[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 12]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page 16903]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[[Page 16903]]

             COMMUNITY RENEWAL AND NEW MARKETS ACT OF 2000

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                          HON. DANNY K. DAVIS

                              of illinois

                    in the house of representatives

                         Tuesday, July 25, 2000

  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong and 
enthusiastic support of the Community Renewal and New Markets Act of 
2000.
  First of all, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Chairman Archer and 
Ranking Member Rangel of the Ways and Means Committee for their support 
in this legislation being on the floor today and I want to thank the 
Speaker for scheduling. Secondly, I want to thank President Clinton and 
Speaker Hastert for their leadership to commitments to try and help the 
most distressed, disadvantaged and poverty stricken areas of the 
country, in both urban and rural America. Thirdly, I want to commend 
and congratulate my colleagues and principal originators and cosponsors 
of this legislation, Chairman Jim Talent; chairman of the Small 
Business Committee and Representative J.C. Watts for their relentless 
efforts to make this legislation a reality. And Mr. Speaker, I want to 
thank all of those who have indicated support for a small, but 
seriously important step forward, in reality a giant step as we move to 
uplift downtrodden communities and put hope back into the hearts of our 
people.
  This legislation is designed to do what none of our efforts have 
effectively done, which is seriously attract business and redevelopment 
efforts to the poorest communities in our nation. This legislation is 
no hollow sounding rhetoric, it is no flash and dash, it is no pig in a 
poke. It is economically sound, socially relevant and based upon the 
principles of free enterprise. It takes forty Renewal communities and 
provides tax incentives, lifts restrictions and barriers, provides for 
capital gains tax for five years, investment programs, wage incentives, 
environmental clean-ups, CRA credits, Commercial Revitalization, Tax 
Credit Opportunities to rehabilitate dilapidated housing, venture 
capital to start businesses and the promotion of Faith-Based Drug 
Counseling initiatives.
  I know that some of my colleagues have concerns about this provision, 
suggest that it infringes upon the separation of church and State and 
even go so far as to suggest that it is unconstitutional. This is 
absolutely untrue!
  In the charitable choice arena, this bill breaks no new ground! First 
of all, H.R. 4, the current Welfare Law, allows States to contract out 
their social services to both religious or non-religious providers. In 
addition, H.R. 4271, the Community Services Authorization Act of 1998, 
Senate Bill S. 2206 and H.R. 1776, the American Home Ownership and 
Economic Opportunity Act all have some charitable choice provisions. 
Even under the establishment of the Religion Clause of the First 
Amendment, (1) Religious organizations are generally eligible to 
participate as grantees or contractors in such programs. But the clause 
has generally been interpreted to bar government from providing direct 
assistance to organizations that are pervasively sectarian.
  As a consequence, government funding agencies have often required 
social service providers, as conditions of receiving public funds, to 
be incorporated separately from their sponsoring religious 
institutions. They are to refrain from religious activities and 
proselytizing in the publicly funded programs and to remove any 
religious symbols from the premises in which the services are provided. 
The establishment clause, in short, has been construed to require 
religious organizations to secularize their services as a condition of 
obtaining public funding. ACRA's drug treatment provision is the same. 
It voucherizes the Substance Abuse Block Grant and other treatment 
Block Grants and allows the patient to decide where to use the voucher.
  The courts have found that our government can provide assistance 
directly to enterprises operated by religious concerns as long as it is 
not pervasively sectarian and that grantees devise ways of involving 
other organizations including religious ones, in the delivery of such 
services.
  In the Aguilar vs. Felton case, the Supreme Court ruled that it was 
constitutionally permissible for public school teachers to provide 
remedial and enrichment educational services to sectarian school 
children on the premises of the schools they attend. Thus, the Court 
has ruled that as long as the client has a choice among providers both 
religious and non-religious and the participant makes the decision, 
then the choice is constitutional.
  And so, Mr. Speaker, even though I understand the concerns expressed 
by some of my colleagues, the law is the law. The constitution is the 
constitution and the legislation is in compliance with both. Therefore, 
I urge a ``yes'' vote to help the people renew their hope and rebuild 
their communities. I am reminded of the scripture, they rebuild the 
walls because the people had a mind to work. This legislation will work 
to help restore and rebuild faith in America.

                          ____________________