this vote is very clear. It is nonpartisan. If my colleagues favor using Federal tax dollars to discriminate based on religion for federally funded jobs, then vote ``no'' on this motion. But if my colleagues think it is wrong to take the American people's tax dollars and put out a sign that says no Jews, no Protestants, or no Catholics, no Muslims need apply for this federally funded job, then they should vote ``yes'' for this motion. I would suggest it is wrong to discriminate against any American citizen based on religion. I think to use Federal tax dollars to subsidize that religious discrimination should be intolerable, and it should be unacceptable in this bill or any bill that passes this House. I urge, for that reason, a bipartisan ``yes'' vote on this motion to recommit.
John Bel Edwards: “this vote is very clear. It is nonpartisan. If my colleagues favor using Federal tax dollars to discriminate based on…”
Editor's note · Context
Addressing the use of federal tax dollars in relation to religious discrimination in federally funded jobs.
Share
More from John Bel Edwards
Had I been present, I would have voted AYE on Roll Call No. 392. ____________________
I thank my bipartisan co-lead, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Norcross) for his partnership on this act. Building codes regulate new construction and major renovations, setting minimum standards for homes and commercial structures to…
Go to the caucuses tomorrow night, and let's change America together. Thank you.
I have an amendment at the desk. The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment. The text of the amendment is as follows: Page 9, after line 5, insert the following: SEC. 7. FEDERAL USE IT OR LOSE IT LEASES ACT. (a) Reporting of…





