Mark Souder

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment which I am offering along with my colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English), to expand the principle of religious nondiscrimination to faith-based providers that may desire to compete for contracts and grants provided through juvenile justice funds. This principle is known as charitable choice and was first included in the welfare reform legislation that became law in 1996. That passed this House by an overwhelming margin, passed the Senate by an overwhelming margin, and was signed by the President of the United States. In 1998, this principle was also extended to community services block grant legislation. This passed the House by an even bigger margin, passed the Senate by an even bigger margin, was signed by the President of the United States. Today this House should extend this principle which treats faith- based organizations fairly if they choose to compete to provide juvenile justice prevention services, as well. Unfortunately, some have raised concerns about this approach which treats fairly faith-based groups on the basis of a distortion of church-state relations. Now, interestingly, the leading Republican contender for President George Bush, the Governor of Texas, has been a leader in this. But even more interestingly, Vice President Gore has come to speak out on charitable choice, as well. In Atlanta, at the Salvation Army, on May 24, he said, ``I believe the lesson for our Nation is clear. In those instances where the complete power of faith can help us meet the crushing social challenges that are otherwise impossible to meet, such as drug addiction and gang violence, we should explore carefully-tailored relationships with our faith community so that we can use approaches that are working best.'' If my colleagues look at his campaign home page, it specifically says that ``Vice President Gore and his presidential campaign supports the concept of charitable choice, which the President of the United States has signed in two other bills.'' It is hard for me to understand why anybody would oppose this amendment since both parties' leading contenders, since the current President of the United States, since both Houses of Congress have adopted it. And I hope we will pass this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, this has exactly the same language that my colleague voted for in the human services authorization and that he voted for personally in the welfare. It is the same language.

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I will answer the question here. I apologize for seeming to avoid it, but in fact it was debated. It was a major debate in conference and was aired nationally in the media. This would allow money directly to go to those groups. They cannot service just their groups. They do not have to change their internal operations. They cannot proselytize with any of the money or they would lose the grant. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my friend and cosponsor, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English).

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I want to make it clear that this amendment, as did the amendments in the previous two bills, prohibits any funds from being used for sectarian worship, instruction or proselytization, including conditional. It also specifically forbids discrimination with regards to beneficiaries of services. I would suggest that, while this is not much time to do this, this Congress, with 346 votes and with 256 votes, previously passed this, that the main differences of opinion seem to be on the other side of the aisle, also with their President and Vice President. And perhaps what they really need is a conference on their side and at the White House to discuss their differences. This Congress has already spoken twice, and I hope we will speak a third time in favor of charitable choice. Mr. Chairman, I include the following for the Record: [From USA Today, June 1, 1999] Gore Goes Public With His Faith as He Pushes Church Charity Plan (By Cathy Lynn Grossman) Vice President Gore's recent push to expand government partnerships with religious groups reflects a deep religious faith not everyone knows about him, he says. ``I don't wear it on my sleeve,'' he told religion writers in a conversation at the White House on Friday. But, he added, ``The purpose of life is to glorify God. I turn to my faith as the bedrock of my approach to any important question in my life.'' Gore said in a speech May 24 that he wants to expand ``Charitable Choice,'' the 1996 Republican-sponsored legislation that lets religious groups apply for government contracts to supply welfare-to-work services. Gore wants to add programs that combat drug abuse, homelessness and youth violence. As the presidential campaign gets under way, the proposal is a move to the political center for Gore. It is similar to some ideas long discussed by Texas Gov. George W. Bush, the front-runner for the Republican nomination. And, as Gore's strategists worry about whether he carries a taint from Clinton administration scandals, it is a way to showcase his commitment to his faith and religious values. The Interfaith Alliance, a coalition of religious groups that often sides with the administration, raised concerns that involving religious groups in government programs could lead to regulation of those groups. Barry Lynn, director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, is skeptical about a requirement that churches separate their social services from their religious services. ``I don't think there's any way you can give funds to a church and tell them they cannot use them for evangelism,'' Lynn says. Gore avoids the word ``evangelism'' as he reiterates the Charitable Choice rules: Faith-based groups are not allowed to proselytize or require religious participation or commitment from clients, and comparable, nonreligious services must be available in the area. Despite the objections, Gore sees a broad social consensus recognizing the value of faith in guiding people's lives. ``This is not any great blinding insight from moi,'' he joked. Asked how his beliefs affect his life, Gore first responded by reading rapidly from the final page of his 1992 book Earth in the Balance: Ecology and the Human Spirit: ``My own faith is rooted in the unshakable belief in God as creator and sustainer, a deeply personal interpretation of, and relationship with, Christ.'' Asked again, he lists his churchgoing Southern Baptist childhood, education in an elite Episcopal school, a year in a seminary after service in Vietnam and a life of reading religious philosophers. Gore is known as a champion of science, but he sees no separation between his cerebellum and his soul: ``You can have the Earth circle around the sun and still believe in God.''

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I know exactly what the amendment does, but I agree that it could be falsely interpreted by some people.

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I believe the Constitution was designed to do that, but it is not currently doing so.

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, if I could reclaim my time, I absolutely do not believe we should ever say as a person who grew up in an evangelical church, and I understand the wall of separation was meant to protect the evangelicals from a State church. I have no interest in a State church. But I also believe that it did not mean to exclude religion from the public arena, and I view it as trying to reclaim the religious freedom that our Founding Fathers gave us, not to impose any one sectarian approach. And, with the diversity of religion in this country, which we did not necessarily have at the beginning of our Nation to the same degree, we need to respect that. But part of that respect is to say, we also have a majority religion that is being stomped on.

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, there is a difference between imposing and saying we meant to exclude it. The Founding Fathers all debated religion at all times. It is a fundamental part of all of us, and should be. What we should respect is the diversity of other people's points of view. It was not meant to exclude from the public arena, or in fact we do have a religion which is secular humanism. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me reiterate here that I am not simply going to stand in front of this body and say that this is an extremely clear amendment, and it will obviously go to conference, and we have been working on this language. But I had an uncomfortability, though I signed off on the amendment, as to what exactly people were objecting to on this, because the inverse of this is that one believes that one can discriminate against, denigrate, and undermine the religious and moral values. I am not arguing exceptionalism, and I understand the danger here is that this could protect exceptionalism. What we are concerned about, many Americans of many different faiths is that, in fact, there is an overt attempt on a number of very difficult issues in our society where there has not been a moral resolution or unlike what has happened in racism, unlike what has happened with sexual abuse or different things, but where there has not been resolution to therefore use in the name of neutrality the imposition of other people's moral views. I do not understand, as I asked in the hearing, why we have to take a stand and why we cannot say people morally differ on this, but regardless of one's moral views, one has no right to harass, to physically assault, to do anything to denigrate another individual, even if one believes their behavior is immoral. Because what we need is a civil society that understands and respects individuals, but we do not need a school system or a society that undermines those basic principles. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate, as I said, the negotiations that went on, and I want to make it clear. I never gave up my right to offer an amendment, though I did not think my amendment would be made in order, and we do have some confusion. But I did not break any word in the process of the negotiations.

Mr SOUDER

Mr SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. SOUDER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. SOUDER. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. We had a number of speakers earlier in the day, but at this point I have no additional speakers, but I reserve the balance because I may want to talk.

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I object.

Mr. SOUDER. The amendment speaks for itself, and that will obviously be determined by who this administration and others would make the grants to, and their potential would be challenges if, in fact, people believe it is not within the current interpretations of the Supreme Court.

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I want to confess up front that I do not understand all the details and implications of what the gentleman is saying.

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is very straightforward and simple, speaks for itself. My amendment reads simply: None of the funds appropriated to carry out this act may be used directly or indirectly to discriminate against, denigrate or otherwise undermine the religious or moral beliefs of juveniles who participate in programs for which financial assistance is provided under this act or of the parents or legal guardians of such juveniles. I believe that we have had cases that are marginal and difficult to sort through, but that in our enthusiasm to fix some problems often we go to the other extreme, and in the case of the juvenile justice bill, some programs designed to reduce the potential for youth violence by promoting tolerance have the effect of undermining the religious beliefs of children and their parents. Sometimes the promotion of tolerance overrides the religious beliefs of students and their parents. Instead of merely encouraging people of all backgrounds and preferences to get along in a civil society, the programs attempt to actually change the moral beliefs that are taught at home. My amendment protects the religious freedom of young people and their parents or guardians by simply stating that none of the funds used to carry out this act may be used to discriminate against or otherwise undermine the participant's religious beliefs. I also want to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood), and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), who have worked for the past month to try to work out compromise language. I am not unhappy with the compromise language we have. I reserve my right to offer an amendment, which I have. I believe that the compromise that is in the base bill is an acceptable compromise. I believe this is a little more direct, and that is why I offer this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, a couple of points: One is I do not think it is helpful to take really serious deep disagreements about the validity of this particular war and imply that it has a political motive. I think I can stand here with the respect of this House and say I am not obsessed with removing this President or blaming everything on this President. I have deep reservations and opposition, not only to the war, but what we are potentially going to get into in destabilization in the peacekeeping force, not because horror is not terrible, just like in Sudan and many other places around the world, but I fear greater consequences in the other places in national interest. Let me make clear again, this is the hardest core amendment. The amendment of the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence) is more moderate. If the Skelton amendment passes to the Spence amendment, the House will have no way to vote for those of us who oppose this war because the Skelton amendment would gut the Spence amendment. My amendment does not remove that, although there is a question whether some of the supplemental funds would be affected. In my opinion, and I believe in most people's opinion, it would allow the funds to be expended for the rest of this year. We would have four months to make whatever transfer over of a European problem to the Europeans in the case of funding the peacekeepers after this. If one does not favor the extended intervention in the Balkans through whatever, whether it is peacekeeping or in fact a continuation of the war or an Iraq-type situation, this amendment gives one the ability to say in the fiscal year 2000 funds, after October 1 and for that year, unless the President comes to this House and says, ``This is an emergency, I need to waive what you previously passed, I need additional money,'' but it restricts the funding we are now putting out and have put out for fiscal year 2000 and says you cannot use that, yes, not only for air war and ground war, but you cannot use it for the peacekeepers either. I do not expect a lot of support for this amendment, but for those of us who have deep concerns, this is our chance to cast that vote.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, the whip's office took a $300,000 cut the first year the majority took over because of differences internally. This will put them, inflation-adjusted, about where they would have been. The minority is actually getting more than the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), but it goes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt).