Images (151)
Showing first 60 of 151 pages.
Document
| id |
id
565355496
|
|---|---|
| contentType |
contentType
document
|
| source |
source
import
|
Source image fields (6)
Extracted text
OCR Page 1 of 151http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r106:43:./temp/r106nsOw55.e56641.
THIS SEARCH
THIS DOCUMENT
THIS CR ISSUE
GO TO
Next Hit
Forward
Next Document
New CR Search
Prev Hit
Back
Prev Document
HomePage
Hit List
Best Sections
Daily Digest
Help
Doc Contents
AMERICAN HOMEOWNERSHIP AND ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 2000 (House of
Representatives - April 06, 2000)
Madam Chairman, I believe that the Souder amendment needlessly tampers with our nation's
strong tradition of the protection of religious institutions from government interference, and I
would urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
Ms. PELOSI. Madam Chairman, I rise today to oppose Representative Souder's amendment. This
amendment will violate the constitutional separation of church and state; weaken important
anti-discrimination civil rights protections; and entangle religious institutions in the reach of
government.
Representative Souder's amendment is damaging because his charitable choice provision is
unconstitutional. It attacks existing constitutional protections separating church and state. It
diverts taxpayer and government funding to sectarian religious groups who could then use these
funds to facilitate overtly religious activities and practices. The Constitution does not allow the
government to fund overtly religious or `pervasively sectarian' religious organizations. This is an
inappropriate use of government funds.
Representative Souder's amendment is unneeded because the Constitution does permit the
government to fund religious organizations that are `nonsectarian' to pursue non-religious
activities and currently the government funds many of these groups. These groups are often called
religious affiliates. For example, local Catholic Charities and Jewish Social Services groups that
receive federal funding are non-sectarian groups.
The differences between non-sectarian religious organizations and pervasively sectarian religious
organizations are very important and we must continue to respect these differences. Sectarian
groups may proselytize, discriminate by religion, and advance religious beliefs. For these reasons,
the government can not provide funds directly to a sectarian church or synagogue. We would not
want employers which receive government funds to refuse to hire Jewish or Catholic employees
on the basis of their religion. This would be wrong. We would not want organizations that receive
government funds to proselytize the Mormon faith to non-Mormons who seek social services. We
do not want government funded organizations to discriminate in their social service delivery
against gays and lesbians; unmarried couples living together; or to practice other discriminatory
practices.
Both non-sectarian and sectarian religious groups do good work, and this work deserves our
support. Nonetheless, taxpayer and government funds should not subsidize sectarian religious
activities nor violate the separation of church and state. Let us remember, that under current law,
pervasively sectarian religious groups are permitted to form an affiliate organization and this
affiliate is eligible to apply for federal funding. I urge my colleagues to vote for the Constitution
and oppose the Souder amendment.
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, many of the Constitutional issues relevant to the Charitable Choice
debate were discussed in an excellent article by Carl Esbeck in the Emory Law Review, which
1 of 5
4/7/2000 9:22 AM
Relations
belongs_to