mr. chairman , i want to further elaborate on the last point in this amendment 's attack on religious liberty in the united states , that in fact the interpretation in the presiding bishop v. amos , the supreme court unanimously upheld the language permitting religious organizations to staff on a religious basis in matters concerning employment when they receive federal funds , in a unanimous decision . 
finding that the exemption did not violate the establishment clause , the supreme court has made it clear that it is `` a permissible legislative purpose to alleviate significant governmental interference with the ability of religious organizations to define and carry out their religious missions. '' even where the content of their activities is secular , in the sense that activities do not include religious teaching , proselytizing , or worship , and it is very important for everybody to understand , we all agree you can not have prayer , you can not proselytize , you can not use government funds for anything but a secular purpose in job training , justice brennan , hardly a conservative , said that even if a religious organization is providing job training , which would be a secular thing , it is likely to be infused with a religious purpose . 
in other words , the motivation of the individuals probably is religious . 
he also recognized that churches and other religious entities `` often regard the provision of such services as a means of fulfilling religious duty and of providing an example of the way of life a church seeks to foster. '' he is perhaps one of the greatest liberal justices of all time . 
and then he recognized that preserving the title vii protections when religious organizations engage in social services is a necessary element of religious freedom . 
this attempt to redefine the supreme court in today 's debate is unfortunate . 
it is , in my opinion , bigotry against many religious people in the united states who would like to provide assistance to the poor , who would like to leverage their funds , their volunteer time , their churches , but are being told that even though they accept everybody in , even though they can not proselytize with it , that they are not welcome to participate , they are going to have their liberties taken away . 
for example , a case we often hear , well , they can set up a 501 ( c ) 3 or not have that reach , but catholic charities , an organization that historically has taken funds and it is often held up , the california supreme court just said that because catholic charities offers secular services to clients and does not directly preach catholic values , it is therefore not a religious organization . 
therefore , the court ruled that catholic charities must provide services contrary to their religious principles . 
furthermore , as we take the logical extension of this which we are dealing with in whether we provide buses and computers to private schools and which will certainly come up in education bills in front of our committee , one of the questions is , if those funds run through the bishop 's office , does in fact the reach of the funds that go for buses and for computers , which the court has ruled a computer does not do the proselytizing , the software does the proselytizing , will this reach back in because the governance of catholic charities ultimately comes back to the bishop 's office ? 
court rulings are increasingly tilting that direction because we have falsely interpreted what is religious liberty in the united states and that we have to make it clear in these bills which , as the chairman has pointed out , have passed this house multiple times , the president of the united states in many of these was not president bush pushing a faith-based initiative , but president clinton . 
and as the member from maryland has pointed out , he did not enthusiastically say this was going to be upheld ; but the fact is over the objections of many on his side , he supported it . 
former vice president gore has said specifically that religious organizations should not have to change their religious character in order to participate . 
what does religious character mean ? 
it means that if you are an orthodox jewish group and you are going to serve everybody in your community , that you get to be an orthodox jewish group ; if you are an evangelical group that believes in the resurrection of jesus christ , that people who represent your organization should share that belief ; if you are a muslim group , that people who represent that group should share that . 
the fundamental question here is , and through my subcommittee on criminal justice and human services we held eight hearings across the united states and we had a great debate in every region of the country , but many organizations came forth , whether they were muslim , jewish or christian in some form , and said , we can not compromise the nature of our faith if you are going to make us change our hiring practices . 
so what we are saying , by trying to take away their religious liberty , if they want to provide secular services , that we are discriminating and changing policy contrary to what president clinton has supported , contrary to what president bush has supported , contrary to the different nominees of both parties ; and it will be a sad day if this congress after bipartisan efforts for the last 5 to 8 years to push this type of legislation to allow these faith-based groups at the table would go backwards and say , you are no longer welcome , you are not invited to help anymore , you are off the table . 
i believe that the members , and i know one argument is that we had these debates in the middle of the night , i believe members actually looked at those bills and they knew what they were voting for , and i hope they will not flip-flop today . 
