Mr. Chairman, the 1964 Civil Rights Act allows faith-based organizations, religious organizations to use their own funds, and they can discriminate if they choose. That act does not allow faith-based organizations to use Federal funds starting in 1964. The chairman is right. The only difference in this bill is the faith-based discrimination based on religion language. That is what we would like to remove because, Mr. Chairman, this is a sad move on the side of the Republicans to continue to take perfectly good legislation and allow a poison pill to stay in that legislation thinking that the people on this side of the aisle are going to vote yes, that we have no choice. You know what? It is wrong. We do have a choice. It is wrong to allow religious discrimination using Federal dollars, and we are going to vote against it. I support faith-based organizations and the good they are doing in their outreach and their human service programs. I support them totally. The faith-based groups in my district are successful. They tell me, Get that language out of the bill. We do not need it. They agree that the exemption to title VII is useless. It should not be in there and that individual groups should not be able to use Federal tax dollars to discriminate in their hiring policies.
Lynn C. Woolsey: “Mr. Chairman, the 1964 Civil Rights Act allows faith-based organizations, religious organizations to use their own…”
Editor's note · Context
Opposing language in a bill that allows religious discrimination by faith-based organizations using federal funds.
Share
More from Lynn C. Woolsey
This week, the House is debating the Defense appropriations bill, which provides an excellent opportunity to point out something quite ironic about my colleagues in the majority because, Madam Speaker, for all of their talk about getting…
We know that the smelt has its place in the ecosystem and that, yes, indeed Southern California needs water.
I demand a recorded vote. The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California will be postponed. Amendment Offered by Mr. LoBiondo Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr…
I believe we have complete agreement with the first principle that you have referred to today, and that is that every able-bodied person should be working or preparing to work.





