Improving the Community Services Block Grant Act of 2003

IMPROVING THE COMMUNITY SERVICES BLOCK GRANT ACT OF 2003 -- (House of Representatives - February 04, 2004)

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 513 and ask for its immediate consideration.

The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

H. Res. 513

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. 3030) to amend the Community Service Block Grant Act to provide for quality improvements. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and Workforce. After general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. 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 recommended by the Committee on Education and the Workforce now printed in the bill. The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. No amendment to the committee amendment shall be in order except those printed in the portion of the Congressional Record designated for that purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII and except pro forma amendments for the purpose of debate. Each amendment so printed may be offered only by the Member who caused it to be printed or his designee and shall be considered as read. 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 committee amendment in the nature of a substitute. 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 or without instructions.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina for yielding me the customary 30 minutes 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, chronic unemployment still plagues the Nation; 3.3 million workers have lost their jobs since January 2001. The poverty rate in America has risen to 12 percent and the number of children living in poverty continues to climb.

The community services block grants were created to alleviate poverty by funding initiatives that fight its causes. These grants enable over 1,000 organizations across the country to provide services to combat unemployment, inadequate housing, poor nutrition and the lack of educational opportunities.

Because of community services block grants, the Orleans Community Action Committee in Orleans County, New York, is able to provide a broad array of services, including Head Start, teen programs, weatherization programs, transportation, emergency services, family development, help in putting together a budget, help in preparing tax returns, child care services and a community center. For 30 years, Action for a Better Community has been a leader in Rochester, providing programs increasing health, education, safety, employment and housing needs. Every dollar the Federal Government invested in these organizations through the community services block grant program is a dollar wisely spent. An investment in our citizens and our children is an investment in our Nation's future.

The value of these programs is not at issue. The problem with this reauthorization is the ability of provider organizations to use Federal funds to discriminate. H.R. 3030 allows these service organizations to discriminate against clients because of their religion. It allows religious organizations that receive these Federal grants to discriminate based on religion in their employment practices. This is un-American. Discrimination is happening. Employees of the Salvation Army of Greater New York have filed complaints with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and several lawsuits against the Salvation Army are in the works. Employees are being questioned about their church affiliations. One of the duties listed on new job applications is to, quote, preach the gospel of Jesus Christ and to meet human needs in His name without discrimination. The Salvation Army uses millions in public moneys to carry out its charitable missions, but it has recently begun to impose its religious mission upon its employees.

Right here in my hand I have an employment application for a social worker position with a religious organization, and that religious organization uses Federal funds. The applicant is asked his or her religion, length of church membership, the name of his or her church, the church's phone number and address, and the name of its minister. The United States should not permit religious discrimination with Federal funds. As Theodore Roosevelt said, "To discriminate against a thoroughly upright citizen because he belongs to some particular church, or because, like Abraham Lincoln, he has not avowed his allegiance to any church, is an outrage against that liberty of conscience which is one of the foundations of American life."

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to clear up a misunderstanding about what title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 says and does not say. Religious organizations are exempted from the general prohibition against religious discrimination in hiring personnel for work connected to the organization's religious activities. However, religious organizations are not permitted to discriminate in hiring for secular activities. There should be an ability in this Congress to make a distinction between those two descriptions.

This country has spent decades and decades working to eradicate the insidious venom of discrimination. It is an anathema to fundamental American ideals that we would now permit Federal moneys to be used to discriminate against people because of their religion. Taxpayers do not want to subsidize discrimination.

Federally funded programs to attack the causes of poverty do not have a religious mission, regardless of the service provider. Helping someone fill out tax forms is a secular program. Someone's religion is irrelevant to this program. The Federal Government should not fund the religious activities of any religious organization. To do so is a violation of the first amendment of the United States Constitution which we hold up our hands every 2 years and swear to uphold. As the United States Supreme Court said in Bowen v. Kendrick, "Even when the Court has upheld aid to an institution performing both secular and sectarian functions, it has always made a searching inquiry to ensure that the institution kept the secular activities separate from its sectarian ones, with any direct aid flowing only to the former and never the latter."

On its Web site, Action for a Better Community says that faith-based organizations, quote, should be held to the same high standard of outcome delivery as community action agencies without compromising the separation of church and State. We would be wise to listen to their admonition.

I urge my colleagues to support the Woolsey substitute amendment which would clarify that religious organizations are welcome as service providers to low-income Americans and that they are not permitted to discriminate on the basis of religion. And I urge my colleagues to support the Miller amendment which would extend unemployment benefits for the 2 million unemployed Americans whose benefits have run out. Almost daily, my office hears from those Americans who are afraid of losing their homes or having to take their children out of school and simply being unable to meet their obligations. We owe it to them to give them some help until a job can be found for them.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining?

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Latham). The gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) has 6 ½ minutes remaining.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. It is such a pleasure to hear a real debate. I am delighted. I continue to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT