I too rise in support of H. Con. Res. 170, which calls for increased support of faith-based charities by U.S. corporations. The United States is blessed with an industrious people and great wealth; we are the envy of the world. But a great and prosperous nation can and must do better--each of us has a duty to alleviate the suffering of the poor and oppressed in our own communities. Some of the most effective organizations for meeting the needs of impoverished Americans are faith-based, yet these are the very groups that face discrimination by corporate America. According to Leslie Lenkowsky in last month's edition of Commentary, in 1998 only some 2 percent of the money donated by the nation's largest foundations went to religiously affiliated institutions, and much of that was earmarked for institutions like hospitals and universities. The Capital Research Center found that six of the ten largest companies in America explicitly "ban or restrict" donations to faith-based charities. Why would some of the greatest corporations in the country institute policies that prevent funding of some of America's most effective charities at a time when Congress has taken a leading role in knocking down discriminatory barriers that prevent faith-based charities from competing for government grants and contracts?
William Tauzin: “I too rise in support of H. Con. Res. 170, which calls for increased support of faith-based charities by U.S.…”
Editor's note · Context
Supporting a resolution for increased corporate support of faith-based charities.
Share
More from William Tauzin
The Secretary should perform these reviews as expeditiously as possible once the R&D or procurement has started so as to prevent any exports of countermeasures or countermeasure R&D that could harm our U.S. national security.
Mr. Speaker, again let me read the language of the bill that the gentleman just referred to, that terrible piece of language. It says in effect that in administering the prescription drug benefit program established under this, the…
yes, it does. And it is a little complex, so let me try to explain. Briefly the requester would, in fact, pay the same transmission cost as any other transmission customer. The embedded cost language simply clarifies that in the up-front…
Mr. Speaker, welcome to Groundhog Day, courtesy of a misguided court decision, soon to be overthrown, I believe, were we not acting today, but one that jeopardizes one of the most consumer-friendly regulations ever to come out of…





