[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 10]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page 14615]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[[Page 14615]]

                    COMMUNITY SOLUTIONS ACT OF 2001

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                           HON. DENNIS MOORE

                               of kansas

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, July 19, 2001

  Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my grave concerns with the 
bill before us today. I have seen firsthand and know well the vital 
role that churches, mosques, synagogues and other religious 
institutions play in our communities. I believe, however, that both 
H.R. 7 and the Democratic substitute offer us a false choice and fail 
to protect our constitutional rights.
  For more than 200 years, the U.S. Constitution has protected 
religious freedom by upholding each American's right to free exercise 
of religion and maintaining a separation between church and state. H.R. 
7 would break down that historic wall.
  Although the bill specifically states that government funds should 
not be used for worship or proselytization, meaningful safeguards to 
prevent such action are not included in the provisions. Indeed, as this 
bill is written, safeguards would be impossible. For example, if the 
purpose of a program is to end addiction by the adoption of a specific 
faith, it is impossible to separate the government service (drug and 
alcohol counseling) from the message of faith (proselytization). Even 
an ``opt-out,'' which provides for a secular alternative to the 
services, does not change the fact that this bill provides government 
funding for religious activities.
  Furthermore, both H.R. 7 and the Democratic substitute would provide 
direct funding to houses of worship. H.R. 7 gives federal agencies, at 
the discretion of the Secretary, the ability to take all the funding 
for a program and convert it into vouchers to religious organizations. 
This alarming provision takes $47 billion in federal funds away from 
the oversight of elected representatives in Congress. Furthermore, the 
bill expressly permits federal funding of worship and proselytization 
with these ``indirect funds.'' The Democratic substitute, although it 
attempts to close the voucher loophole, does not alleviate my concerns 
with direct government funding of religion.
  I am also deeply concerned that efforts to make religious 
organizations dependent on federal funds will cause them to lose their 
independence, autonomy and unique voice in our society. With public 
funding comes public scrutiny and accountability. Also, the provisions 
of H.R. 7 will inevitably put the federal government in the position of 
choosing one religion over another in awarding federal grants and 
contracts. Despite the fact that the bill assures us that the awarding 
of charitable choice funds would not constitute an ``endorsement'' of a 
certain religion, it takes little to imagine what will happen when a 
federal agency is forced to choose between two equally meritorious 
grants from different religious groups. Even worse will be the 
consequences when a cabinet secretary, by fiat, turns the program into 
a ``voucher.'' A more egregious violation of the Establishment Clause 
can hardly be imagined.
  I cannot state strongly enough my belief that religious organizations 
are an important part of our social fabric and provide absolutely vital 
services to people in need. Those services already can be provided by 
religious organizations in a way that is constitutionally sound. I 
encourage my colleagues to take this bill back to the drawing board and 
build on that record of service.

                          ____________________