme Court case are merely legal
technicalities.
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, it is a nice try to wrap himself in the
Constitution.
Mr. Speaker, the legal technicality that I was talking about is, in
fact, what we have debated many times in this House floor related to
fungibility of money, that, as I understand the amendment of the
gentleman, he is saying that if a church has an entity that would work
with this and, for example, in this case a fatherhood initiative had a
separate entity but was not part of the church, the money could go to
the entity but not the church, which then brings the States in to
audits of the church as to how they move their funds around, that in
fact some organizations such as Catholic Charities have done that for
years and have been eligible.
What we have done in our past bills is said that if the money goes to
the church itself, they still have to make a proposal to whatever
government entity, say it is on juvenile crime, as we did in the
Justice bill or others, and they have to make that and the government
then audits that. But sometimes it does not work in the inner city and
other places to have this money, just have this paper trail.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, let me point out that I
would make the same argument the gentleman made as an argument to
support the Edwards amendment and I appreciate his bringing it up.
Under their bill, when money goes directly to the church, the Federal
Government, to provide accountability to the taxpayers, is going to
have to audit every dime raised and spent by that church.
If we pass my amendment, the money goes to a separate organization
affiliated with the church or religion. And, therefore, because it is
separate, they do not give the Government the carte blanche to walk
into every church and synagogue in America and audit their revenues and
their expenditures.
I think, without this amendment, this bill, whether intended or not,
is going to invite massive involvement of Federal regulation into our
houses of worship.
And finally the point I would make, the gentleman has referenced
these debates we have had on the floor of the House about so-called
charitable choice. Let me point out to him, I think he may recall the
last two times we have had that debate, one was at 12:30 in the morning
that lasted for 10 minutes and the other one was at 1:00 in the morning
that lasted for 10 minutes.
I would be willing to wager with the gentleman that there were not 15
Members out of 435 of this House that knew that the Welfare Reform bill
of 1996 opened the door to possible unconstitutional direct funding of
our churches.
So the fact that we did something that the courts are now looking at,
and I think will declare as unconstitutional, in 1996 is hardly a
rationale to say, based on those 1:00 a.m. debates with 5 minutes on
the floor of the House, we ought to extend this unconstitutional direct
funding of our religious houses of worship and just one more step with
just, gosh, this is just another $150 million.
This is an issue our Founding Fathers debated at length, and it was
so fundamental to them that they said neither convenience nor even good
intentions should be a reason for breaking down the wall of separation
between church and State. This is a fundamental principle.
I wish we could debate this issue all day. It deserves such a debate.
But I would just argue with my colleagues, if they want to support this
bill, if they actually want it to become law, they should support the
Edwards amendment, because based on the clear decision of the Supreme
Court in 1988 in Judge Rehnquist's decision, this bill will not be
constitutional unless we pass the Edwards amendment.
The final thing I would point out, in response to what the gentleman
was saying, is that if we separate out the funding and have it go to
religiously affiliated organizations, they do not have the protection
under the Supreme Court decisions to discriminate based on religious
faith.
So, without my amendment, what they are really doing is breaking new
ground. I would like to ask the gentleman to respond, how can he defend
the concept of taking his and my Federal dollars and our constituents'
Federal dollars and hanging up a sign saying a Jew, a Christian, a
Protestant, a Hindu or a Muslim should not apply for this Federally
funded job because they do not participate in the right religion? How
can the gentleman defend that principle?

{time} 1130

Mr. SOUDER. As the gentleman presumably knows, you cannot do that if
you receive Federal funds. What you are allowed to do under this is in
your staffing, if you are a religious organization, you can
discriminate because part of your faith-based organization is that. You
also have alternative programs in any of these, and if there are not
alternatives for individuals to the faith-based organizations, there
are protections. That has been in all of our different bills. That has
been the standard interpretation.
Remember, the final decision as far as who gets the grant money lies
with the Federal agency, not with the church. This is not like a block
grant or something we are driving straight to the churches. What you
are saying is you do not trust HHS under a Democratic administration to
protect these rights.
Mr. EDWARDS. Frankly, our Founding Fathers did not trust government
to regulate churches and houses of worship. I think they had it
absolutely right in the Bill of Rights. The gentleman has made my
point. He needs to go back and look at the language in the actual
Welfare Reform Act of 1996 that nobody knew about and this adopted that
says, yes, there is an exemption that applies to that, and now to this
bill if we pass it, that says, yes, you can hang out a sign saying, do
not apply for this federally funded job if you are not of the right
religious faith.
That is obnoxious to me, that is repugnant to me, and I think that is
why this should be a bipartisan amendment. I would urge my Republican
colleagues to support it.
Mr. SOUDER. The gentleman just shifted his argument. He just said you
could not apply for a job. Earlier he told me you could not apply to
the agency to be served. I want to point out to the listeners, he just
switched his argument in the middle of his debate.
Mr. EDWARDS. I did not shift my argument. I will be happy to give the
gentleman the printed statement that I read from a few minutes ago.
What it says is this bill without the Edwards amendment will let you
take Federal dollars and discriminate against someone in the hiring of
a person based on his or her religion.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Indiana (Mr. Souder).
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to conclude this portion of the
preliminary debate with a couple of comments. First off, it is patently
ridiculous to suggest that after a year and a half of the welfare
reform debate, after multiple versions of that bill here that Members
of Congress did not understand what they were voting for in the welfare
reform debate. Furthermore, while we unfortunately did deal with the
charitable choice at several times in the evening during the debate, I
would argue that Members of Congress fully understood, or at least most
Members of Congress, at least on our side, understood what they were
debating in the charitable choice as did those who were generally
supportive of this legislation. I find it a little disconcerting for my
colleague to suggest that Members of Congress did not know what they
were voting on three different times.
Furthermore, I believe that this is such a fundamental principle, and
we will debate this further, I am sure. I am not referring to illegal
mingling of church and State. What we are talking about here is that
whether it is an individual church or a church entity, being

[[Page H11867]]

able to come and say, we want to work with juvenile delinquents, in
this case with father questions, in other cases with homeless
questions, we have to meet these criteria of serving this population.
But in doing that, because we have seen that character matters, that,
in fact, you do not have to, if you are a Catholic priest, take your
collar off, you do not have to strip the crucifixes off your room. That
part and parcel of the effect of faith-based organizations is their
faith and character.
Lastly, as far as this question of bringing the State into the
church, the fact is that if it is a church-based entity or a church, if
you say it can only come from an entity, you bring the government by
default into the church. If you say that it can be either, you only
bring the government in if there is a question about the grant. Under
either way we do this, under the Edwards amendment or the existing, if
there is a question about the grant, of course the government comes in.
It would be illegal use of funds.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time,
and I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Without objection, the previous
question is ordered on the resolution.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 278,
nays 144, not voting 11, as follows:

[Roll No. 582]

YEAS--278

Aderholt
Allen
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Berkley
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Borski
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Cardin
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth-Hage
Clement
Coble
Collins
Combest
Cook
Cooksey
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (VA)
DeGette
DeLauro
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Everett
Ewing
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Fowler
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Isakson
Istook
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kasich
Kelly
King (NY)
Kingston
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
Kuykendall
LaHood
Latham
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Maloney (CT)
Manzullo
Mascara
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKeon
Menendez
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Myrick
Napolitano
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Ortiz
Ose
Oxley
Packard
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Pease
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Phelps
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Reyes
Reynolds
Riley
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roukema
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Salmon
Sandlin
Sanford
Saxton
Schaffer
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simpson
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Stump
Sununu
Sweeney
Talent
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Toomey
Traficant
Turner
Upton
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NAYS--144

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews
Baldwin
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Bentsen
Berman
Bonior
Boucher
Boyd
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Carson
Clay
Clayton
Clyburn
Coburn
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
Delahunt
Deutsch
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Edwards
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gejdenson
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Hastings (FL)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holt
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Klink
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
Largent
Larson
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Martinez
McCarthy (MO)
McDermott
McGovern
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moore
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Payne
Pelosi
Pickett
Pomeroy
Rahall
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sanchez
Sanders
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Scott
Serrano
Shadegg
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Weygand
Woolsey
Wu

NOT VOTING--11

Boehlert
Deal
Gutknecht
Hill (IN)
LaTourette
Matsui
Murtha
Scarborough
Smith (TX)
Tierney
Towns

{time} 1154

Mr. SPRATT changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________