On the recordJuly 19, 2001
I agree with the sponsors and advocates of this bill. As we look around our communities, it is undeniable the best homeless facilities, drug treatment, even job training courses are not city and State run. They are run by churches and synagogues. The supporters of this bill are right. We ought not rule out a compassionate program simply because it is motivated by a calling from God. I do not support those who believe that this bill is the handiwork of the radical right. This is the product of a very real desire to replicate the great works that are quietly and effectively working all throughout this Nation. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall), the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Watts) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) are decent and caring individuals who seek to do what is best. I will vote yes on this bill if we can make a much improved bill and perfect it further. First, let us restate what is the agreed-upon purpose of bill. Today, we vote to fund secular services in a nonreligious environment, no preaching, no proselytizing. It is right there in the bill. The bill, to its credit, makes that very clear. There is no reason to want to discriminate in hiring of a typing teacher or an after school art teacher. None of us would support such discrimination in these purely nonreligious environments. We should guarantee that this discrimination does not take place. To be clear, I strongly support Title 7 language of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Source
govinfo.gov




