[House Hearing, 108 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
FAITH-BASED PERSPECTIVES ON THE PROVISION OF COMMUNITY SERVICES
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE,
DRUG POLICY AND HUMAN RESOURCES
of the
COMMITTEE ON
GOVERNMENT REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JANUARY 23, 2004
__________
Serial No. 108-158
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/congress/house
http://www.house.gov/reform
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
94-492 WASHINGTON : DC
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM
TOM DAVIS, Virginia, Chairman
DAN BURTON, Indiana HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut TOM LANTOS, California
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida MAJOR R. OWENS, New York
JOHN M. McHUGH, New York EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
JOHN L. MICA, Florida PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
DOUG OSE, California DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio
RON LEWIS, Kentucky DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts
TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri
CHRIS CANNON, Utah DIANE E. WATSON, California
ADAM H. PUTNAM, Florida STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
EDWARD L. SCHROCK, Virginia CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California
JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma C.A. ``DUTCH'' RUPPERSBERGER,
NATHAN DEAL, Georgia Maryland
CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania Columbia
MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio JIM COOPER, Tennessee
JOHN R. CARTER, Texas CHRIS BELL, Texas
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee ------
------ ------ BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
(Independent)
Melissa Wojciak, Staff Director
David Marin, Deputy Staff Director/Communications Director
Rob Borden, Parliamentarian
Teresa Austin, Chief Clerk
Phil Barnett, Minority Chief of Staff/Chief Counsel
Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana, Chairman
NATHAN DEAL, Georgia ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
JOHN M. McHUGH, New York DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
JOHN L. MICA, Florida WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri
DOUG OSE, California LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California
JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia C.A. ``DUTCH'' RUPPERSBERGER,
EDWARD L. SCHROCK, Virginia Maryland
JOHN R. CARTER, Texas ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee Columbia
CHRIS BELL, Texas
Ex Officio
TOM DAVIS, Virginia HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
J. Marc Wheat, Staff Director
Elizabeth Meyer, Professional Staff Member
Nicole Garrett, Clerk
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on January 23, 2004................................. 1
Statement of:
Anderson, Ed, vice president/CFO, Compassion International... 75
Cote, Bob, Step 13, Denver, CO............................... 86
Cowles, Reverend Dean, president, YouthPartnersNet........... 59
Haley, Mike, manager of gender issues, Focus on the Family... 24
Jaramillo, Jackie, Faith Partners............................ 84
Keller, Frank, senior director of constituent services, Focus
on the Family.............................................. 11
Larimore, Walter L., vice president of medical outreach,
Focus on the Family........................................ 16
Littrell, Sharon, executive director of Interfaith
Hospitality Network........................................ 57
Minnery, Tom, vice president of public policy, Focus on the
Family..................................................... 27
Robinson, Jean, Denver Urban Ministry........................ 73
Tollefson, Dean E., Community Ministers Unlimited............ 55
Whetstone, Steven, Feed the Children......................... 42
Wooten, Wilfred, senior director of counseling, Focus on the
Family..................................................... 10
Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:
Anderson, Ed, vice president/CFO, Compassion International,
prepared statement of...................................... 78
Cowles, Reverend Dean, president, YouthPartnersNet, prepared
statement of............................................... 62
Haley, Mike, manager of gender issues, Focus on the Family,
prepared statement of...................................... 25
Keller, Frank, senior director of constituent services, Focus
on the Family, prepared statement of....................... 14
Larimore, Walter L., vice president of medical outreach,
Focus on the Family, prepared statement of................. 18
Souder, Hon. Mark E., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Indiana, prepared statement of.................... 5
Whetstone, Steven, Feed the Children, prepared statement of.. 45
FAITH-BASED PERSPECTIVES ON THE PROVISION OF COMMUNITY SERVICES
----------
FRIDAY, JANUARY 23, 2004
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and
Human Resources,
Committee on Government Reform,
Colorado Springs, CO.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:14 a.m., at
City Hall, Third Floor, 107 North Nevada Avenue, Colorado
Springs, CO, Hon. Mark E. Souder (chairman of the subcommittee)
Presiding.
Present: Representatives Souder and Hefley.
Staff present: Elizabeth Meyer, professional staff member
and counsel; and Nicole Garrett, clerk.
Mr. Souder. The subcommittee will come to order. We're
pleased to have Congressman Hefley, your local Congressman,
here. I served under him on the National Parks Subcommittee,
and I worked with him as well on many other issues, and he's
been a great leader in Washington. I'm going to start with an
opening statement that explains a little bit of what we're
doing here today.
I thank you all for joining us today as we continue our
discussion on the role of faith-based organizations in the
provision of social services. I'm very pleased to be here in
Colorado Springs.
Scores of dedicated men and women open their hearts and
homes to the less fortunate each and every day. They do this
not for the glory of public recognition or for the money but
for the simple fact that their faith calls them--demands them--
to action. They are committed to improving the lives of their
neighbor, no matter the sacrifice to their own safety and
comfort. Often their only reward, which they will tell you is
the best reward, is the knowledge that they have restored hope
to someone who had been suffering.
The men and women who run the countless faith-based social
service organizations in neighborhoods all across the country
are often the only people willing to tackle the tough problems
because frequently the rest of us take an out-of-sight, out-of-
mind approach to issues that make us uncomfortable.
If, in the United States, we had an unlimited amount of
money, we'd be able to fund every organization that is
effectively providing social services. The hard reality is that
we don't have unlimited resources. So we have to find a way to
get the dollars we do have into the most effective agencies in
the neighborhood.
Frequently, that agency is a faith-based organization.
Leaders of the many faith-based agencies I've had the privilege
to visit tell me that they are successful because they look
beyond the immediate need. Their focus is helping the client
regain hope and change their life.
These men and women truly make a difference, not only in
the life of the client, but in the community as a whole. We
need to determine how we can best encourage and support the
work that they do without asking them to compromise their
beliefs.
We've been having this discussion in Washington for quite
some time. What I find to be most frustrating is the tendency
to lose sight of the reason we are having the discussion in the
first place.
We know that faith-based organizations are effectively
transforming lives and communities. Where the discussion gets
bogged down is in the legal questions. We need to refocus the
discussion on what makes a faith-based organization successful.
What is it that makes them effective?
The fact that faith-based organizations are effective is
the reason this discussion began in the first place. It is time
to listen to the providers tell us how we can best assist them
in their work.
I doubt that government strings and bureaucratic red tape
are something that they're actively seeking. I believe one of
the best ways that we as legislators can help is not by giving
you more government strings to deal with, but by helping to
facilitate new relationships among the providers of social
services and the foundations that provide financial and
technical assistance to faith-based and community
organizations. Today we have the great opportunity to talk with
providers of a range of faith-based services. We need to
understand how the unique element of faith impacts the
structure and success of these programs. It is also important
that we understand how your programs transform lives by
building self-confidence and self-esteem. Over the last several
months, we have heard from faith-based providers in San
Antonio, TX; Nashville, TN; Chicago, IL; Charlotte, NC, and
last week in Watson and Los Angeles, CA.
Our witnesses today represent just a small fraction of the
countless faith-based organizations that are reaching out to
not only the hurting in Colorado, but around the world, as
well. I expect that our witnesses today will provide us with
valuable insights into their work, and the needs of the
community. Most importantly, they will help us identify areas
and methods by which the government can best assist community
organizations of all types to provide the best possible care
for people in need. I very much look forward to the testimony
today.
I, again, add that's the general introduction that I give
for each of the hearings. I can add just a few other comments
to put this in context.
The subcommittee that I chair is part of a government-
formed oversight committee. We have jurisdiction primarily over
narcotics, in both authorizing and oversight on narcotics and
all drug policy in the United States. But we also, then, have
oversight over a series of different agencies, including HSS,
HUD, the Department of Education, Justice, and the Office of
Faith-Based. And in that, we're the only committee that has
oversight jurisdiction over the Office of Faith-Based and the
White House. The actual legislation that is passed comes
through other committees, as far as monitoring what is going
on, and trying to shape what's going on on different issues.
I wanted to do it, because I've personally been the House
leader on many of the amendments that happened over the years
when then-Senator Ashcroft and Coates did the first faith-based
initiative in welfare reform, I think it was about 1995 or
1996.
I carried the House amendment that allowed faith-based
groups to be eligible for the funding. Then as we moved future
pieces of legislation through, we had more and more controversy
related to it, in juvenile justice, in Head Start, in the
fatherhood initiative, in HUD.
But four passed both Houses. President Clinton signed four
of those into law. The latest part of the faith-based
initiative would be tax reform. Compassion Capital would help
to develop capacity, and the grant portion that would broaden
it beyond those single and make it more permanent.
That bogged down over hiring practices predominantly. That
is not the only thing. Because that is merely one thing that is
related to the faith-based element where we focused on the
legal issues. And we're going to finish with one in Washington
where we focus on legal issues. And although it comes up in
every hearing and there are disagreements on how critical
hiring practices and so on, the focus here is not predominantly
that.
A couple of other things. This is an oversight committee.
The full committee, for example, after the Republicans took
over Congress, you'll see that we have to swear in all the
witnesses in this committee. There have been people prosecuted
for perjury in this committee. We've done things like the Waco
oversight to who hired Craig Livingstone, Whitewater, China.
Most of those types of investigations in Congress occurred
through this committee, because you have authorizing
committees, appropriation committees, and our committee sees
how it's being implemented.
That kind of gives you the context of what we're doing
here. It may or may not lead to different legislation, although
all of us work on different committees to support that, much of
what's being done is by Executive order. Therefore, we work
with that generally.
That kind of puts it in the process of this 2-year cycle.
We're going to do a 2-year report, which will have information,
in addition to the hearings, in it. Like we did last cycle on
Homeland security. We held a series of hearings on both
borders. We did this for 2 years and issued that report.
I'm on the Homeland security committee, on the border
subcommittee, and Congressman Camp, who's a member of that,
said this is the base and the best outline of that. We want to
have a similar document for faith-based. So when people look at
the national debate, while there have been a few Washington
hearings as the bills have moved through, it's often only a
small part of that debate. We're going to have a series of
hearings on the subject.
One last comment. By House rules, you have to have either a
Democrat present in a quorum, or you can get a waiver. The
ranking democrat is Elijah Cummings, who heads my caucus, and
we have a very good relationship. We've accommodated Democratic
issues as they've moved through. We've had different hearings.
We've been able to move a number of major bills on a bipartisan
basis.
Therefore, we've been given a lot of flexibility in this
committee. And that's why today, you'll see there will be a
fair amount of debate and discussion. Some hearings we have
more of that. Some hearings there will be more witnesses from
the Democratic side. We have members.
In Washington, there are fairly rigid rules as far as
whether you're on the subcommittee or the full committee. And
Congressman Waxman, who's the ranking member, wants us to
enforce those rules. But when we go into people's districts,
many of the districts have been in the Democratic districts.
But today Congressman Hefley is here. So I'll ask for a
rule waiver, so that he can participate in the hearing today.
He's not going to be able to be here for most of the time. But
we'll have a Member from the local area.
Most of our hearings have, in fact, been bipartisan. So let
me first do the two rule waivers. Written statements and
questions to the hearing record and any answers to written
questions provided by the witnesses also shall be included in
the record without objection. So ordered.
I also ask unanimous consent that other materials referred
to by Members and witnesses may be included in the hearing and
that all Members be permitted to revise and extend their
remarks. Without objection, it is so ordered.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Mark E. Souder follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4492.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4492.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4492.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4492.004
Mr. Souder. I'd now like to yield to my friend Mr. Hefley
for any comments he'd like to make.
Mr. Hefley. Yes, Chairman Souder. I, first of all, want to
welcome you to Colorado Springs. And I think you've brought
this hearing to a good place, because I don't know of any
community in America that has more headquarters of national
faith-based organizations than right here in Colorado Springs.
Everybody from Focus to Young Life, Navigators, and you could
go on and on down the list.
I speak to the management group of these organizations from
time to time. I've watched it over the years grow, and I think
the last time I spoke to them, they had over 100 organizations
represented. And so you come. We appreciate you coming here,
and thank you for it.
And this is an important topic. Somewhere down the line,
we've gotten the idea that government has to do it all. And for
most of our country's history, that has not been the case. For
most of the history of the United States, who do you think did
the social services to this country? It was the faith-based
organizations.
It was only during the Great Depression that we began to
get the growth of the Federal Government being involved in all
of these services to the point now that you bring up something
like this, and there are those in Washington who think somehow
or another if it's a faith-based organization, it will
contaminate the system. But, oh, the government could sure do
it right.
We've seen over the years that the government has not done
it right in many, many cases and the government cannot do it
all. We need help. And we need help from people who are
dedicated and committed and know how to do it. And the movement
to enlist faith-based organizations has been a priority of
President Bush, and I think it should be a priority of all of
us.
The question is how do you do it and get past the legal
hurdles that you've talked about? So I look forward to the
hearing today, and appreciate you bringing the hearing to
Colorado Springs.
Mr. Souder. Thank you very much.
As long as I look east, it looks a lot like Indiana.
For the record, too, if there are people who want to
provide information to the committee or submit statements who
aren't on the panels, if you'd provide them to us, we'll try to
get them into the written record. But only witnesses who have
been on the schedule and have been cleared with the committee
are going to be testifying publicly today.
Now, if the first panel will come forth to the panel. Will
you raise your right hands.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Souder. Let the record show that each of the witnesses
responded in the affirmative. The clock will show green at 5
minutes with 1 minute to go. It should show--do we have yellow
on this one? If there's time after your 5 minute testimonies
each, and we have a large second panel, as well, we'll ask
questions.
As you heard in the earlier part, your full testimony will
be submitted in the record. You can submit other things after
that. You can either read or summarize your statements, and
I'll be a little generous with the 5 minutes. But with the
pressures, we really want to get into some of the questions and
some reaction of what is said. So we'll start with Mr. Wiflred
Wooten from Focus on the Family.
STATEMENT OF WILFRED WOOTEN, SENIOR DIRECTOR OF COUNSELING,
FOCUS ON THE FAMILY
Mr. Wooten. Thank you, sir. In the book, Prayer, Faith and
Healing, subtitled, Cure Your Body, Heal Your Mind, and Restore
Your Soul, there is a powerful thought presented by Bernie
Siegel, M.D.
Dr. Siegel stated, ``With prayer and faith, you can build a
home for all mankind. Without them, you go build walls and
fears that separate you from others and destroy your life.
When you choose to pray and love, you are in tune with your
existence. Prayer, faith and love are the most powerful weapons
you have, and you need to make them a consistent part of your
life, and use them wisely.''
Perhaps we have God. We've gotten a long way from our
founding fathers, what they believed, and what they had vision
for. My name is Willy Wooten. I'm a licensed marriage, family,
and child counselor, and a licensed clinical social worker. I
served in the armed forces as social work officer for 24 years
from 1969 to 1993. I've been on the staff of Focus on the
Family for over 10 years. I serve as director of the counseling
department. In the last 35 plus years of clinical work, I have
observed the power of faith and prayer in the healing of
physical and emotional disorders. The counseling department at
Focus on the Family handles approximately 1,200 calls for
assistance each week, or over 60,000 per year.
These calls are the most critical needs that come into the
ministry, from parenting issues, teen rebellion, divorce,
separation, depression to suicide. We have 16 licensed
Christian counselors, two chaplains, and a support staff of six
who respond to many calls for help.
We have developed a national referral network of over 2,200
Christian counselors throughout the country to refer
constituents who need additional support. We've also developed
an informal network of churches to refer people who can't
afford professional help or need some other kind of ministry
that way.
I have worked in a variety of secular and faith-based
settings. Both research and my observation are that faith,
prayer, and hope make a significant difference to the health,
well-being, and healing of those who are struggling with the
many challenges and hurdles that life can present.
I believe one critical difference between a secular and
faith-based program in assisting people in need was captured in
the quote I shared earlier. We in the mental and physical
health professions can give only limited and temporary relief
from the diseases of life in our care and services without the
application of prayer, faith, and hope, the result is a viable
heart change and relationship with Jesus Christ.
If you want to understand and find the solution for
people's problems, one needs to go to the inventor, God, and
live by his manual, the Bible. When our car pulls to the right
or left instead of remaining straight when we brake, we take it
in for alignment. Prayer and faith is a form of alignment with
God.
We appear to be out of alignment as families and as a
Nation. There are court rulings that prohibit prayer in schools
and other public places, thereby reducing the tools,
procedures, and power our founding fathers lived by.
A comment from a constituent recently stated, ``In recent
months, I have very much appreciated the stand Dr. Dobson and
Focus has taken on moral issues. I truly believe that it is why
your ministry has done so well. You have never backed down,
wavered, or filtered the truth. It's extremely hard to face our
current culture, government, and justice system without at
least a little apprehension about the outcome. I'm grateful
that Focus on the Family has stood firm, without apology, and
without watering down the stand you take on issues. Faith-based
and proactive.'' One of the things that we do as a department
and ministry is to reach out to the community here. We have
contact with over 31 churches. We work with the Salvation Army.
This is in reference to other faith-based organizations.
American Red Cross, Northern Churches Care, Ecumenical Social
Ministries, Women Partnering, Westside Cares, and others. This
cooperative effort is through our benevolence outreach in
helping constituents meet basic needs such as food, shelter,
utilities, and medical bills, while also attending to the
emotional and spiritual needs and trying to connect individuals
who may be disconnected from the community at large. Thank you.
Mr. Souder. Thank you very much for your testimony.
Next is Mr. Frank Keller. The first panel is all from
Focus, from some of the different ministries, which is one of
the largest in the United States and around the world. And we
wanted to see some of the range of what you do. Mr. Keller.
STATEMENT OF FRANK KELLER, SENIOR DIRECTOR OF CONSTITUENT
SERVICES, FOCUS ON THE FAMILY
Mr. Keller. Good morning. My name is Frank Keller. I've
been on staff at Focus on the Family for 12 years, having
previously spent 20 years in public and private school
administration.
It's my privilege to be one of two senior directors for
constituent services, which includes several departments
consisting of 500 employees at Focus on the Family. I represent
and oversee the daily activity of these departments, which
provide, letter, e-mail, phone, product shipping, and guest
relations services to approximately 10,000 constituents each
day.
The mission of Focus on the Family states that we exist to
cooperate with the Holy Spirit in disseminating the gospel of
Jesus Christ to as many people as possible, and to specifically
accomplish that objective by helping to preserve traditional
values and the institution of the family. This, based on
scriptural truths, is done through practical outreach to homes
based on our firm beliefs that both the Christian faith and the
importance of the family are at the center.
Each day brings several thousand letters, phone calls, and
e-mails to the attention of Focus on the Family from
individuals and families all across the United States.
Sometimes internationally. These represent a wide variety of
reasons for the contacts. Some are sharing information that
Focus might benefit from, and many are asking for advice,
resource suggestions, referrals to other support organizations,
or outright help in the midst of extreme personal or family
hardships.
This direct communication is a vital link to the people we
serve. In addition, an average of 600 guests physically walk
into the Focus on the Family buildings each day looking for a
tour, or are interested in shopping at the Focus bookstore and
visitor's center.
Those who contact us are treated with dignity and care. The
many inquiries for information, advice, and encouragement are
fielded by a highly trained staff in our constituent services
departments. These include phone, mail, and e-mail
representatives, along with shipping and distribution personnel
whose job it is to assure the highest level of personal and
supportive services.
We see ourselves as entering into a relationship with those
who contact us, and as a result, include offering to pray with
them whenever appropriate.
Many of our constituents actually request that Focus do
this for them. A foundational component of faith-based
organizations is that of connecting spiritually with God
through prayer, for wisdom, guidance, encouragement, and
comfort. It is impossible to be a faith-based organization
without being prayer-dependent.
On December 1, 2003, the highest single contact day at
Focus on the Family in the last year, 24,000 phone, mail, e-
mail, and Internet Web orders were received and handled by the
staff. A typical or average day number of constituent contacts
received and handled in the past year would be about 7,000 each
day.
We feel we have been effective and successful in our
attempts to assist the families as a result of seeing continued
contacts and interaction for future services, as well as by the
feedback we've received.
Many people write or call back to let us know how their
situation or need has improved, their faith strengthened, or
how their life has been positively impacted by the assistance
provided by Focus on the Family.
I'd like to present three of those to you today, which
wonderfully illustrate the opportunity our constituent services
staff has to assist families through our faith-based
organization.
First, from a gentleman serving a prison sentence, we hear
these words. ``Eight years ago, my marriage was in serious
trouble. I was incarcerated, and didn't have any money, but I
wrote you and asked for a copy of a book to help me, and you
blessed me with a free copy. I'm happy to report that my wife
and I just celebrated our 11th anniversary.''
A woman tells us from Midlothian, VA, ``Thank you very much
for responding to my e-mail. It gives me a little bit of hope
just knowing that even though you do not know me, you took the
time to try to help me. With all my problems lately, I've
wondered if God even cares anymore. But I guess he cares enough
to send good people like you, who are willing to help those of
you us who are lost. God bless you for giving your time to help
others.''
And, finally, and I'll end with this. These words come from
a man in Yukon, OK. He had contacted Focus on the Family just
originally just to see if he could get some information to help
him assist his disabled wife. He mentioned in passing that his
financial situation was rather grim because of his wife's
medical costs, and that they may have to file for bankruptcy.
He says, ``In addition, and to our surprise, you sent me
and my wife some financial assistance. I'm calling to express
my gratitude for the way your ministry reached out to us. I did
not plan to ask for assistance. But that gesture of care meant
a great deal to us.'' Through tears he said, ``You will never
know what that meant to us.''
Mr. Souder. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Keller follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4492.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4492.006
Mr. Souder. Our third witness is Dr. Walter Larimore, vice
president of medical authorization.
STATEMENT OF WALTER L. LARIMORE, VICE PRESIDENT OF MEDICAL
OUTREACH, FOCUS ON THE FAMILY
Mr. Larimore. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Hefley, good morning. Prior
to joining Focus on the Family to become the vice president of
medical outreach, I practiced family medicine for over 20
years. I was also involved in medical research and writing and
appointments, including the University of Colorado.
My testimony today to you is as a physician and researcher,
and it's on the topic of the impact that positive spirituality
can have on individuals and upon society.
Positive spirituality, as I and my research colleagues have
defined it in the medical literature, is distinctive from
faith, morality, and religion, in that it involves an ever
evolving authentic and personal relationship with God.
It's not bound by race, ethnicity, economics or class. This
personal relationship with God promotes the wellness and
welfare of others over self. It includes the beliefs and values
by which an individual lives, and it results in the visible
fruit of love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness,
faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control.
Over the last 40 years, researchers have increasingly shown
that those with positive spirituality, those who internalize
biblical teaching by frequently praying, applying what the
Bible says to their lives, and believing that they will have a
personal relationship with God, and practicing what they teach
or believe have high levels of satisfaction in life, high
levels of a sense of well-being, and overall happiness.
The Handbook of Religion and Health published by Oxford
Press said that the published data suggested, religious
commitment plays a significant, beneficial role in three ways.
One, in the prevention of mental and physical illness; two,
improving how people cope with mental and physical illness; and
three, facilitating recovery from illness.
Representative Souder, if we had a pill that would do that,
it would outsell Viagra. Not by much, but it would.
Positive spirituality postpones the development of physical
disability in later life. It helps chronically ill people who
think of themselves and perceive themselves as less disabled
than they really are. Positive spirituality results in
optimism, hope, purpose, and meaning, even in the midst of
negative life circumstances. Persons with positive spirituality
can experience peace and healing, even when a cure is not
forthcoming.
Relationships between mental health and strong faith,
devout prayer, and religious socialization have consequences
that are far-reaching, and perhaps greatly underestimated.
Positive spirituality is associated with improved
attendance at scheduled medical appointments, greater
cooperativeness with medical treatment plan, better compliance
with medical recommendations, and improved medical outcomes.
Positive spirituality is associated with decreased divorce,
decreased fatherlessness, decreased teen pregnancy, decreased
criminal recidivism.
Let me close my testimony with just three suggestions on
how the facilitation of faith-based organizations in healthcare
may be beneficial to individuals and societies.
No. 1 would be to encourage healthcare organizations and
caregivers to incorporate positive spirituality into clinical
care.
Over the last several years, we've been involved in a
continuing medical education course for healthcare providers.
Over 10,000 healthcare providers have attended this course,
either through live conference or video conference. Most of the
learners were primary care physicians who were anxious to learn
how to incorporate positive spirituality into their practices.
The promotion of such faith-based activity by healthcare givers
only improves doctor-patient relationships, and it introduces
the very positive faith factor in physical well-being.
Second, encourage education in the proper implementation of
the HIPAA regulations, so as not to prevent patients from
receiving the positive spiritual care they desire and need.
The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of
1996 includes language originally intended to prevent
electronic patient information from being sold and used
inappropriately. But it's tied the hands of the healthcare
industry in knots, and it's prompted most providers to err on
the side of zero access to patient data.
We're hearing from many pastoral professionals around the
country that it means they can no longer stop by a hospital in
search of members of their congregation without having
permission or being on a specific list.
It's been contended that these bureaucratic snafus could be
readily fixed by the Department of Health and Human Services
with a clarification of the privacy rules and the intent of
HIPAA.
Last, we would ask Congress to consider continuing and
expanding clinical pastoral education. On October 1, 2003, the
Medicare funding of CPE programs was diminished. And we feel
that may have a negative implication on the positive spiritual
care of people in hospitals.
Let me conclude my comments to you by saying that the
evidence today tells us that clinicians, communities, and
Congress should continue to encourage positive spirituality.
Health policymakers, health-care givers, and faith-based
organizations should assess the spiritual needs of people and
provide indicated and desired spiritual interventions.
Our social programs should not, without compelling data to
the contrary, deprive people of the spiritual support and
comfort upon which their hope, health, and well-being may
hinge. Thank you.
Mr. Souder. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Larimore follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4492.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4492.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4492.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4492.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4492.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4492.012
Mr. Souder. Next, Mr. Mike Haley, the public policy gender
specialist from Focus on the Family.
STATEMENT OF MIKE HALEY, MANAGER OF GENDER ISSUES, FOCUS ON THE
FAMILY
Mr. Haley. Morning. As was stated, I'm the manager of the
gender issues department and the Love Won Out department at
Focus.
Having lived as an active member of the gay activist
community for 12 years, I offer unique insights into the causes
and recovery of the homosexual condition. I serve as the
chairman of the board of Exodus International, the largest
ministry offering help to individuals and families throughout
the world on the issue of homosexuality.
My wife, Angie and I live here in Colorado Springs, and
have two sons.
Focus on the Family has taken on the difficult task of
educating the populous on the true causes and recovery of
homosexuality since 1998. Love Won Out has gone to the Nation's
largest cities and Canada for 5 years speaking with a life-
changing message to tens of thousands of people.
The Love Won Out conference seeks to balance truth and love
while presenting the contentious issue of homosexuality from a
Christian perspective. Attendees at our conference include
parents, friends, and loved ones of homosexuals, pastors,
mental health professionals, youth workers, educators, and even
gay activists.
There's not a family, church, or community not personally
affected by the issue of homosexuality. Pop culture says
homosexuality is biological, and that change and freedom from
homosexuality are impossible.
Some Christians, through fear and ignorance, communicate
condemnation and hatred to homosexuals. Others don't know how
to share their beliefs with those struggling with
homosexuality. As a result, each year, thousands of confused
and hurting people feel that there is no other option than to
embrace this way of life, and thousands of families with loved
ones in homosexuality feel there is nowhere to turn for help or
answers.
The misleading message offered by popular culture and the
church necessitate a forum of real answers to homosexuality.
Love Won Out seeks to shed light on truth through the Bible and
social science research. Our ministry and the hope it offers
would not be possible without the power of Christ. I would not
have overcome my homosexuality or now have a message of
redemption and new life without Christ. Love Won Out is rooted
in God's word and forgiveness through Jesus Christ, and it
would not exist any other way.
Due to the dependence we have, it's imperative that we hire
individuals with traditional biblical views, especially of
God's design for sexuality. With so many ideas, thoughts, and
beliefs on homosexuality in our culture today, we must ensure
that the Love Won Out team and the entire ministry of Focus on
the Family adhere to God's standards, and believe in the
redemptive power of Jesus Christ. Thank you.
Mr. Souder. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Haley follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4492.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4492.014
Mr. Souder. We'll conclude this panel with Mr. Tom Minnery,
vice president of public policy at Focus.
STATEMENT OF TOM MINNERY, VICE PRESIDENT OF PUBLIC POLICY,
FOCUS ON THE FAMILY
Mr. Minnery. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm happy to be the
clean-up hitter here. I hope everybody at least got on base
with you.
Mr. Chairman, we fear the day when government may tell us
that we can no longer hire on the basis of our religious faith.
I cannot underscore enough the importance of religious
conviction in all that we do at Focus on the Family.
Our work force must adhere to a Christian world view and,
indeed, be alive in Christian faith in order for our ministry
and the services we provide to be effective. If the government
were to prohibit us from hiring with religious criteria, we
would be hard-pressed to call ourselves a Christian
organization.
We could not reasonably expect a religiously diverse work
force, or indeed, a work force in which employees have no
religion at all to carry out the unambiguous mission to
disseminate the gospel of Jesus Christ. Legislative measures to
ensure that our religious liberties are protected, particularly
in hiring, would be most appreciated by Focus on the Family and
the families we serve.
We see State to State, and it's mostly State legislation,
laws being passed that make it more difficult for openly faith-
based organizations, even churches in some States, to hire
freely without being under the thumb of the State and sometimes
local regulations, sometimes called the civil rights
regulations.
We fear that will become a pall on all that is done in the
name of openly expressing religious faith. It's absurd to think
that a Jewish relief organization would be required to hire a
Catholic believer. It's absurd to think that a Catholic
organization with a devotion to the blessed virgin would be
required to hire Protestants. It doesn't make any sense. Even
in the faith-based initiatives emanated from Washington, we are
pleased in the protections that the President has adopted to
institute. But when it comes time to think about State and
local regulations, and State and local laws, there is no
protection offered from the Federal level against the
encroachment of these local laws for those organizations that
take Federal money for faith-based initiatives.
I believe that the Federal legislation has to do a lot more
to protect organizations against the encroachment of these
State and local laws if the organizations are going to take
government money.
Let me turn real quickly to another topic. One of the goals
of Focus on the Family is to encourage people to become more
effective citizens by letting their voices be heard more
effectively. We prize the privilege of being citizens in this
great country. And we encourage our constituents to raise their
voices. Much of the activity is classified by the IRS as grass-
roots lobbying. Focus is permitted a yearly maximum of $250,000
in expenditures for this activity. It's a minuscule amount for
an organization with a budget of $130 million. The current law
also allows us to spend an additional $750,000 on what the IRS
calls direct lobbying. That is the effort to relay our concerns
to legislators first hand instead of through constituents.
We don't spend nearly $750,000 for this purpose. We'd like
to spend more on the grass roots portion of it. Our limit is $1
million. There is an unwieldy distinction between grass roots
and direct lobbying.
We would specifically ask that artificial distinction be
eliminated. We're not asking to be able to spend more in
lobbying, but simply that the unwieldy distinction between
grass roots and direct lobbying be eliminated.
We join with a number of nonprofit organizations across the
political spectrum in asking for Congress to clean this up. The
CARE Act now before Congress would do so. A section of Senate
version 303 and Section 206 of the House version, each section
is called Simplification of Lobbying Expenditure Limitation,
would do exactly that.
Nonprofit organizations on all sides of the spectrum would
greatly appreciate Congress attending to this matter. Thank you
very much.
Mr. Souder. Thanks.
Let me start with a couple of typical followup questions,
and a few just for the general record. And maybe, Mr. Minnery,
you can field the first basic question.
Focus on the Family is not affiliated with any particular
church? It's a separate denomination.
Mr. Minnery. That's correct.
Mr. Souder. When you have your different State initiatives,
does Focus have different 501(c)3s? Do you transfer money to
different 501(c)3s?
Mr. Minnery. No, all of our expenditures are operated
through our 501(c)3. Focus on the Family itself has an informal
association with a number of groups on different projects and
initiatives all the time.
Mr. Souder. So when you do a money transfer to any of those
groups, it's not a possibility that you're going to get tangled
up with being, in effect, part ownership or underwriting?
Mr. Minnery. That is correct.
Mr. Souder. Is that true of the international operations,
as well?
Mr. Minnery. That is correct, primarily because our
international affiliate organizations are their own separate
corporate entities, with their own boards of directors.
Mr. Souder. Do you provide them with free materials?
Mr. Minnery. We do.
Mr. Souder. Let me ask you one more technical followup
question. On this lobbying section, as I understand the issue,
it's a bias toward Washington lobbyists against non-Washington
lobbyists; is that a fair characterization?
Mr. Minnery. I don't understand it to be that.
Mr. Souder. You said $750,000 for direct lobbying, and only
$250 for indirect?
Mr. Minnery. That's correct.
Mr. Souder. So wouldn't that be a bias for if you have a
lobbyist in Washington, and direct lobbying in Washington, then
in effect some of the lobbyists would have been affected, and
it would disadvantage organizations that wouldn't have it
coming directly?
Mr. Minnery. That may well be the reason that lopsided
amount is in there.
Mr. Souder. What local organizations are supporting this?
Mr. Minnery. A wide variety. Too many for me to account
here.
Mr. Souder. Then, Dr. Larimore, I wanted to make a note to
my staff, and if you can followup on the two particular issues
you raised toward the tail end. Because I'm worried it's going
to get lost in the shuffle here. Because I'm leaving for Libya,
Iraq, and Afghanistan tomorrow. So I won't be back in my
office.
You mentioned two things. One, you felt that HSS could
clarify, without legislature changes, the HIPAA problem.
Perhaps you can either work with Mark Weiland or Roland, if you
can followup with them.
The second thing is to followup on Medicare. And if you can
call our office sometime next week just to make sure we're
getting some of this started, and get a little more detail on
the chaplain question.
Was that changed in the new Medicare bill?
Mr. Larimore. No, that was a revised ruling regarding
Medicare and clinical pastoral education. It was published
October 1, 2003. And the specifics were that Medicare
reimbursement to hospitals for CPE programs was significantly
altered in that only the first year of training was funded.
Mr. Souder. Was there a claim that legislatively there was
anything to do with this, or how was it dealt with?
Mr. Larimore. My understanding was it was just regulatory.
Mr. Souder. Because we've seen this squeeze on chaplains in
other areas, as well. And to the degree we can, try to get a
response, because we do have oversight over HSS, and work with
the authorizing committee, as well.
Let me now go back to a broad question that I thought Mr.
Minnery addressed well, but I would like you to illustrate some
in the different sections. And let me first start with Mr.
Wooten in the counseling area.
Do you have a statement of faith for counselors? In other
words, are there criterias when you have a counselor in your
group, and could you kind of elaborate on how, if you didn't,
how it would change your ministry?
Mr. Wooten. There's a statement of faith that we have as a
ministry that people sign and adhere to when they are hired.
How it would change the mission or our ministry.
Mr. Souder. Yes.
Mr. Wooten. The majority of people who call in crisis are
looking for that particular aspect of faith that we provide.
Many because they've listened to the broadcast or they've been
referred by somebody else. Probably 90 percent of the calls
that we get are people that have some sort of faith or are
struggling with it, and maybe another 10 percent that don't.
Although we are reaching out more now with Internet, and
are expecting larger numbers of people that maybe do not have
faith that we want to be able to minister to. But that would
very much impact our ability to freely do that.
Mr. Souder. It probably wouldn't be possible for you to
have two counselors sitting there where if they raise a
religious subject you can switch over to that counselor, and if
they didn't want to pray, for example, they could talk to the
counselor here?
Mr. Wooten. In this organization, to divide up the staff
between the Christian and secular----
Mr. Souder. You'd almost have to divide it by phone
conversation. In the middle of the phone conversation.
Mr. Wooten. Yeah.
Mr. Souder. In other words, for those who argue that you
don't have to necessarily pray, or you don't necessarily have
to give a statement of faith, my impression is that would be
very difficult in a mission like yours to separate the kind of
work side of Christianity from the faith side of Christianity
in the same conversation.
You couldn't say, ``Uh-oh, this is yours.'' You'd have to
tag-team the phone call.
Mr. Wooten. Absolutely. We don't force anybody. We offer to
pray with somebody, because we feel that's so important. And we
ask them if they'd mind if we pray with them. Very few say no.
If they do, then we don't, and we provide the other services of
psychological and emotional support for referral. But very few
don't want that to happen.
In fact, when some people call in, if they're extremely
distraught, during that time of saying, ``Can we pray for
you?'' There is a quieting that often takes place that makes
whatever was said before more effective, to be able to at least
summarize and share with somebody.
Mr. Souder. Is it fairly safe to say that doing counseling
is a little bit different than, for example, giving soup at a
soup kitchen?
Mr. Wooten. Absolutely. Yeah.
Mr. Souder. Mr. Hefley.
Mr. Hefley. Yes. Thank you. Tom, I'm very happy that you
brought up the hiring aspect, because this is one of the
sticking points in this, as you well know.
The Federal Government has a policy that they won't give
grants to organizations who discriminate on the basis of race,
religion, and so forth. And so this is something we have to
deal with from a legal standpoint.
But you're absolutely right, what you said about the
ridiculousness of the Jewish organization and Christian
organization, not being able to pick people who share your
basic faith, I think is extremely important. And I would not
support the faith-based initiative unless this item is taken
care of. I don't think you can operate.
Focus is a little different than some other organizations.
And I don't know quite how you would fit into this, but I do
need to ask the question. All of you pretty much, except Tom,
dealt very strongly with these practical aspects of hiring and
lobbying, talked about the importance of your faith and your
Christian values and prayer and that kind of thing. And I agree
with everything you said. I think you do a great job by using
all of those techniques. But the government is not going to pay
you to use those techniques, probably, in a faith-based
initiative. And I use the example, and there may be someone
here from the Salvation Army, I don't know. But the Salvation
Army has been able over the years to bridge this gap by saying,
``Oh, yes, we have a church. And the church, we push our faith
in. But we also have community service where we don't push our
faith.'' That doesn't mean they deny their faith. But they hand
out the food. They hand out the coffee to soldiers. They
provide the beds for the homeless or whatever they do in terms
of social service without the pushing of the faith.
And this is the reason they've been able to be part of the
United Way all over the country, and on occasion get government
grants for various things.
Could you and most faith-based organizations divide this?
Again, not denying your faith, but not pushing it either. Not
trying to disseminate Christianity in your social service
aspect. Could you do that, or do you think other faith-based
organizations could do that if the government did give you
grants to do a certain service? Tom.
Mr. Minnery. Well, I think Focus on the Family could not.
Because the provision of services is integral to faith. It's
integral to the person and work of Jesus Christ.
Just for the record, Focus on the Family has not, and the
board has said we will not accept government money for the
services we provide. Our funding comes from small donations of
many thousands of people around the country who support the
work.
And our founder, Dr. Dobson, believes that if those
supporters believe that the work we're doing is no longer
worthwhile, then they ought to stop sending us money, and we
should go do something else. We do not want to have a stream of
funding that will subject us perhaps to later strings.
Now, let me tell you, Congressman, where the problem comes
in with an organization like the Salvation Army, since you
brought that up. Several years ago, I believe it was, the city
of San Francisco required that, in order to avoid anti-
discrimination laws in the State of California, the Salvation
Army must begin paying health benefits to same-sex partners of
employees of the church.
Not necessarily church members themselves. But employees
who may or may not be religious, who were employed by the
church to hand out these services. It created great havoc
within the Salvation Army, because, as you know, the Salvation
Army is a church. Nonetheless, the policy was changed. The
Salvation Army decided nationwide that it would comply with
what the city of San Francisco had required and decided that
its entire population of officers and employees would abide,
and then would begin paying health benefits to same-sex
partners.
There was a great upheaval in that church to the point
where the policy was changed. This is how onerous even a local
jurisdiction can be to a national organization doing work that
everyone claims is good.
Do not allow the oppression of government to impact the
relationship between a person who needs Godly help and his
ability to get that. Please.
Mr. Hefley. Well, you're absolutely right, Tom. And this is
another extremely important aspect. And a sticky issue for this
legislation is that when the government gives you money to do a
certain job, they usually have a lot of strings attached. And
it's a matter of whether you would want to accept those strings
or not or whether we can restrain ourselves from the amount of
strings that we attach to it.
And I think as well as I know Focus on the Family, I agree
with you that you probably do not want this kind of thing. But
there are a lot of faith-based organizations out there that
have an extremely good drug treatment program, for instance, or
an extremely good unwed mother program or these kind of things
that they're faith-based, and they're living out their faith,
but they're not pushing their faith on the people that they
deal with. I think if we get into a faith-based initiative,
probably this is the approach that would have to be taken.
We don't want too many strings put on there either, but I'm
almost sure the government is not going to grant grants to
people whose main purpose is to promote their particular view
of religion.
Mr. Minnery. Congressman, Your Honor, it is possible and
reasonable for a soup kitchen to have the soup paid for and the
kitchen paid for by government money. Inappropriate, however,
to have the evening sermon or the devotion or the religious
exercise to be paid for by government money.
I don't know that any faith-based organization wants that
to be the case. Separation must, can, and has, is, being made
all around the country now.
The concern is that much of what is being put in place and
has been put in place is by Executive order. There are not
onerous strings attached now in the Bush administration, but,
of course, Executive orders can change with the Executive, and
strings can be placed in the future for organizations that have
built up a clientele, built up an employee base on the basis
that their provision of soup and blankets and bedding using
Federal money will not have any interference by the Federal
Government with their provision later in the evening of a
religious exercise.
We're on thin ice doing this all under an Executive order.
Mr. Hefley. You're very right. I think we get a little
carried away with the separation thing sometimes when you
realize that the chamber of the House of Representatives was
used as a church on Sunday for 50 years after the capital was
built. It was used as a church.
Thomas Jefferson, who is considered to be one of the least
religious of the founding fathers, attended that church
regularly on Sunday mornings. And yet now we run in horror if
there seems to be any connection at all between the two.
And it's hard to imagine. I think there have been some very
bad Supreme court decisions over the years regarding this. But
your testimony, at least to me, is very helpful. Thank you.
Mr. Souder. Thank you.
I want to go back into some more kind of specific questions
before we go on. Let me make one generic statement and state
one of my concerns with what's happened with the faith-based
initiative.
I believed from the beginning, from the time I was with the
Children and the Family Committee in the House as a Republican
Senator and serving with Senator Coates, that the No. 1 part of
the initiative is the tax credit or deduction part, because it
reaches everybody, and we avoid this argument.
And we got so much into the debate on the government
funding side that we forgot the achievable side. The most
significant part, even in a compromise, is getting a foot in
the door for an additional tax credit.
The second most important part, in my mind, was the
capacity building. Particularly for Black and Hispanic, small
neighborhood organizations who don't have CPAs and attorneys in
their churches many times or on their board. And it helped them
build capacity so they can go to private foundations.
As we heard at our last hearing in Los Angeles, I think it
was, that the private donations in the United States,
philanthropy, is greater than in all the State, local, and
Federal Governments combined in social services. And if we can
do more matching of those private sector groups, that we should
do that.
Now, many of us believe that there is a role in Federal
funds, as well. But one of the questions we often get is,
``Well, why can't you just have everybody fit that
definition?'' Faith-based organizations have been receiving
Federal funds for at least 20 years. Probably longer than that.
But part of the reason when we had this discussion about Focus
being on the first panel is because you don't take Federal
funds, and you don't want Federal funds.
Why are you here? Because it's a chance to illustrate for
the record. We had a great debate down in San Antonio between
Freddie Garcia and Life Fellowship and their drug counseling,
which is completely integrated with their faith, and the head
of the Jewish federation or foundation there, out of Dallas or
Houston, about whether or not they should be receiving any type
of Federal help, even indirect. So we have that.
But I wanted to establish, again, some of the particulars.
That was part of my question on the counseling. You can't
really separate counseling like you can soup.
If I can ask you one other question, Mr. Wooten. I don't
think you said this, but we have it in your written statement,
in response to how you compare secular organizations and their
delivery.
You say, ``It's a difference between fast food and fine
dining. Because you combine heart, mind, and body.'' Would you
like to elaborate on that?
Mr. Wooten. Yes, sir. When you mentioned soup, that is
basically for the body. And a lot of people can distribute that
in a lot of ways. But I talked about fine dining, it really has
to do with the filling out the whole person, as far as of the
their emotional well-being and the spiritual aspect.
Mr. Souder. Mr. Keller, in your division, how many people
do you have handling correspondence?
Mr. Keller. It's a staff of approximately 500 staff that do
the phones, mail, and e-mail.
Mr. Souder. And you also handle the tourists coming in.
Mr. Keller. That's right.
Mr. Souder. You elaborated on people that come into Focus,
that their faith can't be separated going through the visitor
center. Your videos are integrated in. It would be very tough,
but I guess the pizza's kind of secular. But other than that,
it would be tough to secularize.
In the correspondence, how would you even conceivably
separate the faith part from the nonfaith part, and how would
you have a staffer who didn't understand that do the
correspondence?
Mr. Keller. Well, we couldn't. It's very consistent with
what Willie said. So often the contacts that come into Focus,
people are including in their conversations, ``Where is God in
what's happening to me?'' So that supports the importance of
the staff understanding that concept. And that's the faith-
based, or the employee, to connect with that person. We just
hear it so often that people will start a conversation that
way, by saying, ``Where is God?'' And also, as I mentioned in
my statement, more often than not, the people who contact Focus
will ask for prayer. And in order to connect with that, there
has to be that understanding and faith relationship connected
to prayer.
Now, I will also help you to understand that the staff at
Focus on the Family that I work with never do any questioning
of the people who contact us: ``Are you a believer in Jesus
Christ?'' Unless that comes up later. In order to for us to
give them service, that's never a condition.
But the contact folks are the ones that will initiate that.
Because Focus is known for that approach to service.
Mr. Souder. Mr. Minnery said that you depend on thousands
of small donations. What would be the reaction if, in the
correspondence back, there was a line saying, ``God, whoever he
or she may be,'' or something suggested that somehow you had
kind of lost some certainty?
Mr. Keller. I'm not sure I understand.
Mr. Souder. In other words, if you had a diversity on your
staff, and didn't have the consistency, which I understand
partly is what Dr. Dobson has said in the past, and you put
that through both faith counseling and other counseling.
I'm not suggesting each person is totally free on their own
merits to say whatever they want in the correspondence. But if
somebody doesn't subscribe to that faith, and you started to
see forms of contradiction to your faith, or less than both
statements about your faith, do you think that would impact
back in at some point into the support for the ministry.
Mr. Keller. Are you referring to the staff?
Mr. Souder. Yes. In other words, the standard question is,
well, if you just have somebody down at the loading dock
sorting through the different documents and people who are
doing the mail, people who are doing the counseling, can't be
they be, in effect, a non-Christian believer and still just
follow your orders in getting the stuff out?
And what I'm suggesting is wouldn't this, particularly in a
purely voluntary ministry, potentially have a huge impact?
Mr. Wooten. Can I respond to that?
Mr. Souder. Sure.
Mr. Wooten. Of all the formats of all of calls or letters
that come in, about 10 percent or so come over to Frank's area,
and the top 1 percent come over to counseling.
I think the critical basis is the confidence in that faith
that they are calling about. That's not what we focus on. We
focus on the need that they're presenting. But if that is not
appreciated or respected or shared in some way, absolutely that
would get out.
And not only would it affect the donation base, it would
affect the confidence that people have in the ministry as a
source of help. Because people talk to other people. If you go
to a restaurant and go back to the food part--maybe it's
getting close to lunch. I don't know.
But if you go to a restaurant and you get food poisoning
twice, and somebody asks you for a referral, are you going to
refer them to that restaurant? Probably not. So there needs to
be a consistency of what's presented. So does that answer your
question.
Mr. Souder. There are different types of ministries. But
one of the things that repeatedly comes up, I believe, is a
lack of understanding that, at least in some conservative
social support ministries, that the faith is so integral and
inseparable that the proposals aren't going to work.
And in addition to government granting, I want to pursue
this a little bit more across the board. Because I want to make
sure it's more thoroughly aired at this hearing. For example,
the media a lot of times asks, ``Is Dr. Dobson a tele-vangelist
or does he do social service?'' He is not predominantly a tele-
vangelist. He is in the delivery of services. But it's the
delivery of services that are intertwined with evangelistic
outreach.
So, Mr. Haley, for example, if your area, if you could not
deal with moral questions, and could not deal with things that
are rooted in faith, how would your ministry work?
Mr. Haley. Well, it wouldn't. And that's one of the things
that we have to look at. Even the secular social research
scientist, Dr. Robert Spitzer, who was of the architects behind
having homosexuality taken out of the Diagnostic Statistical
Manual in 1993, who considers himself to be an atheist
humanist, has seen that those individuals who have successfully
attempted leave homosexuality have done better when their faith
has been a part of that process.
So we see that this is just a benefit for those individuals
whose lives are hurting, for them to find the added forgiveness
that's found in Jesus Christ.
Mr. Souder. We had a Catholic activist at the Chicago
hearing who works with male prostitutes on the streets in
Chicago. And a Democrat colleague on the committee, Dan Davis,
asked him, ``Well, can't you do your ministry''--because
clearly, to help these people out, they, very tragically,
didn't have much money, were struggling, were at high risk of
disease on the streets.
He said, ``Couldn't you separate that from changing their
head and their heart?'' And he said, ``Well, no. They'll just
go right back.''
Can you illustrate a little bit that challenge? Not
everybody will agree with your goals or with your ministry.
But if you have those views on homosexuality and you wanted
it to change, how would you do that?
Mr. Haley. I think that's one of the things that you have
to look at. I'm familiar with the ministry that I think you're
talking about. John Greene with MAS Ministries in Chicago. Very
dear friends of that ministry, as well.
But we can't separate, you can get people to change
actions, but one of the things that we want to do is we want to
change the heart. We want to go to the very core of the
individual.
And what we find is that when you base something on
feelings, the recidivism is very much something that we have to
deal with. So if you're, again, using Willie's analogy, dealing
with the body, mind, and soul, as well as their spirituality,
we just see a much greater success rate occur in the lives of
these individuals.
And we also are able to help the families that need to know
how to balance their response to individuals in the
homosexuality community. Oftentimes, the church has not known
how to respond, and has further pushed the gay and lesbian
population away from the very belief that we support, that
those people need a savior.
Mr. Minnery. Mr. Chairman, if I might take a crack at that,
as well. I believe that the essence of Christian witness and
Christian conversion in the process of struggling out of
homosexuality is essential, because it inputs into someone a
huge transcendent idea that, ``My sexuality is being acted out
not the way God wanted me to have it. Not the way I read about
it in the Scripture.''
And giving one's self over to the belief in God, and the
belief that what God wants for him or her is what he or she
should be doing, and is not what he or she is doing now in the
practice of homosexuality. It's the transcendent belief in
Godly wisdom and Godly power, and a belief that the practice of
homosexuality is sin, and it is forgiven by conversion to Jesus
Christ.
This is the essence of the power that allows somebody to
begin the struggle. And it is indeed a difficult struggle, even
with the power of God.
Mr. Souder. And when we deal with, for example, direct
government grants, there's a difference between ministries that
will provide shelter and assistance to someone who has AIDS or
is homeless, and someone who is directly trying to transform a
life.
And what we're trying to work toward is where are the
different lines as to how we approach the tax part? Can you
provide bussing help? Can you provide computers, but not the
software? Can you provide direct help for software.
And there are lots of court decisions about this. But one
of the things that we're laying out here today is that there
are ministries that, quite frankly, shouldn't be applying to
government, because the government is going to undermine their
intentions and, quite frankly, in a very diverse society,
probably wouldn't get any support for direct funding. But we
have all kind of nuances in between here.
I wanted to establish that Dr. Larimore had some very
interesting stats on why faith actually in spirituality can
make a big difference. And I wanted to ask a couple of
technical questions.
Does your data break this out, I'm trying to think. Way
back in the 1980's, Dave Larson----
Mr. Larimore. Dave Larson.
Mr. Souder [continuing]. Was one of the first researchers
with this when we first raised this. And I assume there has
been continuing research. I remember when we found him and got
him over to HSS and Mental Health Services and started doing
more grants and research with it.
Does the research show differences by types of religion.
Does it show differences by commitments and faith?
Mr. Larimore. Dave is a good friend. We trained together at
Duke. And I'm sorry we've lost him to this effort. There's very
little research on the differences between denomination or
different religions.
We're just seeing the beginning of that research. The vast
majority, over 1,600 studies, that have looked at the
relationship between physical and mental health and spiritual
health have been among adherence to the Judeo-Christian
traditions, particularly Christian traditions. We do find that
denomination is not a particularly strong prediction of health.
The researchers talk about the difference between intrinsic
spirituality and religion and extrinsic spirituality and
religion.
And I reference that in my written comments, along with
citations that would support what I'm going to say. But the
evidence is overwhelming that people who claim to have a
personal relationship with God are changed from the inside out,
as opposed to just attending services or having a utilitarian
approach to religion or spirituality. It is the intrinsics who
are the ones who benefit physically, emotionally, mentally from
their spirituality. So apart from organized religion, this
individual transformation appears to transform not only
individuals, but families and communities.
When we look at community-based organizations and where
their volunteers come from, far and away the volunteer services
that are provided in this country are provided by those of
intrinsic spirituality. It not only changes them internally,
but it changes their actions.
So that the volunteers of even secular organizations are
three times more likely to be people who have been transformed
individually and spiritually.
At Focus on the Family, we believe the greatest
transformation is a personal relationship with God that comes
through Jesus Christ.
Mr. Souder. What are the statistical measures of how you
get the intrinsic? Is it asking someone a sufficient measure,
or would you do it by frequency of church attendance? Bible
student.
Mr. Larimore. Good question. There's a variety of research
on that. And it centers around what the researchers call
spirituality assessment or spirituality history.
The research is so clear that with as few as three or four
very simple questions, the position of a client or a patient
can be established, that the Joint Commission for Accreditation
of Healthcare Organizations began in 1996 with a quality
assessment or requirement of certification that all in-patient
facilities, all in-patient mental health facilities, all
outpatient mental health facilities take a spirituality
assessment to every client that presents there for services.
And the reason is not in any way to try to push some sort
of faith upon them, but to find out where they are spiritually,
and what services can be provided to them that would help them
in their healing, help them in their compliance. To reduce the
return rate, if you would.
We see this in drug rehab programs. Narcotics Anonymous,
for example. Alcoholics Anonymous. The 12-step programs that
concentrate on intrinsic spirituality. Transformation
spirituality to see the highest effectiveness rates.
And in healthcare institutions, the needs of patients are
massive in this area. Just as one example, there was a study
that's not at all unusual. This was done at Rush Presbyterian
St. Luke's medical center in Chicago, where they found that 70
percent of the med-surg patients, and 88 percent of psychiatric
in-patients had at least three religious needs during their
hospitalization.
And the three most common were, No. 1, a desire to speak
with a chaplain or a pastoral professional during their stay.
And, No. 2, an opportunity to attend a hospital worship
service. And, No. 3, spiritual resource reading materials, or
someone to pray with.
And that bolsters what Mr. Wooten was saying to you
earlier. That those who understand this research and have been
transformed by a personal relationship with God cannot separate
this from quality professional activity.
And to the extent that the government would in any way
impede the free exercise of that, is not only personally
foreign to me, but it appears to me that the literature is
clear that our society would be less healthy.
Not to establish our pushing on someone what they don't
want, but to simply ask, ``Is this important to you?'' And if
so, via referral or provision of services, we'll help you find
it.
Mr. Souder. Obviously we're going to pursue this more long-
term. Let me ask one more question, and if you don't know the
answer, if we can kind of look at this. And I understand this
is a difficult research question. But is there data that would
show that somebody who, in other words, the obvious critique
historically of religious behavior is that it's a form of
screening or skimming.
One of the same arguments we hear in private schools, that
those people are that way for other reasons. You genetically
changed the pool. You have mother and father there. Stability
of family. Higher income.
One of two ways, either freezing other variables and/or
doing it this way, taking somebody who is at 40, and has one
type of social problem or another, and then changes their
religious beliefs. Understanding there's a potentially higher
risk, because of adding a not-fair sample either, do you still
see the same patterns? And are there any research studies that
would suggest that?
Mr. Larimore. There is a huge data base, meaning that it
compares populations and looks at a large variety of
demographic, behavioral, and other variables, and then controls
that. That's called multi-variable research.
And in those population studies, the 1,600 and some odd
studies that I referred to earlier in my testimony, the vast
majority of studies showed that in intrinsic spirituality,
positive spirituality, transformation religion positively
impacts physical, emotional, mental, and relational health and
relationships. That is only in association. It is not in any
way saying that there is a cause and an effect. So researchers,
over the last 5 to 6 years, have gone looking in a randomized
fashion. Whether it is in relationship with heart failure or
breast cancer or drug treatment, looking in a randomized
fashion as to whether this makes a difference. And we have very
little of that research that's been published today.
Mr. Souder. I want to ask one other question of Mr. Wooten,
and then we'll go to Mr. Minnery for the end of my public
forum.
Mr. Wooten, in your counseling, beyond the materials that
you can give and the treatment you can, do you refer people to
people at their local level? Do you have systems in place so
that you can do that?
Mr. Wooten. Yeah, absolutely. That's one of the cores that
we do, besides providing initial kind of supports and help
counseling when they call, we provide resources to them,
Whether it's books or tapes.
And I think as I mentioned in my present role, we have over
2,200 licensed Christian counselors throughout the country, and
we continue to add to that we can refer in that local
community.
Mr. Souder. Do you do similar things if somebody has
physical health problems or financial needs or housing needs?
Do you have any other kind of referral system or a clearing
place you might send them to be able to assist them, of how
might you approach that?
Mr. Wooten. We are not as broad that way, but we refer them
to a local church or another community-based program that can
be helpful to them.
Mr. Souder. Because one of the things I just wanted to
establish for the record, when we have national/international
headquarters testify, and we'll have a few others today, and
we've had them in a few other places. If it's not a local
agency, they're often interconnecting, and that gets people to
connect up with other faith-based ministries.
So having you start another process leads to strengthening
faith-based ministries around the country. And that kind of
sets up one of the things that came up in our last hearing, Dr.
Keith Phillips of World Impact testified that he had 17
suggestions other than direct government funding that faith-
based organizations, things we might be able to do out of the
Federal Government.
Among those, and I'd be interested, not only today, but if
you get some feedback, and we'll get a full list. Maybe we can
get some written response from some of your network
organizations.
One is, for example, we have excess military property or
other government property. Could we put at the front of the
list that nonprofit organizations should get first bid, if
they're providing services to the poor?
Because we have a Federal disposal process for all sorts of
equipment in the United States. And if somebody is working with
the poor, not just faith-based, although there would be a
faith-based eligibility, but why wouldn't we put them toward
the front?
Another thing was similar with Federal property. Some may
be from base closings and military-type establishments, others
are other government buildings that move to another location. I
wrote the paper on lighthouse disposal properties, and we put
nonprofit groups at the front of the line.
Why couldn't something like this happen in disposal of
Federal property, if you're providing services to the poor?
Another that was really interesting is where we have military
bases or large government facilities and have buses. Could
buses or other pieces of equipment like that, but buses is what
came up here, could they provide some of those type of buses to
nonprofitable, chairtable groups, including faith-based, that
can be used to take kids to camp from an inner city area that
haven't had that access?
In other words, there are many ways to do faith-based here.
And that's why it isn't necessarily direct government funding,
which clearly your organization doesn't seek, want, nor should
you touch. At the same time, there are a number of indirect
things that your affiliates or even your organization might be
able to utilize. And another one that came up was medical
liability reform for low-income health clinics. In Watts,
almost all of them are closing, because they can't get anybody
to take the liability, and nonprofit groups won't come in and
do that.
Can you comment on some of these other types of things, Mr.
Minnery, and then be willing, if we provide you with a list, to
kind of test some of this? Because this shows you how
widespread this can be, in addition to kind of where the public
debate currently is.
Mr. Minnery. Well, certainly, Mr. Chairman. I'm trying to
figure out how we would use a lighthouse if the Federal
Government would give us one. I don't know that I've got an
answer to that.
What immediately comes to mind is what President Bush saw
in Texas when he was Governor, and that is the changed lives of
the prisoners when prisoners voluntarily are allowed to join
wings of prisons in which religious exercises, Bible teaching,
becomes the order of the day.
I believe that the first evidence of vastly reduced
recidivism are now being authenticated to show that something
as little as allowing a prisoner to do one thing during the day
rather than making him do something else can greatly change his
future once he or she leaves prison.
So it seems to me that striking down the barriers in a
Federal prison system to this kind of Bible study, religious
exercise would greatly enhance the ability of prisoners to live
productive lives outside of prisons. And I do not think that
this would require any vast expenditure of Federal money, nor
would it require significant entanglement of the government
with the private sectors.
I do believe that most of these programs are being run by
volunteers in prison, and certainly not prison chaplains
themselves. So the prison ministry is one.
Beyond that, I'm sure that we can come up with some other
ideas for the subcommittee.
Mr. Souder. OK. Thank you very much.
Mr. Hefley, do you have anything further?
Mr. Hefley. I don't think so. I think this has been very
helpful. You know, Focus on the Family does a marvelous job. It
reaches untold numbers of lives out there across the country,
and you should keep doing what you're doing without government
entanglement. And I think what you've illustrated for us here
today is that there are some faith-based organizations that
simply would not participate in a government program.
I take it you're not opposed to that for those who can
participate in it? And let me just illustrate. I refer to Mr.
Dan Ford, who formed the Ralston Purina company. He believed
there were four sides to the person. There was the
spirituality, there was the physical, there was a social, and
there was a mental side.
And the reason he did the checkerboard square logo is he
thought people should have a balanced life. And if you over-
emphasize one or the other, or you skew the square, it's not
very pretty.
And what you do, it seems to me, is you deal more with the
spirituality, social, and mental. And faith-based organizations
that do that probably can't separate the depth of their
religious belief from their service.
Those who deal primarily with the physical, that was
illustrated by the soup and all of that kind of thing, probably
can.
Young Life would not take their deep spiritual roots out of
their normal ministry with high school kids. On the other hand,
maybe they could with their ministry at the Dale House project,
where they're providing services for troubled kids, and maybe
they couldn't. I'm not quite sure on that.
So what you're showing me is that there are some
organizations that are simply not going to be able to do this.
Mr. Minnery. Congressman, you are correct when you say we
do not oppose this for many other organizations. In fact, we
are so pleased that the President has brought the power of
religious faith back into the public square and made it an
essential part of our national debate.
And just as soon as he formed his faith-based initiatives
office in the White House, we invited one of his deputies, Don
Eberly, to be a guest on Dr. Dobson's program, and explain what
it is the President was trying to do.
Mr. Souder. Thank you very much. Let me thank you again for
your testimony. If there's anything that any of you want to
add, if you'll submit that to us. I didn't go through some of
our standard questions to try to make each of our hearings have
some commonalities. So we may send you some written questions
too.
Thank you for your time. Thank you for your years of work.
The second panel will be very diverse. We've had the Sugarland
people from the Houston area in the fellowship in the prisons.
We had people in California from the Saddleback church, and
what they're doing now in the California prisons.
So we're looking at a very diverse range of things. And
it's very important to have your organization here today that
helps illustrate the range of faith-based services, and how
different things range, from tax coverage, hiring practices,
and kind of the diversity that we face. For example, it was
very important to learn on the physical and mental health
centers, the plain truth is that hard-core Muslim organizations
are very effective at drug abuse. It isn't unique just to
Christianity when we're dealing with these kind of issues.
So I thank you very much for your testimony. We're going to
take a brief recess. If the second panel could start to come
forward, let me read their names in the order that we'll have
you testify. We have Larry Jones, president of Feed the
Children from Oklahoma City will be the first witness. Second,
Dean Tollefson from Community Minister Outreaches. Third will
be Sharon Littrell, Interfaith Hospitality Network. Fourth will
be Reverend Dean Cowles. Fifth will be Jean Robinson from
Denver Urban Ministries. Sixth will be Mr. Ed Anderson from
Compassion International. Seventh, Jackie Jaramillo, director
of Faith Partners, Colorado Springs. And eighth will be Mr. Bob
Cote, executive director of Step 13 from Denver.
We will stand in recess.
[Recess.]
Mr. Souder. The subcommittee will come back to order. If
each of you will stand. If you'll raise your right hands. This
committee historically asks each witness to take the oath.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Souder. Let the record reflect that each witness
responded in the affirmative. We certainly hope we don't have
perjury questions at faith-based hearings. It's more a
historical precedent of the committee. I thank you all for
coming. Most of you were here during the first panel and got a
general drift of how we're doing these and what we're trying to
do. You have 5 minutes. You can see that we then try to save
questions for a period of time after that.
Your full statement will be inserted into the record. If
you want to supply additional materials, supplementary,
anything that you refer to, we'll ask you for copies to put
into the record too. We're going to start with Steve Whetstone
from Feed the Children in Oklahoma City.
STATEMENT OF STEVEN WHETSTONE, FEED THE CHILDREN
Mr. Whetstone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for
the privilege of being here.
Mr. Souder. We may have to do a mic sharing here.
Mr. Whetstone. Thank you, Chairman Souder, and thank you
for the honor and the privilege of appearing before you here
this morning. In 1979, Larry and Frances Jones founded Feed the
Children while walking through the streets of Haiti. Larry
Jones had been visiting some of the local churches and came
face to face with the devastating effects of poverty in Haiti.
Also, he had just read an article about a surplus of 35
million metric tons of grain stored in warehouses throughout
the United States at taxpayers' expense, and was struck by the
stark contrast between these two mental pictures. Why couldn't
things just get from point A to point B? And we were given the
idea to do just that.
25 years later, Feed the Children has grown to the 19th
largest charity in the United States, 10th, if you count just
private funding. Through our faith, through our commitment, and
through their vision, that remains the heart of our ministry.
We work through a network of more than 50,000 local food
banks, churches, feeding centers, homeless shelters, rescue
missions, and other organizations of faith-based and community
groups in order to move that food from point A to point B. To
take it from areas of surplus to where it's needed most.
While we're a Christian international relief organization,
our faith plays a great role in the work that we do. Prayer is
a standard part of everyday operations, as well as our long-
term and strategic planning.
We were founded by faith and we operate under Biblical
principles of caring for those in need with compassion and
love. Our staff are professionals who recognize the fact that
the things that we accomplish are only because of the grace and
provision of God. And we recognize that every day, and give him
all the glory. Most people know Feed the Children for our work
in disaster relief. Often we're the first trucks there on the
scene to provide needed relief to families who have been
victimized by flood, fire, tornados, hurricanes, and so forth.
But most of what we do is to offset the greatest tragedy of
all. The greatest everyday tragedy of child hunger in America.
In fact, more than 12 million children struggle with hunger
every month right here in the United States. That's one in
five. Government programs like TEFAP, WIC, food stamps and
others go a long way to provide assistance to these families
who are experiencing temporary problems. But unfortunately
these programs don't go far enough.
Often many of the people who receive these benefits find
they run out of assistance before they run out of month. Single
moms often have to pay at least half of their take-home pay
just for childcare and other necessities so that they can hold
down those jobs.
And now with State facing major fiscal crises, many States
have had to reduce access to these programs to those who need
them most. Now, in our network of 60,000 church and other
faith-based community organizations we were able to provide
over 70 million pounds of food and other necessities just last
year.
Additionally, we sent 14 million pounds to the same type of
organizations overseas in 62 different countries. These
organizations live in the heart of poverty. They know the
problems. They know the communities. They know the families.
They know the programs that are available, and how to access
them, and they stand shoulder to shoulder with us in our
efforts to accommodate those families.
We measure our accomplishments with names and faces, not
just numbers. Last September, the Secretary of Agriculture, Ann
Veneman, and the director of the White House Office of Faith-
Based and Community Initiatives director Jim Towey, and Feed
the Children president Larry Jones announced the National
Nonprofit Humanitarian Initiative.
It's a nationwide program to provide nonfat dry milk to
organizations like Feed the Children outside the normal scope
of the TEFAP program. Last month, we distributed more than 14
million pounds to needy families across this country through
organizations like the Salvation Army and others who you'll
hear from today.
We have to be efficient with the resources that are
provided to us. Our donors expect it. Our faith requires it.
Our donors won't want to give to--they don't want to pay our
utility bills. They don't want to pay our rent. They want their
donations to go to move food to hungry children. And that's
what we do best.
Last year, more than 88 cents of every dollar went to
direct family expenditures for programs.
As much as we do, there's always more that needs to be
done. We raise funds through a weekly television program and
through direct mail solicitations. But these funds are used to
move those trucks; 54 tractor trailers that carry food and
other supplies from point A to point B.
Those trucks cost money. Fuel, insurance, licensing, and
many other factors take a big bite out of what we could
otherwise provide the families. And that's where we see other
programs coming in.
The Denton Amendment is an overseas program that comes in
when USAID declares a disaster in foreign countries. Military
and other government modes of transportation can be utilized to
move humanitarian aid by organizations like Feed the Children.
We would call upon Congress to replicate this program for
domestic use in the United States, and not just in times of
disaster, but as I said earlier in times of disaster for
everyday hunger relief by American children. We'd like to see
the National Nonprofit Humanitarian Initiative expanded in
order to provide more food and different commodities and other
government services. The bottom line is faith-based
organizations have demonstrated time and again to be more
efficient than large government programs. We can deliver. And
with your help, we will.
Again, thank you for your leadership in this area. And we
stand shoulder to shoulder with you and offer our assistance in
any way to make these initiatives and others a reality.
Mr. Souder. Thank you very much for your testimony.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Whetstone follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4492.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4492.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4492.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4492.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4492.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4492.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4492.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4492.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4492.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4492.024
Mr. Souder. And we have two reasons why we have eight of
you in one panel, and I'll ask questions for each of you at the
end of your testimonies. We have to be out of here at 2.
Also, we are still putting witness panels together, which
is why some of you have prepared and some you have less
prepared cards, as we were accommodating more requests and
trying to make sure we had a good mix of the panels.
It will make it a little chaotic in the questioning, but it
will also enable us to have a good discussion. I also wanted to
say directly to Steve that, in addition, Fort Wayne, IN, is my
main base, but Elkhart, where you've recently taken the Bay
area facility for distribution of food, is an area I'm familiar
with. Welcome to Indiana.
And I know you've had lots of support up in that area. And
we're working hard in the farm belt with lots of ways to help a
very committed region in that area with Mennonite Relief and
the HEPA project and many other organizations. And I think
you'll find it a great place to work with. Now we'll go to Mr.
Dean Tollefson from Community Ministers Unlimited here in
Colorado Springs. Is that correct?
STATEMENT OF DEAN E. TOLLEFSON, COMMUNITY MINISTERS UNLIMITED
Mr. Tollefson. Thank you very much, Mr. Souder, and your
staff for helping to deal me in today. I found out about this
yesterday morning, and I'm pleased to be here.
I am a former college administrator and teacher. My name is
Dean, but I was one once.
Mr. Souder. So it's not like the senator in Lake Wobegone
where his parents named him Senator?
Mr. Tollefson. No, it's a nomination. I'm a former officer
in the Marine Corps, and a legal officer. I wanted to lay out
two things today after talking about where I'm coming from.
The first one is the context for the work here in this
community. And the second one, specifically, are the problems
associated with what we are doing here or not doing, as the
case may be.
You touched on the legal matters and the legal issues, but
you also said you're functioning under an Executive order. My
guess is, as a former exec, you're very much interested in the
good management of that order. And I want to address that.
First of all, I'm head of the administerial service here.
We serve those that are excluded, ignored, or who don't conform
to some interest or litany, or really just mantra. What I'm
concerned about in my work is that an increasing number of
people who are coming to me say because of that narrow view,
they are losing their sense of the sacred.
It's really dangerous for a nation to lose its sense of the
sacred, because somebody decides what is religious on very
narrow grounds.
Second, I want to say that I am a long-time member of the
Pikes Peak Inter-Faith Council. This includes a broad range of
religious faiths and belief among us. It includes Native
Americans, the oldest faith in the area. It includes Orthodox,
Catholics, main-line Protestants, Muslims, Unitarian
universals, Bahais, etc. All of us.
We are excluded from celebrating the National Day of Prayer
in this community by people that you have just heard from.
Remember that the lady who heads that is either an honorary
chairman or a chairman, and just really doesn't want to have
anything to do with all other main-liners and all of the other
religious traditions, some of which have a very long history in
both western and the eastern world.
I forgot to mention Buddhists and Hindus, and we should
have done that. We are all included in that, and we are
excluded from the National Day of Prayer in this community
because of our breadth and depth. You want to think about that
in terms of what that means in this community, and what is the
direction that we take because of that very narrow and
exclusivist view.
I regret very much Tom Minnery saying that you have to hire
according to your own will. If he were to participate with us,
he would see that faith is not narrowly understood.
And that when hiring, one ought to think about competence,
not merely conformity.
I want to read, first of all, in the context of what we're
doing here and the Faith Partners in our town that is working
on the issue that you're here to explore. First of all, a
quote, a commentary from Mr. Barry Torvag. This is a transcript
of what I first saw on PBS, and then read about in a transcript
from National Public Radio.
He said, ``The first step is to love them.'' I'm not sure
this is a quote. Oh, yes, it is a quote. ``The first step is to
love them''--he's member of the board of directors of Faith
Partners--``and to care for them, and not to attempt to share
with them necessarily any of the concepts surrounding the
Christian faith, but just be there. Love them and accept them,
and then take a few months of the program''--``and that takes a
few months in the program. And that's Phase 1. And then the
next phase is inviting them to explore the concept of faith in
God through Jesus Christ, which is the Christian faith.''
I think it's somewhere between 85 percent range that's come
to some relationship with God through Christ as a consequence
of our participation with them. Do you have the transcript?
Yes.
Ms. Jaramillo says subsequently, she calls it a covert
religious mission. ``I think it's covert, because as I use the
word 'covert,' 95 percent of the Christian world is
uncomfortable sharing their faith with people.'' That
statement, Ms. Jaramillo, is an unmitigated outrage. It's
arrogant. It's mean-spirited. It is totally inappropriate in a
religious community. ``And why do you have to tip-toe around
that,'' Mr. Schwartlein says, the interviewer. ``Why do you
need to be, you know, covert in your work?'' And then,
``Because we're using government money.''
Well, you can see the problem. And I don't need to go on
with that. What I want to do now is go on. That's the context
in which we work. Am I on red already? I wanted to talk about
the contract that the Faith Partners is totally in violation
of.
Mr. Souder. Well, why don't you briefly run through them.
Mr. Tollefson. The first one is they should contact
organizations from various religious backgrounds. We have 150
people representing about 24 religious organizations in this
community, and we have never been contacted by Faith Partners
ever. None of us. Ever. On any grounds. Not on our program or
anything. Second, the contract shall be monitored to ensure
that no participating organization discriminates against any
client in offering and providing services to them. They don't
even have an inclination to do that. Their intention is not
that.
``The contractor shall provide evaluation of the content
and application to be sure that they meet client needs, and do
not violate the client's right to choice of nonintrusive
secular services.'' It's another violation. They don't do that.
Another one is No. 18. ``The contract shall provide
outreach services and presentations to the entire faith
community.'' It hasn't happened. It's only to their own. This
is real trouble to us. I'll stop there and honor you.
What we're dealing with is narrow, self-righteous, and even
self-service issues. And it may be, sir, that the worst place
for you to try to make faith-based initiatives work is in
Colorado Springs, because of the very narrow interpretations of
what faith, even Christianity, means.
Remember 23 centuries ago, we heard Aristotle say that,
``The first way to screw up your mind and to enforce all the
possibility of knowledge is to exercise the fallacies of mere
assertion.'' Just because somebody says something is true
doesn't make it true.
So you want to think about where you're applying what
you're attempting to get. When government controls faith, faith
doesn't work because free enterprise in the marketplace of
belief builds faith and faith communities. And what is being
compromised here is that free enterprise expression of faith.
When faith controls government, you get recession that is
utterly diabolical, and we see that everywhere in the world.
And we have seen it in our own country. Do you remember what
the faith community said of Blacks? ``The only way to save them
is to enslave them.''
Mr. Souder. With all due respect, that was not the entire
faith community. Abolitionists were also led by the church.
Mr. Tollefson. That was the heavy view in the south, and
it's only as they got away from that have they begun to grow
and be progressive. So we want to be very careful about
promoting one point of view.
Mr. Souder. Thank you for your testimony.
Because it's important in the hearings to have some
diversity, you made some specific charges with Ms. Jaramillo's
testimony on a couple of particulars. But I don't want to get
into a heavy debate over one organization. But it is a little
bit enlightening as to how it actually gets applied on a
specific basis.
But I don't want that to be predominant the rest of this
hearing.
Next we'll go to Ms. Littrell from Inter-Faith Hospitality
Network.
STATEMENT OF SHARON LITTRELL, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF INTERFAITH
HOSPITALITY NETWORK
Ms. Littrell. Thank you very much for having me. I am
Sharon Littrell. I am the executive director of Interfaith
Hospitality Network here in Colorado Springs. We are a secular
nonprofit organization that houses homeless families in
existing facilities.
Generally, we use church buildings to house the families
that come to our program, though that is not always the case.
In some places they use hospitals. And, in fact, Penrose
Hospital has offered that, if necessary, we could house our
families there.
So we are Interfaith in that we work with many, many
different religious organizations to house these families, and
what we do is keep our overhead very low by not having to build
buildings.
As I said, by our name, we are not a religious
organization. We do not arrange for hospitality or fix up
lonely individuals with places to assuage their lonely feelings
or needs.
At Christmas-time, I had somebody call me up and say, ``I
don't have a place to go for Christmas, and I would really like
some companionship. Would you be willing to tell me where to
go?'' So you can see that we get some mixed views about who we
are.
We are a community-based organization that has experienced
wonderful partnerships with over 30 area churches and
synagogues in this community. The partnering religious facility
provides a place for IHN families to sleep. It provides members
to fix and share hot meals every night of the year.
This helps the four to eight families that must use our
facilities to save money, and locate affordable housing. The
national organization to which IHN formally belongs was
formally called National Leadership Hospitality, recently
changed its name to Family Promise, because the national board
feels that Family Promise more accurately defines who we are.
In Colorado Springs, IHN appeals to many religious
organizations that have an outward mission. They help those who
are in need, regardless of religious involvement. IHN guest
families are often relieved that we do not require a statement
of faith before we offer shelter, food, and hope.
They also appreciate that the folks who help, volunteers
and staff, do so because they are acting out their faith, not
pushing it.
Many of the people who participate providing services have
their own religious faith. They just use their actions to show
it, as opposed to words to prove it.
In the past 4 years, IHN has received HUD funding through
the continuum of care, which is a supernova stream of funding.
We have applied for and received city of Colorado Springs
funding, and presently have a Health and Human Services grant
to initiate a jobs program for the homeless who use the
services of IHN, Ecumenical Social Services, West Side Cares,
or the Pikes Peak Community Action Agency.
We also qualify for and receive FEMA funding. In other
words, we do have a lot of Federal funding, and that helps us
to be able to provide for the services that we give to people
in this community. And by having that type of funding, we agree
that we will do so, provide services without religious means or
qualifications.
Our services are provided without means testing for staff
or clients, and they have positive results. During 2003, our
families maintained an 86 plus percent success rate, as high as
a 92 percent success rate toward the end of the year.
That is, families entered IHN as homeless people. They
worked at jobs to get back on to their feet. They saved money,
and they located affordable housing. The Federal funding
allowed IHN to provide expert case management services, a
family day center for weekends and days when no work was
available. It provided diapers, some clothing, cars for several
families. And we did it by teaching, not preaching.
Upon leaving IHN, several of our families were sufficiently
impressed with the help and support that they received from the
churches where they had slept that they returned to join that
church. They did this on their own, without being pressured.
Moreover, they now give back to the homeless community by
helping at IHN or helping house homeless families at their
place of worship.
As a director of a nonprofit agency in Colorado Springs, I
join other agencies seeking funds that would further our
programs. IHN seeks a level playing field where we have an
equal chance of receiving funds. Not one that stacks the favor
in one group or another based on an artificial measure of
religiosity. I appreciate the opportunity to be here, and would
welcome your questions later.
Mr. Souder. Thank you very much for your testimony.
Reverend Dean Cowles is president of the YouthPartnersNet
in Denver, CO. You used to be in Indiana.
STATEMENT OF REVEREND DEAN COWLES, PRESIDENT, YOUTHPARTNERSNET
Rev. Cowles. I was for 10 years, and then I found religion
when I got to Colorado. My pastor said, ``You know why you're
moving to Colorado? You can't get close to God unless you're
5,000 feet above sea level.''
But I did have 10 years experience in Indianapolis,
starting a local faith-based ministry on East Washington Street
there, and Mayor Goldsmith was our mayor. Over the years that I
have been involved in urban faith-based ministry, and starting
a homeless center, and a litany of other projects, it's my firm
belief that the present administration is on the right track
with leveling the playing field as the faith-based White House
paper came out calling it.
It's time for faith-based organizations to be able to have
a chance to share what works. We're not talking about, you
know, debating here who's better, who's right, who's wrong.
We're just talking about what works. And if it works, great.
And we have found thousands of organizations that I
represent around the country through YouthPartnersNet and other
compassionate ministries, that these programs work, and they
work with far more impact for less money than the war on
poverty welfare programs that have been pushed by government
over the past 30 to 40 years.
As I said, I was a founder and director of Shepherd
Community Urban Ministry in Indianapolis. I was also the
founder and director of Crossroads in the Westwood neighborhood
of Denver. In 2000, I became the director for the Compassion
USA Ministry Program, and just recently we have spun off that
division of Compassion into YouthPartnersNet. We are trying to
build capacity with hundreds of faith-based local grass roots
organizations that don't have the sophistication to apply for
government funds or private funds for that matter. They pretty
much do it as volunteers, with tithes and offerings from their
local church, and do a tremendous work in their local
communities.
Thousands and thousands of these grass roots organizations
have continued this kind of work long before this debate ever
began.
In a book called the Tragedy of American Compassion written
by Marvin Okasky, which is in my written testimony, which I
don't have time to read my whole testimony, but he makes a
great point in that before government entered this, it was the
church that was doing it.
But in the 1920's and 1930's, the 1920's and 1930, the
church got out of that and government got into it. And we have
seen some problems since then. So he's advocating, as I am
advocating, that we level the playing field, and get more
resources back into these local neighborhood and community
faith-based organizations.
And it can be done, and we have proven that it can be done
without this whole debate of do they have to go to religious
services? Do they have to do this? No, no, no.
As you'll find throughout the country, these kind of
services are provided with the most genuine spirit and love,
and without coercion in most cases. Sure there will always be a
few that take advantage of that. But I have seen across the
country that these groups do it in a wonderful, loving,
compassionate way.
And we believe in the President's initiative. In fact, I
served for the last few years on the Compassion Capital Fund
review. And it's been a wonderful experience to see grant
applications come from a variety of faith-based organizations
to impact their communities.
And we have gone through those applications, and have
rewarded those with very excellent programming without a whole
lot of money. Our encouragement to the Congress is to continue
to fund that fund, as well as the other faith-based funds
through other departments that have other faith-based
provisions, and to continue to raise the level of funding for
those faith-based groups.
It provides more bang for the buck and anything else that
we see coming along in the 20 years of my experience. We also,
here in Colorado, have experienced some good funding locally
from the Colorado legislature to the grant money for after-
school programs. That's been very successful. And the great
thing about the funds that have come through Crossroads of the
Rockies for $163,000, is that enables them to employ four staff
full-time. And they worked with 350 youth. And, in addition,
they have $350,000 of volunteer time that comes in every year.
This is repeated around the country, and we're very excited
about continuing to enhance those relationships. The winds in
Washington are indeed changing, and we're grateful for that.
20 years ago my wife and I would have never dreamed of
being invited to this type of hearing. So my hat's off to you
and the other Members.
I'd also like to highlight in my last 16 seconds that the
work that Mayor Goldsmith did was a national model in Indiana.
But in his two books that I wanted to highlight for the record,
Mayor Steven Goldsmith wrote Putting Faith in Neighborhoods:
Making Cities Work Through Grassroots Citizenship and the 21st
Century City and Resurrecting Urban America.
Our mayor was a tremendous help to us, saved money for the
city, employed homeless and teenagers, as well. And we have
seen over the years that these faith-based partnerships work in
a wonderful way. And we look forward to our continued
discussion. Thank you.
Mr. Souder. Thank you very much for your testimony.
[The prepared statement of Reverend Cowles follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4492.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4492.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4492.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4492.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4492.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4492.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4492.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4492.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4492.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4492.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4492.035
Mr. Souder. Next is Ms. Jean Robinson from Denver Urban
Ministries.
STATEMENT OF JEAN ROBINSON, DENVER URBAN MINISTRY
Ms. Robinson. I am Jean Robinson with Denver Urban
Ministries, and we appreciate being heard today. Denver Urban
Ministries is a 501(c)3 human service organization. We provide
emergency services and basic needs such as food and clothing,
as well as infant items, rent, and utility assistance.
Through our job services, we provide the tools needed to
provide employment. Through our education and advocacy
programs, we provide ways for people to get back to their
community.
We were founded in 1981 by the Methodist church, and
continue to serve as their mission arm in the community. We
receive our funding from a variety of sources, including
private foundations, individuals, and about 70 congregations,
most located in the Denver metro area.
We were founded by the Methodists, but we are non-
ecumenical. Our annual budget is about $500,000 a year.
The purpose of DenUM is to nurse the spirit for community.
We provide resources for people in crisis, and create
opportunities for individuals in community growth and service.
We have many different faiths represented by the staffing
volunteers at DenUM. We do not discriminate in hiring in any
way. We do not proselytize in any way. And we do not believe in
putting any condition on the receipt of our services. People
that come to us are in crisis, and they are vulnerable. They
need assistance, not prayers and coercion and extra stress.
They need common sense solutions to their problems.
We do work, we do the work we do because we want to put our
faith into action. We feel good about the work we do, because
we see results which are measurable. There has never been any
discrimination in faith-based agencies receiving government
funding.
The government has always provided funding to religiously
affiliated organizations that provide social services. We were
on a level playing field with every other agency that had a
quality program and did not proselytize to their clients or
discriminate in their hiring practices.
The government has funded large faith-based organizations
such as Catholic Charities and United Jewish Communities and
smaller agencies such as DenUM. There is an important
difference between being affiliated with a religion and being a
religious organization, and I think that's an important
distinction to note.
By enacting faith-based initiatives, the government has
actually taken away the level playing field and given faith-
based organizations an advantage, or at least a leg up, and
this is wrong. If you can't do the work to apply for the grant,
you can't do the paperwork involved in accountability.
Another result has been to take much needed money away from
direct services to put into technical assistance for small
agencies or churches to learn how to access these funds.
There's a Web site. There's been government sponsored workshops
at Federal and State levels.
In the meantime, there has been little change to the amount
of cash assistance people receive when they are in programs,
such as Social security or disability. Many people believe that
all faith-based must be in favor of faith-based initiatives,
but many of us are not.
Many faith-based organizations are very concerned about the
rights of our most vulnerable populations. At DenUM, we believe
that if you help stabilize a family through income and housing,
people will have time to explore their faith.
We have witnessed many forms of religious abuse on families
who are trying to get through a tough time only to be contacted
with additional obstacles to attaining their goal by
organizations who put conditions upon receiving their services.
For example, an agency in Denver requires someone to attend
religious services to partake in an evening meal. This may seem
like a small requirement to some, but that's the point. If you
are hungry or in need of shelter for yourself or your family,
you will do anything required to get the services you need.
It's wrong to require that people conform to your belief system
in order to access to basic needs.
It is not only wrong to insist upon these requirements, but
it is a clear violation of the separation between church and
State if you are receiving government funding for that program.
There are pros and cons to government funding. We have had
experience with two different funding sources. Neither are a
part of the faith-based initiative or Colorado Compassion Fund.
The Emergency Food and Shelter Program formally known as
FEMA is a grant. We were awarded the money for rent assistance
and food purchased. The money is deposited in our bank account.
We document the money, spend the money, and report on the
money.
If you have good recordkeepers, this is an easy program to
monitor. Contracts are more difficult. An emergency shelter
that we run was granted a contract awarded to us by Denver
County in which you will be reimbursed for funds.
Our contract was for $14,000 for rent assistance to prevent
homelessness. During the contract year, we paid upfront $14,000
for rent assistance to clients that were reimbursed. This works
out fine as long as the agency that is reimbursing you does so
in a timely manner.
Denver Department of Human Services reimbursed us on a
monthly basis. Contracts do not work well when you are a small
agency, and you have a contract that's not reimbursed in a
timely manner. Our negative experience came in the form of a
welfare work grant in 2000 to 2002. The problem was that it was
our intent to use this grant to serve our existing population.
Unfortunately, qualifications were so intense that few in
our existing program qualified, and we ended up serving a new
population. The second problem was the reimbursement schedule,
which was not timely. At one point, we were fronting the
government $16,000, they were 3 months behind in reimbursing
us, and I didn't have enough money in the bank for payroll. The
third problem is paperwork. You have to have qualified staff
who can handle the documentation and the bureaucracy involved,
and checks and balances in place to ensure that this
documentation is done, before you tack on the responsibility of
government money.
The paperwork is immense and repetitive. None of this is to
say it should be easier. It is a serious responsibility to be
good steward of taxpayer dollars. Faith-based organizations
should have to jump through the same hoops and have the same
work. Tax dollars should not be spent on promoting religion.
Religious organizations and organizations with religious
affiliations should not be exempt from accountability. If
organizations want to promote their religion, they should use
private funding to do it.
We need to remember that all citizens are guaranteed their
civil rights, even if they are poor, uneducated, mentally ill,
addicted to drugs, non-Christian or non-White. Thank you.
Mr. Souder. Thank you.
Next we have Mr. Ed Anderson, vice president and chief
financial officer of Compassion International.
STATEMENT OF ED ANDERSON, VICE PRESIDENT/CFO, COMPASSION
INTERNATIONAL
Mr. Anderson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the
invitation today.
I've been with Compassion for about 25 years now. And our
organization takes us to the most difficult living situations,
the poorest communities to minister to more than 550,000
children through over 2,500 local church partners in 23
countries.
Each child has a name and a future, and each partner sees a
promise within each child. We believe there are four
characteristics that set Compassion apart. Our organization is
Christ centered, church-based, and committed to integrity.
We partner with local churches to teach, train, and mentor
children in a safe environment together with the parents and
the community. We directly engage each child as a complete
person. We teach the life-changing gospel to every child in a
culturally relevant way. And in all of our work, we are
committed to the highest professional, financial, and biblical
principles.
In addition, Compassion speaks out for children who can't
speak up for themselves, informing, motivating, and equipping
others to become effective advocates for children.
In the United States, our challenge to advocate for
children is aired on our radio program ``Speak Up with
Compassion'' on nearly 500 stations every day. Through
efficient and effective child development programs, we enable
children to become responsible, fulfilled Christian adults.
More than 80 percent of dollars go directly to child
development programs. Compassion's field office staff are
primarily nationals who speak the local language and understand
local culture.
A key to our success and sustainability in our child
development programs is that we partner with the local
organization that has been in existence for decades, and will
continue to be present for generations to come. We partner with
the local church. This provides us with a sustainable
infrastructure at a very low cost.
Compassion has been recognized by the American Institute of
Philanthropy with an A rating, is a member of the Better
Business Bureau Wise Giving Alliance, and is a founding member
of the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability.
In addition, we conduct regular internal and external
audits to ensure children are receiving the opportunities and
benefits promised.
During Compassion's 52-year history, we've seen many
approaches to breaking the cycle of poverty in children's
lives, and over the decades we've discovered that changed
circumstances rarely change people's lives, while changed
people inevitably change their circumstances.
At Compassion, we believe in changing the world one child
at a time. Through our leadership development program,
qualified young people have the opportunity to attend
university in their country and field of their choice.
In addition, these young people are mentored and taught
time management, provided spiritual training, and Christian
leadership skills. These compassionate children grow up to
become leaders and influencers in their own cultures. Changing
their communities, their countries, and ultimately the world.
The world's poorest children are often defenseless. Some
are brutally forced into labor, others are driven into the sex
trade, and still others are coerced into service as soldiers.
Children face illiteracy, abuse, and hopelessness at almost
every turn.
Never in Compassion's 52-year history have we encountered
an enemy with the prospect of totally destroying the God-given
potential of millions of the world's children.
That is until now. The HIV/AIDS epidemic threatens millions
of African children today. In Africa alone, more than 14
million AIDS orphans are homeless and financially desperate.
We've seen children as young as 8 years old care for
themselves and their younger brothers and sisters. No one
organization, no one government, and no one strategy by itself
can completely address the needs of those affected by AIDS. We
call upon every person, every organization, and every
government to meet the challenge of this epidemic.
We serve a God of miracles. We believe we can harness human
ingenuity and resolve to meet this challenge.
Compassion applauds President Bush and Congress for their
historic commitment to reach out to the global community
impacted by AIDS, and we urge the President and Congress to
release full funding to help our brothers and sisters in Africa
impacted by AIDS.
Compassion also congratulates the President and Congress
for its important work in the faith-based initiatives. We know
that many nonprofits efficiently and effectively use this
critical government funding to change and save millions of
lives every year.
Despite AIDS, despite poverty, despite the enormous
challenges facing today's children, Compassion sees the world
as a place of hope, and we see daily how tiny seeds of faith
transform the lives of individual children next door in our
communities and halfway around the world.
Working together with other nonprofit organizations, church
partners, and child sponsors, Compassion will continue to
deliver God's promise to each child, and everlasting hope,
strong faith, and a bright future. Thank you.
Mr. Souder. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Anderson follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4492.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4492.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4492.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4492.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4492.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4492.041
Mr. Souder. With the Senate passing an appropriations bill,
one of the most important categories was for the AIDS funding.
We're nowhere near full funding, but at least it's a
significant bump up tied directly to the vote yesterday.
Next, Ms. Jackie Jaramillo, executive director of Faith
Partners. If you want to give both your general statement and
then if you want to make any specific comments, I'll give you a
little bit extra time, because I also gave a little bit of time
later.
STATEMENT OF JACKIE JARAMILLO, FAITH PARTNERS
Ms. Jaramillo. Well, thank you. I'm Jackie Jaramillo, and I
represent a coalition of a little over 100 churches in Colorado
Springs. And Faith Partners wouldn't exist without--Faith
Partners is actually the faith community's response to welfare
reform in our community.
Many of us were working, those of us in the faith
community, were managing and working with benevolent ministries
like West Side Cares and ESM and Catholic charities and
Salvation Army. We were working in the community, and we began
to read about how welfare reform would be implemented, and how
there would be time limits. We felt that the people who were in
generations of poverty would really not know where to go after
they got cutoff. So we started a dialog with the county to
really ask the county what their safety net would be. And as it
turned out, that dialog, which took place over an 18-month
period of time, turned out that we were trying to discover what
our responsibility would be.
We knew that our pockets were not deep enough to sustain
people in the way that welfare sustained them. And so at the
time, David Burns was the director of the Department of Human
Services here locally. And he challenged the churches to find a
way to, No. 1, work together.
He didn't want to, there were lots of agencies who had been
contractors with the county before. They could have come
alongside and formulated some kind of response to help families
break the cycle of poverty in their lives. But David Burns was
insisting that we work together. And that really was the
catalyst that formed the coalition. So we formed a coalition,
and we were very inclusive and everybody was invited to the
table in the early, beginning stages. In the beginning when we
started that dialog, we were Interfaith, and we did have other
faiths, non-Christian faiths, at the table in the dialog with
us.
In addition to that, I cannot forget to mention the fact
that the community was well-represented, because David Burns
and many of the people from the community from the government
side were also involved in the dialog, and never missed a
meeting.
So as we began to formulate our response, we decided that,
we came to the conclusion that, the way that we would respond
to welfare reform is not with our pocketbook, but with our
lives, and that we would provide hope and purpose for families
in the community that were trying to break the cycle of poverty
in their lives through a monitoring program.
So we developed and we examined mentoring programs from
across the country, and we borrowed the best practices from
those mentoring programs. I'm sure you've heard about many of
them. Pathfinders in Texas and a lot of others, various, all
secular, by the way. And we took the best practices from those,
and we've formulated what has now become Faith Partners.
Faith Partners is a faith-in-action program. We do not
evangelize. We do not proselytize. We serve anybody who
requests our services. It is a ministry of the church itself.
The people on the staff provide training to the mentors. We
provide training to the families prior to them coming into the
program, so that they understand what they're committing to,
and then the two form a team.
We have a team approach of four to six mentors that work
exclusively with one family for an entire year. We have an
evaluation system in place that we started from day one to
prove our effectiveness, and we have proven effectiveness in
all of the families that we've served.
We've witnessed behavioral changes, attitudinal changes,
and economic changes. And so we've taken a very skill-based
approach to mentoring these families.
We have a better than 89 percent success rate for the
families that we've worked with. And in the 5 years that we've
been in existence, we've served over 150 families.
So we believe that what Faith Partners has created in their
partnership with the Department of Human Services is a good
model. And we believe that it is working, and it is very
satisfying work, and we have found a way in which both sides
can benefit.
The faith community has their response, in terms of
bringing volunteers that provide the mentoring services. And
the county, of course, provides the funds for us to operate.
Our funds are a little over 100,000 a year, and they
haven't changed significantly over the 5 years that we've been
in operation.
I'm a little bit taken aback by the comments of the
panelist earlier. I have never heard that you had that kind of
reaction to the Bill Moyer show, and I'm really sorry. I'm
totally accessible to you, and you could have come to me with
those concerns, and I would have been able to explain to you,
as I did in my response to Bill Moyer after the show was aired,
how disgusted I was with how he twisted and turned and took
journalistic liberties on that show.
He actually filmed, his production crew filmed 20 hours of
work that Faith Partners did, and he chose to give a show that
sort of strapped us with this separation of church and State
debate, which was really unfair to the work of Faith Partners
and all of the people involved in the partnership locally.
In addition to that, I have two and a half staff people.
And with those two, we support over 300 volunteers and 30
families that are being mentored in our program, and we are
totally open.
If any congregation, whatever faith they are, come to Faith
Partners and want to have a mentoring team, we would embrace
that completely. It's part of our constitution. It's part of
how we started this, to be very inclusive. And we've never
turned away anybody.
It's part of who I am in the community, as well. I
represent a lot of churches that really are in conflict with
each other theologically, but that's not my concern. I'm
working with those individuals who come forth to give of their
time to help families break the cycle of poverty in our
community.
Bill Moyer had a particular point that he wanted to drive.
And in terms of my using the word ``covert,'' I was trying to
explain to the interviewer how we were a faith in action, and
not evangelical. We were not evangelical in our approach to
working families. And I was talking about a book that was
written that was called the Kindness Conspiracy.
It's written by an author, and it talks in that book about
how Christians are very uncomfortable speaking and talking to
somebody else about their faith, but they are not uncomfortable
with acts of kindness. So he took that conversation completely
out of context. That was an off-the-record conversation we were
having, and he threw a question at me during the interview,
which brought that word ``covert'' up again. And so I actually
used the word ``conspiracy'' not ``covert.'' And it's a
conspiracy of kindness, and it's what all of us operate under.
We all are in the work that we are in for the acts of kindness
that we give and that gives our faith purpose. It gives us
purpose. And so end of story.
Anybody who wants to contact me and know further what that
interview was all about, I'm totally willing to spend time
explaining the true intent of Faith Partners and what we're
trying to accomplish in the community. Thank you.
Mr. Souder. Thank you.
Thank you. Our clean-up panelist for today is Mr. Bob Cote,
executive director of Step 13 in Denver.
STATEMENT OF BOB COTE, STEP 13, DENVER, CO
Mr. Cote. Yes, my name is Bob Cote.
Mr. Souder. That's the English pronunciation, Cote
(pronouncing)?
Mr. Cote. Bill collectors say that. I started Step 13 20
years ago, because I was an alcoholic. And I look out my office
at the bar, Los Compadres, where I poured out half a fifth of
vodka, which at that time would have probably took five good
men to get away from me.
And at that time, I was beginning to realize that I was
committing suicide on the installment plan. And I went from
making $100,000 a year to drinking on skid row. But there was a
rhyme and reason. I got to know all those men down there, and I
started running a restaurant for $450 a month. And I made the
deal with the board of directors that we would never take any
Federal, State, or city moneys. Never solicit for United Way
money, Season to Share money. That we're going to do it on our
own. If it was meant to be, it would be. And that was 20 years
ago, and we're here. So we've done pretty well.
Our budget is around $480,000 a year. We raise 50 percent
of that. We have three in-house businesses. We're two blocks
from Coors Field. I have an auto detailing car wash business.
And during the Rockies season, we're pretty busy. I pay them
$10 an hour.
All of my staff consists of residents of Step 13, with the
exception of one. I have a young lady that helps me
administratively. And I believe it takes a duck to deal with a
duck. If you have a fox start dealing around with some ducks,
you've got a problem. And we have a lot of that in this
country.
And I think what we're leaving out of this, I believe you
mentioned Marvin Okasky and Bob Woodson, and what happens, and
this has been going on for years, everyone says programs are
faith-based and community-based, but nobody says community-
based. It all says faith-based, and everybody gets jacked out
of shape. ``Uh-oh, we're going to be dunking them in a tank of
water,'' and doing this and that and whatever.
I'm not a minister. I named Step 13 Step 13 because of
Jesus and the 12 apostles, and the original 13 colonies. God
and country. That is what did it for this guy. Because I was
invited to the White House 7 years after I poured that vodka
bottle out. What other country could that happen in, or could
you envision to have this vision in your mind and have this
work?
Our success rate is 39 percent. But I'm not dealing with
all the boys. I'm dealing with hard-core drug and alcoholics
that have been on the street 10 years, 15 years.
And you mentioned Pastor Freddie Garcia down in San Antonio
or Houston. And I've known him for many, many years, through
Robert Woods and the National Center for Neighborhood
Enterprise. And when Newt Gingrich was the speaker of the
House, we used to meet with him once every 4 months. And we've
brought up all of these things that I've been saying.
Here today, years later, we're still doing it. But I think
it comes from, why don't you give vouchers? John Walter spoke
about this a couple months ago. And I believe that Congress has
approved it, and that they're waiting for the House, or they're
waiting for the Senate, but it was a couple of hundred million
dollars for alcohol and drug treatment.
I have a church. It's not mandatory. And I've had Rabbis
there. I've had priests there. I've had Mormons there.
Whatever. I rotate them. And they act as mentors.
They don't have to go to the church. They can go instead to
the meeting room downstairs and watch a 4-hour Father Martin
movie or go to the church and listen to the music or whatever.
And the tickets to the Rockies have been very good to us
and so on and so forth. But I truly believe that vouchers would
be the answer. What would be the difference if a Catholic went
to a Baptist shelter or whatever? And ``shelter,'' I don't like
that word. We shelter horses and cows and things like that. We
should do more for people.
And I don't have a time limit. The longest I've had someone
stay there is 3 years. But they have to get a bank account, and
there's a pecking order. And we're in the process of purchasing
an apartment house for the next step.
But faith-based, that's a great idea. Catholic Charities,
Mary Bolan, at one of those congressional hearings, she said,
``If we have to adhere to these rules, then we're not going to
accept any government money.''
Well, I beg your pardon. Two-thirds of their budget
nationally comes from the Federal budget. They don't want
anyone--it's like territorial. And that's the problem.
This isn't that complicated. You know, I think we're all
here to help people, you know? And there's always a barrier or
an ``if,'' or you're a right-wing, mean-spirited Christian
fanatic. And I'll take that.
Is it mean-spirited to ask someone that's ruined his life
drinking, with drugs and alcohol to get his act together and go
to work and take care of himself and be responsible for his
actions? To ask children to stop having children. Is that mean-
spirited? I don't think so.
If it is, I'll take it. But we have to get real, and we go
around and around and around. And you're going to another city.
Let's just put the hammer down and say, ``Let's try it.''
We have this President at this time, and I don't think
we're going to get this chance again. While the President is in
office, you and I know that Senator Samtorum, who I talked to
in the first year he was elected--I testified before his
subcommittee. Senator Cohen was President Clinton's Secretary
of State. But we got something done.
See, there's three kinds of lies: Statistics, statistics,
no, lies, lies, and statistics. And people know these numbers
all over the place. And we need to be accountable.
If you're going to get faith-based funding, then you need
to be accountable for every person and what happens with that
person, and stop shooting numbers all over the place. Be
honest, and I think it will work.
We're not talking a lot. Why not give it a chance? If we're
wrong, we'll take our medicine. If the other side is wrong, I
doubt they'll take theirs.
I see the red light. This faith-based bird, say it's a
bird. You've got the left wing flapping 90 miles an hour, and
the right wing has got a little crazy glue on it with a little
feather, and not quite get going. So the bird is never going to
get off the ground. So what are we going to do.
We've got to get the left and the right wings flapping
together, and let's get this thing going and help some people
and do some good. That's all I have to say. Thank you.
Mr. Souder. Thank you very much for your testimony. Very
diverse testimony.
And let me just lay out a couple of general comments to try
to fill in the blanks before I start with a process of some
questions.
Let me make just a couple of things clear, because I've
been working with this issue since the early 1980's. So let me
put it in a little bit of historical context, so we don't have
to revisit some points in the debate.
First off, faith-based initiatives are not new. And here's
why. They've historically given to groups that didn't direct
faith as part of their delivery of services.
In other words, some of what we've talked about is as long
as you don't overtly share your faith as part of those
services, there's never really been a question.
And one of the fundamental questions I'm going to ask is
how is that different than a Christian working for the welfare
department? Because there have been Christians, Jews, Muslims
who have worked for the welfare department. So what makes a
faith-based ministry that doesn't have faith as part of it
different than a secular ministry manned by people of faith?
The next question is the first expansion to kind of faith-
based ministries, where they shared their faith, where we got
into the legal question of could you have a crucifix posted?
Could you have a collar? Could you share a prayer. Could you
start sharing with your faith with somebody and not lose your
grant? That came largely through the pressures of Bob Woodson
and Jack Kemp under President Reagan.
Because at that point, hardly anybody would deliver those
social services, except people who viewed a higher value to
eternal rather than present.
And so all of a sudden, grants went out from HUD to overtly
religious groups with no questions asked, because nobody else
would provide the services.
Something similar started happening with homelessness. It's
clear Congress will never appropriate enough money for
homelessness. And without overtly religious groups being part
of the homelessness problem, there wasn't going to be an
ability to meet that.
So grants have gone out in the homeless area and the AIDS
area long before there were overt pieces of legislation to
address the faith-based organizations. Then we started to
expand that into other categories. When the Republicans took
over Congress with welfare reform, that was the first
initiative where faith-based groups were coming into more
traditional source type of things, where you start running
into, ``There's a limited pot. Should some of this pot be
diversified.''
We passed it on welfare reform. It passed in the House
under Rick Laslow's committee when we first took over Congress.
We passed in the House at least five other bills.
I think, as I mentioned, I believe four became law. And the
restrictions got narrower and narrower.
For example, as we started in the education committee to
deal with some of the things, when you're dealing with the Head
Start program, it's a little different than other things. So we
had to have--you couldn't have prayer any closer--the amendment
that I agreed to was any closer than 5 minutes before it
started. So there was a clear break, so nobody was made to feel
uncomfortable. You couldn't have prayer during the session, so
there would be no proselytizing.
The Head Start program was the Head Start program, but that
doesn't mean that the people that were running the program
didn't have, ``a covert part of that.'' They were reaching out
and covering part of their mission with their behavior and
their religion.
But there are different rules depending, and fundamentally,
on the faith-based things, that we get this clarified. Unless
there's choice, unless a recipient has a choice of services,
there won't be government funding that allows any direct
involvement of religion.
Except where nobody's providing services, that becomes a
different challenge. And that's where we're getting into some
of these international questions. We're starting to explore
that, because if nobody else is delivering it, do you treat it
differently?
You can't, if you have government money, discriminate on
who's receiving it. You can't do that. Now, one debate is can
you put any conditions on it? But you can't say, in other
words, they have to attend a talk. You can't say, ``You have to
be a Christian. You have to be a Muslim. You can't be a Jew.''
You can't do that with government funds. These things are
agreed on. There are already court rules. So we've got a much
narrower debate that's occurring here. Now, as we move into
areas, and this is why we constantly have these hearings, to
the frustration of the grass roots movement. I'm going to go
through and sort out here how we're going to go through the
questioning process.
But let me just say that part of the reason--let me give
you a couple of political comments, so when you hear followup
discussion on this, you can put this in context.
Some of the problem is here that, I remember we had a
meeting with Steve Goldsmith when he was putting together this
initiative for President Bush, when Governor Bush was still
running for President. And he said, ``Why is this so hard
getting this through Congress.''
Let me tell you, Democratic constituencies are less
amenable to faith-based organizations than to overtly religious
organizations. And Republican Congressmen and Senators tend to
represent suburban and rural groups, not urban ministries.
Therefore, there is no overt constituency that is in
Washington that says, ``How do we reach the poor through faith-
based organizations?'' And the faith-based has a pattern,
though Focus on the panel said they didn't want it, neither do
lots of the other big ministries want direct government
funding.
That's not what this was designed for. But it's been very
hard, because, bluntly put, when many Republicans figured out
this wasn't going to be money going to their districts, they
were less enthusiastic about it. And the Democrats weren't
backing it from the beginning, with very few exceptions. So
it's been very hard to move it through, except piecemeal. But
people like myself who have been backing it from the beginning
believe that contrary to statements that groups have been
eligible for years, because of the government bureaucracy,
Black and Hispanic groups particularly in America, who live in
the neighborhoods, have not been part of the process.
Getting them to be part of the process requires some
minimal investment of government funds and capital. And, quite
frankly, we have a bill that's co-sponsored by Jerry Nadler,
Bobby Scott, Chet Edwards, Barney Frank, who support the
compassion capital idea, as long as they aren't getting
government funds and aren't able to receive government funds
with it.
In other words, part of it is to build the capacity of
groups like Step 13 to go to private foundations to get the
money, not just government funds. And in the context of tens of
billions of dollars, putting some money into developing the
capacity of organizations that are often unheard, which is what
Mr. Cote was referring to.
You heard a long-time frustrated example of, ``We don't
even know how to get included in the process of the United
States. We're too busy working out in the street, and we don't
know how to go about it.''
Steve Goldsmith, who is Jewish, did these initiatives in
Indianapolis, because he didn't know how. He knew he wasn't
going to get any more tax revenue. He didn't know how to meet
the revenues. He said, ``Any comer that wants to do this, come
on board. We don't know what to do about homelessness. We don't
know what to do about health care.''
And the challenge in front of us is, is there enough room
at the table that, in some form, faith-based groups can be
included. And I want to reiterate, as I did in the first panel,
there are tax breaks we already agreed with. We have that in
Federal law. Compassion capital fund is more debateable. What
the administration is currently doing through Executive order
with some of the grants is even more debateable. And, quite
frankly, it's headed for pork.
It's just where the decision is going to be, and where it's
going to go, because there's a little bit more. Because for
some of them, there are choices, and for some of them, there
aren't. And then there's another category where the voucher
word is almost as controversial as saying an overt Jesus Christ
word.
The voucher word in Congress is about as debated as you can
get. But nevertheless, this is a different ballgame when
there's a clear choice of somebody with a voucher. But that
requires there to be program choices. Because a voucher for
Head Start doesn't work in eastern Colorado where there may
only be one Head Start center in several hundred miles. So we
clearly have to, as we work through the voucher question, work
this through.
Now, with that as kind of a background of what we're doing,
I want to establish, first off, Mr. Tollefson, let me ask you a
question. Does your organization provide social services?
Mr. Tollefson. Only in the work we do. And we do not
discriminate on any basis.
Mr. Souder. But you provide social service.
Mr. Tollefson. No, we do. The services we provide to are to
families who are in some celebration. It might be a memorial
service, it might be christening, it might be a wedding, it
might be some kind of counseling.
Mr. Souder. But you do provide counseling or some kind of
services? It's not just a meeting services.
Mr. Tollefson. Yes.
Mr. Souder. I wanted to make sure.
Mr. Tollefson. And I have a response to your question.
Mr. Souder. I didn't have a question yet. My question was--
--
Mr. Tollefson. What makes them different than social
services.
Mr. Souder. I'm going to come to that question in a minute.
First I wanted to establish that you all provide some sort of
services.
My first question is an assumption. And rather than taking
a long time with each answer, I just want to correctly see if I
identified that.
Mr. Whetstone, for Feed the Children, hiring practices and
ability to openly share your faith would be a problem if you
couldn't do it?
Mr. Whetstone. Not necessarily.
Mr. Souder. It depends on the type of program that you're
particularly involved in.
Mr. Whetstone. Absolutely. We recognize the diversity of
faith. It's a holistic approach.
Mr. Souder. So, for example, if you were doing a food bank,
you could theoretically set up a food bank where you would hire
people of different faiths in your food bank.
Mr. Whetstone. Absolutely.
Mr. Souder. You could have a Muslim working in that food
bank and distributing food, and that would be considered.
Because you don't require a statement of faith from all
employees.
Mr. Whetstone. That's exactly right.
Mr. Souder. But as a mission, your primary mission, for
example, if somebody wanted to be on your board of directors,
or part of your corporation, do you presume that they have a
Christian mission in that?
Mr. Whetstone. I think it's part of the Christian mission.
And having a heart for service as we're taught in the Bible.
Mr. Souder. So would you function with a board that was
majority non-Christian.
Mr. Whetstone. We don't, but we could.
Mr. Souder. So your organization, I would put in the mixed
forum. We would have to identify that more clearly.
And as I understand, Mr. Tollefson, you would require a
statement of faith.
Mr. Tollefson. Absolutely not. The issue is not whether
they conform to my faith, but what is their sense of the
sacred. That's what's really important. Because people do have
different views of what that is.
Some will follow Jesus. Others will follow Buddha. Others
will follow the natural path of nature. The issue is what is
sacred, and not just materialistic.
Mr. Souder. But that is your opinion of the issue.
Mr. Tollefson. That's who I serve and what I would not
expect.
Mr. Souder. Ms. Littrell, my understanding is you would
have openness as to who would be on. There wouldn't be a
requirement of a statement of faith?
Ms. Littrell. There's no requirement for anybody.
Mr. Souder. And, Reverend Cowles, in your organization,
would you have an overt statement of faith about any
organizations you had?
Rev. Cowles. Yes.
Mr. Souder. So you have some organizations that don't? For
example, would you be to able segregate. Conservatives have
complained about this for years. That Planned Parenthood will
get Federal funding, even though it's banned for abortions.
They'll get abortion counseling in one section, and non-
abortion counseling in another section. So anybody that argues
that religious organizations shouldn't have that spread, will
also cutoff Federal funding for Planned Parenthood.
Because, in fact, if you have separate divisions, you allow
that to occur. But you're saying you would have a consistent
statement of faith.
Rev. Cowles. Our ministry hires their own people, but I can
speak for them that the majority of their leadership would have
definitely a statement of belief. And, in fact, most of them
hire right out of their own congregations.
But further on down the line, cooks and helpers and
janitors, you know, no. Many of them hire, in fact, lots of
people hire people that come to their program from whatever
background they come from.
Mr. Souder. It probably depends on what the mission is.
Rev. Cowles. And whether their job description is critical
to the ongoing leadership and development and strategy of the
organization.
Mr. Souder. Ms. Robinson, my understanding is you wouldn't
have a statement of faith.
Ms. Robinson. No.
Mr. Souder. Mr. Anderson.
Mr. Anderson. We do.
Mr. Souder. You do?
Ms. Jaramillo, my understanding is you had a broader--as
far as this particular program?
Ms. Jaramillo. That's correct. We do not have a statement
of faith. We have core values. And as long as the people who
apply for work with us embrace these core values, that is good
for us. And these core values are all related to how we treat
the families.
Mr. Souder. Mr. Cote, what would your position be?
Mr. Cote. We don't care what they are. We don't have a
statement. We just take whoever the best person is.
Mr. Souder. If somebody was an atheist, would they be part
of your staff?
Mr. Cote. Just about every guy that comes in there is an
atheist.
Mr. Souder. I don't mean the people that you serve. I mean
the people that counsel.
Mr. Cote. I don't have any counselors and therapists,
because if counseling and therapy worked, they wouldn't need
Step 13. They lead by example.
I do not have a time limit. Somebody that comes in there
out of the gutter, and he's buying a 2-year-old car, and he's
got $5,000 in the bank, and he's got a loan to pay back. I made
a deal with Wells Fargo.
Mr. Souder. Do you have any paid staff?
Mr. Cote. None of them make less than $20,000 a year.
Mr. Souder. So your organization is nothing like a
traditional hierarchal organization because of the way you use
them at the Rockies game and other things? In effect, your
staff is going to be much more diverse, your key people are
going to share your shared mission and vision of the guy coming
in, but he would still be paid staff.
Mr. Cote. All of my staff are either ex-addicts or drunks
or what have you. And it takes a duck to know a duck. And if I
took government funds, I'd have to have some foxes sitting
around, and then my ducks would get all upset.
Mr. Souder. So we have an illustration of the diverse
hiring approaches. And without changes in the law, at least two
groups wouldn't be directly eligible without some structural
changes or separate 501(c)3 to move it.
Your group, which you don't want the funds, but, for
example, if the government had an excess building somewhere in
the area of your ministry, would you be interested in having
your organization be able to bid for that? In other words, to
claim if for whatever back taxes are, or just claim the
building.
Mr. Cote. I thought about that. But someone earlier was
talking about vacant government buildings. With the Stuart
McKinney Act, I get flyers from, I think it's the General
Services Administration. And at the old Stapleton, no, Lowry,
when they converted that over, nonprofits got first choice.
Mr. Souder. Yes. What I proposed earlier and what I said
came about. We take what's in the homelessness act, and apply
it to other kinds of programs, such as drug treatment, juvenile
delinquency, and other types of things.
Mr. Cote. I think that's great. And I think faith-based
organizations should be--I know a lot of them that are small.
It's a mom and pop organization. They don't know how to write a
grant. They don't have computer skills. And maybe you could
direct some of, instead of the funding, just some experience
and some help.
Mr. Souder. Let me go back to my question and start with
Mr. Tollefson.
How would you delineate that a faith-based organization is
faith-based, if there is no statement of faith in that mission?
And how does it differ from a person of faith who works for a
welfare office?
Mr. Tollefson. Well, first of all, the difference for me is
whether there's proselytizing versus personal choice or
personal decision. When people are in trouble, they need to
make some decisions about themselves. And when you're giving
them the answer, that may not be their answer.
Mr. Souder. But that's not the question I asked. The
question is, that's true for the welfare department too, right?
Mr. Tollefson. They would not proselytize.
Mr. Souder. So how does someone who has a so-called faith-
based ministry who's providing ministries differ from somebody
of faith that's working at the welfare department?
Mr. Tollefson. What this lady said and what that lady said.
Mr. Souder. How is that different?
Mr. Tollefson. You live your faith. You don't preach it.
Mr. Souder. But you do that at the welfare department.
Mr. Tollefson. If that staff member were in my
organization, they would be fired yesterday. Because social
services are to do the work that this gentleman is talking
about. Do the work. Find the place to live. Get the food. How
do your children get the shots? Help them to live their life,
and to help them organize that.
And there are a lot of conceptions that we can use that
will help us do that.
Mr. Souder. But whatever, first of all, if it doesn't have
faith, and it's not part of the faith-based discussion.
[Discussion off the record.]
Mr. Souder. First off, let me clarify. You don't believe
that people of faith who work for government entities aren't
doing a good service?
Mr. Tollefson. Yes, many of them are. But they don't do it
when they wear their religion on their sleeve.
Mr. Souder. But that's not the question I asked. How does a
person of faith who's doing a good service by working in the
local homeless department who's distributing immunization shots
differ from a faith-based organization where they also don't
talk about their faith and do a good service by doing
immunizing? What is the difference between those two people
living it, not talking about it?
Mr. Tollefson. Well, I would say being competent. I'd like
to say----
Mr. Souder. But you're not saying government people aren't
competent.
Mr. Tollefson. There are some that aren't.
Mr. Souder. Well, there are some in the private sector that
aren't also.
Mr. Tollefson. Of course. If your faith is vibrant, it
seems to me that you would really work at being competent. Ever
more competent. It's like the counselor trainer said at a
Christian related university. He said, ``If you have a choice
between a Christian counselor and a good counselor, choose the
good counselor.'' That makes sense. See, it's competence.
Mr. Souder. Yeah, I don't--even though----
Mr. Tollefson. And if your faith is vibrant----
Mr. Souder. I'm not comfortable having the record say--I
believe we can do a better job of delivering social services,
but I don't think it's fair to say that government employees
aren't competent.
Mr. Tollefson. I'm not saying that.
Mr. Souder. But if competence is the only measure----
Mr. Tollefson. Competence comes from a lot of directions,
sir.
Mr. Souder. Let met ask Ms. Littrell the same question.
Mr. Tollefson. Yeah, please.
Ms. Littrell. Well, I don't believe that anybody is more or
less competent because of their faith or because of their
expression of faith. I believe their competence is because of
their education and their experience. And so I would say that
you can be--the people in my organization all have faith. They
just don't have to tell somebody about their faith.
Mr. Souder. I understand that part. But that's not what my
question is. I understand you don't feel they need to tell
them. So how are you different from somebody who shares your
faith that's working for the welfare department?
Ms. Littrell. We're not.
Mr. Souder. So why would you call yourself a faith-based
organization, other than a social service?
Ms. Littrell. First of all, we work with a lot of churches.
We really are a community-based organization, rather than
faith-based. We really are not a ministry.
Mr. Souder. That's important. Because there are government
entities. There are nonprofit entities which are all-inclusive.
There are community-based organizations, which one of the
things that I like to keep threatening to put in, and everybody
panics, is the ZIP code test.
So at least a fair percentage of the people live in the
neighborhood when they get the grant. But nobody seems to want
to touch it. And then groups that have a component to it that's
more faith-based, and I'm trying to sort out here which groups
are faith-based, where there's a faith component, and whether
that makes them different than government. Because that's what
part of the debate is.
You all are already eligible. That isn't the question. It
is, are groups where faith is a component either in a set-up
where it's kind of what I would term there, but less direct--in
many cases, like the like Feed the Children and Mr. Cote, where
they would say--I don't want to put words in your mouth. Is
this a correct statement? Because we've had this come up in
different hearings.
Even though you don't require a statement of faith, you
would say that the reflection--you would still refer to it as a
ministry?
Mr. Whetstone. Yes, sir. Absolutely.
Mr. Souder. And what you're saying is part of God's call,
as Keith Phillips said, is there's a service side to the poor
and to the hungry, not to just save a soul?
Mr. Whetstone. That's exactly right.
Mr. Souder. And, therefore, there is a service. There is a
ministry.
Mr. Whetstone. And, in fact, that's a component of a host
of the religions around the world today. Not just Christianity.
Mr. Souder. Yes and no.
Ms. Littrell. It seems like it's really difficult to
describe, to differentiate between what is a ministry doing the
work of social services, and what is an organization doing the
work of social services.
And, you know, it might not--you have to have some kind of
a statement of faith, but it's not a statement of religious
faith. It's a statement of faith that we can get the job done,
because of what we do, and because we have a desire to help
people, and because we're good people, and we're do-gooders and
all of that sort of thing.
Mr. Souder. I don't believe that's a correct analysis of
the program. We had this come up at one of our other hearings.
A faith that isn't defining is not the dictionary definition of
faith.
In other words, faith that there are mountains because I
can look out there and see it is not what this public debate is
about. This is about whether or not you can have faith in a
power higher than an individual, and whether groups that
believe that should be eligible for government funding.
And if you don't believe that, that's fine, but that's a
different position than whether there's a faith-based position.
Ms. Littrell. And I think it's the articulation of the
faith.
Mr. Souder. Let me move to a couple of other people now.
Reverend Cowles, give your view on it.
Rev. Cowles. I think I can illustrate your question in a
quick story. Darrell, who's an alcoholic, came to the food
ministry, got an apartment. He came to his church meetings. He
gave his life to Jesus Christ. Wants a higher power.
Darrell called me yesterday morning and said, ``Pastor
Dean, my first day on the job is today. Would you pray for
me?'' And of course I did.
Carolyn in our church works for social services, but he
could not have called her at her office that morning and asked
her to pray for him, I assume, because if she was found praying
over the phone on government time, I would assume that would
bring a problem. Not because she doesn't care as much for
Darrell as I do, but because of her limitation in her
workplace.
She could not provide that. I could, because there were no
restrictions on me. And I think that is why faith-based
organizations that we work with are very successful. Because
they can devote their full time, and don't have to dance around
that. It's effective. And Darrell got to work, and he came back
and called me afterwards and said, ``I kept my first day on the
job, and I'm sober.'' So I think you can do it more overtly in
a faith-based organization.
Mr. Souder. Let me ask, Ms. Littrell raised another issue,
Mr. Cote, that was almost directly opposite of what you said a
little bit ago. She believed that people who are eligible for,
she didn't even say ``eligible.'' She said people are more
effective if they have the appropriate education and training.
Do you agree with that.
Mr. Cote. In some ways. Like I say, my staff consists of,
I've seen guys that, I can think of one right offhand. He has a
hard time speaking English, so I put him on the front desk. He
wasn't the best person I could put up there, but it helped him,
and he worked through his fear of the phones.
Mr. Souder. This really came up in San Antonio in the
debate, because one of the men, even though we were at Freddie
Garcia's place, said Freddie's people shouldn't be talking to
drug addicts, because they don't have any training to work with
drug addicts. In fact, that whole Victory Life Fellowship
program all through Texas was nearly decertified under the
Governor of Texas, not named Bush, because even though they
granted a mental health division, and it was the most effective
single program that ever existed in the United States for
getting people off the street, the fact is they didn't have
licensed counselors.
Mr. Cote. And they tried that in the Houston challenge and
Bob Woodson and myself and Roger went to the Alamo. Because
they were trying to put Freddie out of business for
decertification.
Mr. Souder. Do you basically agreed with my suggestion, I
know Bob initially did, on the ZIP code? You're suggesting that
there's something else that's effective in the community, other
than just having a college degree or certification?
Mr. Cote. You have to personalize it. I don't go for this
some places taking a number. I was with Marvin in a shelter in
Austin, and I wanted to see someone, and they called it D17 or
whatever it was. And that's so depersonalizing and dehumanizing
or whatever.
I call everyone Mister. That's what they're called at our
shelter. And I have as my staff either the residents or former
residents. Again, because I say, it takes a duck to know a
duck. They've walked right where they walked. Who better to
know how to relate to them than someone that's been there.
Mr. Tollefson. Mr. Souder, may I ask to be excused, please?
I have a grandson that needs my attention.
Mr. Souder. Sure. And I skipped over, do you want to make
any closing comments before you leave?
Mr. Tollefson. Yes. I think you would be stronger in your
position to advance the services of churches and synagogues and
temples and other places if you would refer to this as
religion-based, not faith-based. Because when you get into
faith, you get into issues of chosen-ness, and the Belief. And
it becomes exclusivist and destructive.
So if you could refer to it as religion-based, I think it
would be stronger.
My apologies, sir, for leaving, but I'm going to pay
attention to my grandson.
Mr. Souder. I appreciate that. And let me assure you, as we
work through this, that one of the things that has come up, and
this needs to be understood, as I've told people originally in
the administration, I said, ``I don't think this is going to
work.''
I have one area of my hometown that is where the main
housing complex is. It's half Bosnians, which is Muslim, and
half Burmese, which is largely Buddhist. And if there had been
a, quote, faith-based organization, and they had either bowed
to Allah or had some kind of a tribute to Buddha, the community
would have exploded if somebody senior had been in that area
that was a Christian.
If we do this in Federal funding, everybody, including
Orthodox Jews, who are very rigid in their beliefs, or Muslims,
when we get into this area, this is causing a lot of
consternation. The direct government funding. But it's these
kind of discussions that are helpful. Thank you for
participating. I'd be happy to excuse you.
Mr. Tollefson. Thank you. It's been my pleasure.
Mr. Souder. I wanted to ask you, Mr. Anderson, you've been
listening to some of this. You have a statement of faith, as
well. Do you think that people, because in some of the
organizations, clearly, I'll have to ask Ms. Robinson next to
comment.
But in her organization and Ms. Littrell's organization, as
I understand it, they would welcome people that don't
necessarily share their statement of faith. And they presumably
get volunteers where that isn't necessarily the driving issue.
Would your organization, if that wasn't the driving issue,
would you get the volunteers to be able to administer it in the
same way? Or is it so intertwined as part of who you are, who
gives you the money, and who gives you the support, that you
can't really separate it for those who say, ``Why you can't
separate it?''
Mr. Anderson. For us, that can't be separated. And I think
I'm hearing some confusion between an individual's statement of
faith and an organization's statement of faith.
Individuals can be believers in different environments,
secular and nonprofit and religious organizations, and express
their faith and live with their values. But what we're talking
about here is faith-based organizations.
And for Compassion, the integration of sharing values, of
sharing beliefs as a part of ministering to and taking care of
the needs of children around the world is completely
integrated.
All of our donor base, I would say 95 to 98 percent of our
donor base are people of faith. So for us to then try to
segregate and say these are activities with faith components
and these are activities which aren't really wouldn't work in
our organization.
Mr. Souder. And do you believe part of the power of your
organization is that commitment of faith?
Mr. Anderson. Absolutely. It goes to the core of our belief
of what we're trying to cure, in terms of poverty around the
world.
Many organizations meet the needs of what we would call
symptoms of poverty through food, clothing, medical needs.
We do the same. But to ignore the component of a spiritual
aspect of someone's life we believe is missing a large
component of what poverty is all about.
Mr. Souder. And one of the common things we've heard at the
hearings, as well as outside and particularly from media
debates is that, well, if had you an overt goal to evangelize,
that should be done with purely private funds, and that's a
different goal.
But part of the problem here is that this is the goal of
church on Sunday mornings, and evangelizing ministries, such as
Campuses for Christ, the four-step plan to give your soul, from
a Christian perspective. Clearly other groups evangelize. But
this isn't evangelizing, per se. It's dealing with the
spiritual. But it's part of a mix that's also helping people
who are hurting, reaching out in the social service side
without parking the spiritual over in this corner.
The specific question is, can it be in the public arena,
other than outside the church building in straight evangelism?
Is that a fair statement?
Mr. Anderson. We really are fully integrated. I think our
society is trying to say, can we compartmentalize a faith
component in a doing well and doing good component? And if you
study the philosophy of how we believe people develop, those
things can't be separated.
So for us, that would be very difficult.
Mr. Souder. Ms. Robinson, when you hear some of what we've
just said, and clearly the Methodist tradition was mixed. John
Wesley would have shared that view. Leadership kind of varies
church by church. We have a lot in my district that would have
a somewhat similar view.
How do you say to people like that say you ought to stay
out of any arena that involves direct government funding or any
kind of delineated funding? You can't even have inadvertent
proselytizing with indirect government funding. Should they not
be able to have part of the program?
Should Catholic schools not be allowed to have a bus, as
opposed to educating? Which right now they can't have a bus,
and they can't get moneys for the teachers. The Supreme Court
rules the computer is nonsectarian. The software is sectarian.
Should they be able to bid on an abandoned building, even
if they have an overt religious message? Do you favor tax
deductions?
Ms. Robinson. I don't have a problem with separating
programs. I think it's hard for me to really understand how you
can't, because we always have. So I've never, even though we're
Methodist, there was never any intention on promoting religion
in our organization.
I mean, what happened was in 1981, they saw a need, and we
opened the food pantry in a church basement.
A few years later, they saw a need with ex-offenders
getting jobs. We opened a job center in another church
basement. Soon we moved into one building. And it was never a
part.
We really address common sense basic needs for people. And
religion is just not part of that. The people who come to us
are in such crisis, they don't even talk about religion.
And for myself, what I witness in our organization is when
people get stabilized and don't have that crisis pending is
when they will ask you, ``Do you know a good church I can go
to?'' Or, ``This is my interest. Can you tell me which church
in this area that I live in might be a good place for me to go
to?'' And that's as far as it goes.
And we might not even refer them to a Methodist church. We
don't have any kind of----
Mr. Souder. Now, that's your view. What I'm curious about
is what do you think of other people at the table who don't
have that same view? Should they be shut out.
Ms. Robinson. I think everybody here does good work. And I
think everybody here does work that is needed in communities.
But there has to be a distinction between someone who says,
``You need to go to this church service and then I'll give you
a meal.''
Mr. Souder. So do you favor the tax deductions for these
groups.
Ms. Robinson. I don't know that I understand the tax
deductions.
Mr. Souder. Currently if you write a donation to a church,
you get a tax deduction.
Ms. Robinson. Because that's a personal choice. I'm
choosing to send my money to Step 13.
Mr. Souder. So you would support where nonitemizers could
give money to----
Ms. Robinson. Sure.
Mr. Souder. What about Compassion Capital funds, where
groups that aren't going to receive government money, like Mr.
Cotes or Mr. Anderson, if he had a local affiliate, could go in
and learn how to set up these different organizations, that
could then do it for private philanthropy?
Ms. Robinson. I have mixed feelings about that. I believe
in capacity building. Obviously, DenUM has had a lot to do with
that in the last 20 years. But I have a problem with
redirecting direct service money.
We have huge needs in Colorado for child care. If we're
going to have 10 recipients go back to work for 20 hours and
possibly up to 40 hours in the reauthorization bill, we've got
to pay for child care for that. And I have a hard time
diverting $30,000 for somebody to go to learn computer skills
when you can go to your library to learn that.
I learned on-line skills at the library. I don't know. It's
hard for me to say, ``Yeah, that is well worth it,''
particularly when our clients at DenUM, more than 70 percent of
them, are in some kind of government program. So old-age
pension, Social Security, disability, some kind of housing,
some kind of government assistance. And that's not enough.
We're always going to need programs with community
programs, or if you choose to go to one of faith, whatever
works for the client.
Mr. Souder. Let me throw out another statement, and then,
Mr. Cowles, you've worked with this a lot, and you're sitting
on the review panel, so I'd like to hear your reaction to this.
As somebody who's been involved in and out of government as
a staffer in the Senate and as a Member of Congress, what's
become clear to me in local volunteering communities is it
doesn't matter whether the Republicans or the Democrats are in
power. The social spending is flat.
People can claim that it's a partisan issue, but the fact
is social welfare spending is an inflation adjuster in almost
all categories, except for AIDS funding, breast cancer, and
things like that.
In general, they're not anxious to promote tax increases.
Education always gets money, whatever the latest disease is
gets money, and when we have war and national security, we have
financial demands.
So we're looking at relatively flat spending. We're looking
at flat funding. Nevertheless, the problems seem to be getting
greater. Part of the idea is to try to get other groups
involved, some of whom may or may not be more effective,
because they can deal with it holistically. Because at least a
segment of the groups believe by dealing with it, there are
medical results, like we heard on the first panel, and
otherwise.
And domestically, this is most directly related to those
who don't have resources. In other words, in the suburban
communities, they theoretically go to the private sector and
raise funds. And then take the United States and go
internationally.
We can't even begin to address the AIDS question if there
weren't more groups like Compassion arguing out there. And, to
me, if they get excluded from the debate, that leverage is lost
on those of us who are voting in Congress. Or Feed the
Children.
If Feed the Children wasn't out in the world right now--do
you know what percentage of the United States is providing the
most world aid right now?
Mr. Whetstone. It's more than 80 percent.
Mr. Souder. And if we didn't have that, and we exclude
these groups, the world would roughly collapse. And my concern
and some of the recent debate is we're actually going backward.
That some of these funds that have been going back to the
various groups are going to be tightened up.
You've been sitting in looking at the applications, you've
worked on it in Indianapolis. You've now been in Denver. How do
you see some of what's sorting through here?
Rev. Cowles. The funding is flat. I don't think the direct
subsidies are going to work any longer. We've tried that. We've
seen it. It's not going to work. It's going to work when local
groups get together.
We've long advocated this approach to the intermediary, to
the capacity building, and it's wonderful it's finally
happening with this President. Of course, it's $26 million the
first round and $30 million the next. But it is working. Dr.
Ashton is here from VJVA who got part of the capital fund in
Colorado. And she's working with 361 organizations. Mine is one
of them, Crossroads of the Rockies. Welfare moms, crack addicts
get computer skills to become grant writers. They never did
that before, and they've lifted them up.
And bang for the buck in stewardship is another key thing
for me. This money, this $26 million that we have authorized
spread across the country, did far more. And Bobby Polejo would
tell you story after story after story of organizations that
have benefited directly by increasing their ability to see
funding from the private sector, from individuals.
Which really, like I said in my opening statement, all came
before the great welfare society came about.
Not to say government isn't responsible to do things. I'm
not advocating that. But I am saying that this kind of approach
is cost effective, and it reaches the most people for the least
amount of money, and it increases the organizations like Faith
Partners.
$100,000 and two staff members are doing all of that great
stuff they're doing. $100,000 in government bureaucracies are
gone in a toilet seat on a B1 bomber. So we're very, very
excited to see this kind of thing happening.
Mr. Souder. Ms. Jaramillo, do you have lots of small
organizations in your coalition too? And were they included
before? Could you describe a little more in-depth your Faith
Partners group?
Ms. Jaramillo. Faith Partners was basically the church
leadership. It includes the evangelical line, as well as the
main line that operate downtown and serve groups like the
homeless, and EA Sam, and all of those groups.
But when we first started, we started with a dialog of how
we were going to respond to welfare reform in our community.
And we really felt that there was a spiritual component to
breaking the cycle of poverty. Any good welfare administrator
could lower the caseload of any FAFDC caseload or TANIF
caseload. But to really help those families escape, in terms of
leveling the playing field for those individuals, we knew that
it was going to take more than just a handout.
Many people in churches are so tired of feeding the same
people for 15 years. You feed the same families coming to the
soup kitchens. And you get to know them like they're your
neighbors, because they become familiar with you.
If you work in those ministries, you see the same people
over and over again. So what you're doing is you're alleviating
the suffering of poverty, but you're really not breaking the
cycle. And in order to do that, we knew we had to give of
ourselves. Pour out who we were. We're not trying to make them
like us. What we've learned in the mentoring process is the
person who's changed the most at the end of the mentoring term
are the mentors, not the families. Because we have learned so
much about surviving, and about the whole system of welfare,
and our mentors become the strongest advocates for these
individuals.
And we have both--one of the positive things that came out
of the Bill Moyer show was we made a strong commitment to
seeking mentors in secular organizations, like Rotarian clubs
and lots of different clubs. So we are in the process of
developing teams, mentoring teams from service clubs.
Because if people come to us and want mentoring, we'd like
to have a choice between a secular team and a faith-based team.
But it's difficult. The most difficult part of our work is
trying to get the mentors to commit to 1 year of mentoring
these families.
And so without the motivation of the scriptures and the
compassion that you have from your own faith to motivate you to
do that, there's no reason on Earth for you to want to do that.
There are so many disappointments. So many times that families
make the wrong decision and don't progress, and so without your
faith, you can't bring closure to those relationships.
Everything we do is relational. And that's a piece we bring
to social services that isn't there now. The department here
can provide so many resources to families.
They can provide avenues for education, for transportation,
for childcare. And, yes, those are limited funds. But honestly,
the people who really need them are getting them.
But what they can't provide is the coaching, the
encouragement, and the nurturing that's required for some of
these families who are so broken that they need that additional
assistance to break the cycle of poverty in their lives.
And we don't just mentor the head of household. We mentor
the entire family. So we have people that are mentors that are
coming into the homes and tutoring two and three times a week a
family, the children of these families, and helping the parents
understand how structured study time helps to improve the
skills of the children in school, and their ability to achieve
academically.
So we're not ignoring the needs of the children. We match a
mentoring team with the family. We examine and assess the
entire family's needs, and then we link them to additional
community resources that they may need, and we pour our lives
into them. And then as a result, our faith and everything that
we give is just deepened and returned back to us. I don't know
if I answered your question or not.
Mr. Souder. Reverend Cowles, I had a--given that you've
worked with a number of programs, and you're working with some
of the Compassion Capital fund directly, one of the concerns I
had as a sponsor of the faith-based amendments, and why I'm
kind of backing up a little bit, is at one of our hearings in
Washington, we went through a panel and said, ``Would you take
Federal funds?'' And everybody expressed an interest. And it's
on the public record.
The administrator in Indianapolis that was recommended by
Steve Goldsmith, when the question came through, ``Would you
hire a Jew,'' since most of the members were Christian, Teen
Challenge said no. A couple of others said no. They'd certainly
service them, treat them well. They--just like an Orthodox
Jewish organization wouldn't hire a Christian.
But the African American leader said, ``Well, is that the
only way I can get the money?'' And he's one of the biggest
churches.
Rev. Cowles. Eastern Star probably. Pastor Johnson.
Mr. Souder. Well, I guess there's a Judeo-Christian
tradition. ``Maybe I would if that's the only way I could get
the money.'' And that prompted the question, ``Would you hire a
Muslim?'' But basically those that didn't have a religious
variable said no. Those that did say yes.
But when we ran into the question of whether they would
even change their ministry in order to get the money, even if
previously they didn't have those guidelines--which has been
some of the fear some of us have had. ``Even if currently not
restricted, if we get the money now, will new regulations come
in that will undermine it?''
Which leads to a second question. If you can take a few of
these together, and Mr. Cote may have a response for this too.
If the church is more integrated, which I actually believe is
good, in the Black and Hispanic communities often more than in
the White communities, therefore it's the only social entity
left.
They don't control the local schools in the neighborhood.
The only services left in the neighborhood are at the church.
And if we exclude the churches, we, by definition, exclude the
people that live in that ZIP code often. We exclude the people
that are delivering the services. Which is one of the reasons
that we had a Capital Compassion fund, so we can tell how many
501(c)3 won't affect that church.
Would you describe some of what you're seeing, and how this
changes things?
Rev. Cowles. It takes a long time to change what you've
accepted. We're trying to train our folks that's not the
environment anymore. Yes, the environment is you can't use
those funds to pay Pastor Williams, but you can use those funds
to hire Sister Williams to distribute food or do the after-
school program that helps with tutoring, that doesn't have any
religious proselytizing.
She's doing a good job for the community. You do have to
have a separate board. The church board. A separate 501(c)3.
And this is what JVC board is doing here in Colorado, to teach
them how to set up systems and structures that don't compromise
the church.
And in my written point I've said I don't know whether it's
a curse or it's last rites. Because too many organizations
have, you know, chased the money, and they've diluted their
passion and vision, and consequently their outcomes have been
compromised.
So, yes, it's changing, but it takes a long time to change
those--it's like a quote I use in my book. It only took Moses 4
days to get the Hebrews out of Egypt. But it took 40 years
while they were wandering to get Egypt out of the Hebrews. It
takes a long time to understand there's a new day. There's a
new way to do it that's a win-win for everybody.
Churches have to be careful. Don't compromise your
position, and don't just accept money and change your policy.
Because that dilutes who you really are. Mary Nelson in Chicago
is a great example of that.
She took a little Lutheran church that was 100 years old
that was dead, dead, and dying. Nobody else would come into
that whole side of Chicago. And now it's Bethany Recycling
Enterprises. And now it's doing the whole 9 yards through the
faith-based organization. This with all the appropriate fire
walls if you will.
We're urging people in our organization to continue to seek
it appropriately.
Mr. Souder. This is mostly focused on domestic. We're just
looking at the edges of this internationally. One came down in
Central America as far as guidelines. But I want to followup on
two things with you, Mr. Whetstone, and then I'll see who wants
to make any kind of concluding comments here.
You mentioned in the--in your opening statement about the
Denton amendment on international. And you were wondering would
we be able to do that domestically.
Can you describe that? What would prohibit us from doing
that domestically now?
Mr. Whetstone. A good example was when Hurricane Mitch
struck Central America, the Denton Amendment provided that when
the USAID declared a disaster somewhere in the world, the
United States will help provide aid, and government resources
can be used to transport commodities and assistance to those
areas. We used government paid freight on ships to move
containers of shelf-stable milk and other nonperishable foods
into Honduras, Nicaragua, El Salvador, and Guatemala.
The Oklahoma National Guard has a fleet of C130's. Every
day those planes fly training missions. Most of the time they
go out with sandbags to simulate having cargo on them, so that
the pilot can be used to what happens when you do this maneuver
with cargo on it, as opposed to an empty airplane.
Obviously, they don't have to take military equipment every
time they go up, but why couldn't they take assistance from
Feed the Children in to Elkhart, IN, or into a small group or
collection of churches in West Virginia, or to an Indian
reservation in South Dakota? It's just basically the same
concept.
You had spoken about the disposition of Federal property.
That can be taken one step further in a program like the Denton
amendment, where you could actually utilize government
resources and government equipment and government property
short-term for the need of that circumstance.
Mr. Souder. One of the things that I have figured out is
that--maybe I was a little slow on the uptake. But as we moved
from AIDS and homelessness into areas where there were existing
groups that wanted the money, for example, drug treatment,
there are very high-paid organizations that don't want any drug
money to go to these little neighborhood-type groups. They're
very worried about the competition. It's different than the
other.
My sense--and I'd first like to lay this out to you and Mr.
Anderson. When I recently spoke with Tony Hall about the world
food question, he said in Ethiopia there was an organization
out of my hometown, because a former Congressman had been an
ambassador to Ethiopia. So there was a whole bunch of
Ethiopians who had only heard of Fort Wayne, IN.
Through that, Senator Marah became involved. And she formed
an organization down in Ethiopia for food distribution, which
he said is the most effective program in that area that he had
seen.
And one of the problems was when often the U.N. or the US
tries to organize some disaster relief, or they try to
distribute that food, the corruption level is incredible. The
efficiency levels are a huge problem.
And part of the reason they started to turn to faith-based
organizations in reaching out with this type of thing is that
there is forum. For example, in Ethiopia, they were finding
most of it stolen. Senator Marah said, ``We've never
distributed food before.'' The two people that the government
had found guilty on stealing--she said she would do it, ``Only
on the condition that I can use them.'' And she included them
in the organization, with accountability. Who later, by the
way, after seeing the actions, I believe they then became
Christians in the process, which was covert, not overt. Because
they couldn't believe somebody forgave them and included them
in the operations, and put a process in place.
What I want to know is OK, that's an Ethiopia story. Are
you seeing this in other areas of the world where the Federal
Government, the United Nations, and other entities are coming
to your two organizations and saying, ``Look, we're having
problems with distribution''?
And it's one of the things we worry about in Congress.
Because one of the reasons it's politically hard to do is
people back home are saying, ``Man, we've got a virus, and
you're sending money over to Africa,'' and then they read
somebody about putting a Swiss tanker down or stealing from it.
It's a political nightmare. They weren't excited about it in
the first place.
Can you elaborate a little bit about what you've seen in
your two organizations?
Mr. Anderson. We've really experienced that most people are
desperate, and even governments are desperate to find
organizations that they can trust and rely on to have delivery
mechanisms that are dependable. You have to work very hard to
make sure that happens.
I think faith-based organizations, like Compassion, who are
working for the local infrastructure of the church has a real
advantage in that respect. Those organizations have value that
many times are very against the culture that they live in, in
terms of accepting bribes, accepting corruption as a part of
their lifestyle. So no organization is immune from that. I'm
sure everyone in this panel that you've listened to has
experiences that are bad. But I would say the faith-based
organizations probably have an advantage in that aspect.
And Compassion has developed a history of integrity,
largely because of the partners we work with. We also put a lot
of time and energy into auditing and quality control issues and
training issues. Almost every one of our staff around the world
are nationals. We don't put ex-pats out in the field and ask
them to manage the programs.
And there are qualified nationals around the world who are
faith-based individuals working with our organization who have
high standards. And that's part of what we teach and train as
we develop our partners around the world.
Mr. Souder. Mr. Whetstone.
Mr. Whetstone. That's exactly right. And it's not just
limited to Africa. The former Soviet Union is probably even
worse than our experiences in Kenya and South Africa. And
you're right by providing our services through nationals.
We can provide so much more and we can avoid some of the
problems in places like North Korea, where they need it worse
now, because worldwide funding is drying up. That still doesn't
mean millions of children aren't starving to death--we don't
hear that story very often in America--because there is no aid
for them.
One of the things that we experience is not just the
corruption, but because those organizations are so big, like
the World Food program and the United Nations--UN HCR and other
organizations, is they can't respond quickly enough.
A real good example of that was right after Afghanistan
hostilities broke out, millions of IDPs, internally displaced
people, fled out of where conflict was going on into western
Afghanistan, and out into the community of Herat.
In the Maslakh camp, the World Food program set up camps to
house these people, to provide shelter and sanitation and food
and that sort of thing. But they were arriving after several
days of walking, carrying anything they could carry. Carrying
children, carrying infirm adults, carrying whatever possessions
they could carry with them. And they got there after several
days exhausted, and so many in even poorer health.
The U.N. wasn't equipped to handle 5,000 to 10,000 people a
day. But at the same time, to ensure that we weren't helping
enemy combatants and other people involved in the conflict, you
had to be registered with the World Food program before you
could get aid.
So what do you do with these people that are coming in
10,000 at a time? These little informal camps sprung up around
the main camp of 500,000 IDPs. That's where we went in.
We recognized it immediately. We didn't try to take over
what the World Food program was doing. We didn't try to change
what they were doing. We didn't go in and cry, ``You're not
taking care of these people.'' We saw the need. We stepped in.
We were flexible, and we ministered to them.
Mr. Anderson. I would add one more observation that you
reminded me of, the anecdotal evidence that we've experienced
in our organization. We began 50 years ago in South Korea
during the Korean conflict. Many of our organizations started
during that time, and many of them focused on South Korea.
We were able to focus on computers, advertising programs
were used to program and manage the data. And today, South
Korea is one of the largest economies in the world. And we're
certainly not taking credit for that. But 25 plus percent
profess to be evangelical Christian.
Compassion has been to North Korea several times, where
faith has completely been eliminated as part of the equation in
people's lives. It's not allowed at all. And the values and the
corruption that has happened since those two countries have
gone two different paths is quite a contrast. And I believe
there's a lot to be learned from watching those two different
decisions.
Mr. Souder. Have either of your organizations been in Iraq?
Mr. Whetstone. We're currently in Iraq.
Mr. Anderson. We're not.
Mr. Souder. Are you in Afghanistan?
Mr. Anderson. No.
Mr. Souder. Have you expressed an interest in getting into
either of those countries?
Mr. Anderson. We're really slow. We're not a relief and
development organization. We're a long-term investment into
individuals. So when we start somewhere, we're going to be
there 20, 30 years. We follow the lives of children. So we're
very slow to go into new countries. And the second factor is we
partner with the local infrastructure and churches. And that
has to be fairly well developed.
Mr. Souder. Is there anything more? One more question, Mr.
Whetstone. Since we're heading over there and we're going to be
meeting with the President and the former king, besides making
them aware that you're there, do you have anything you want me
to raise.
Mr. Whetstone. Again, Iraq is a very touchy situation right
now, because it is hard to get in and do the relief work that's
needed to be done. It's hard to get things across the border.
But anything that can be done to facilitate that through
means other than just the United Nations would be appreciated.
Because we're efficient and we're effective.
And I think that's really what the whole debate around the
faith-based initiative ought to be. Who's effective and who's
efficient.
Mr. Souder. It's interesting to add the international
component, because it's very difficult in the United States.
But when you go into a Muslim community with a Christian
organization you have to say, ``Look, the people wouldn't come
here if they weren't Christian in their motive.''
And trying to explain to Momar Khadafy that we're going to
be able to do in 2 days what others couldn't do in months.
Weapons of mass destruction are important, but there are other
values. He's going to question Christian values and other
things related to Israel, related to Christians, and what
rights you have, women's rights in these countries, and how if
they want our engagement beyond just minimal, and yet their
culture is not going to change.
In eastern Europe, this is a huge question too with
Orthodox, at least women. The Orthodox faith, the missionary
church, they've been invited to Bulgaria, because they are
interested in opening a hospital. But looking at the missionary
church, some of those people might actually give somebody a
Bible.
It doesn't mean that they push it hard. But it means in
your own town, you now have evangelicals in your midst. These
people are giving up their careers because they have a strong
faith. So the limit is far more than just domestic. And we're
playing it out on the domestic end.
Let me give you each, if you would like to take anything at
the end of the concluding comments, and we'll go through again
with Mr. Whetstone starting.
Mr. Whetstone. Again, just thank you for the opportunity to
come here and bring these issues. I think, as the debate has
shown today, there's a lot of difference of opinion. I think
there's a lot of misunderstanding of what the faith-based
initiative is all about.
At Feed the Children, we're a little bit different from
most. However, we recognize the importance of that in the work
that these organizations do. And we want to support that.
We recognize that the assistance that we provide is a
simple, short-term assistance. And that doesn't change people's
lives. Maybe the fact that we gave it to them might change
their lives. And our example might change their lives to help
break those bonds of poverty. But it takes more, and we want to
support those churches and those rescue missions, and help them
and enable them to do more with less.
Again, effectiveness and efficiency, regardless of how you
accomplish those means. Again, if faith is involved, that
shouldn't be a discriminator in accessing funds to do more for
the poor, and to help eliminate the problem.
So that's our standpoint is to help us do more. And if we
can do it more efficiently than the government, so be it. If we
can't, let us fill those gaps. And if the government can assist
with limited resources, so be it.
Mr. Souder. Thank you. Ms. Littrell.
Ms. Littrell. I too appreciate the fact that you listened
to us today, and hopefully the diverse input that you got will
have some bearing on what goes on.
I would like to say that I basically think what we're all
after is success in the work that we do. That we want to see
that the people that come to us have the opportunity to go
ahead and lead a middle class life, if that's what they choose.
And I don't think that there's any reason that a church
can't do that work. The only thing that I would like to see is
that the opportunity be there to do that without strings.
That people be offered services that feed them, that clothe
them, that help them when they need medical attention. That
when they have a tooth that needs to be pulled or whatever,
that be done without strings.
That people that come there get the services that they
need. If, in the meantime, they say, ``Boy, I would really like
to have religious direction,'' let that be offered. Let it be
available for them.
Mr. Souder. Thank you.
Reverend Cowles.
Rev. Cowles. Well, again, thank you, like all the rest, for
coming from Indiana, and welcome to our beautiful State.
And as a person that--our partners all across the Nation,
they're mom and pop, and they don't get on the radar screen of
anybody except the local community. And they are desperate for
this kind of training, this kind of support. And they can do it
well. They can do it efficiently.
And I guess my comment would be let's try it. I think as
Bob said earlier, if it works, let's do it. Let's try it.
Because for too long, these other programs and approaches
haven't worked. We know that, and the populous knows that.
That's why they're asking for change. That's why they're
changing administrations. They want to change it. They want to
open the doors.
And I think we need to look toward the business world in
adopting a more competitive model. If it works, you get the
contract. And if you can produce, great. It doesn't matter how
you do it. If you can do it, it works. That's why businesses
rise and fail. Some make better pasta than others and people go
there.
So I think this is toward that end. I sense that this kind
of initiative is getting there. To raise up, make a level
playing field, everybody has equal opportunity to get to the
resources. And if they can produce, then wonderful. And we'll
all be better for it in the next 30 years.
Mr. Souder. Thank you.
Ms. Robinson?.
Ms. Robinson. Of course, thank you very much for listening
to us. And I think it's been a very interesting debate today.
And I've learned a lot, I know, about international issues and
things like that.
But I still will hope that the committee takes seriously
the separation between church and State when they're making
their final decisions. And, you know, it's hard. We have to
think of our vulnerable population, and putting them in the
hands of people who truly want to help them without strings
attached.
Mr. Souder. Mr. Anderson.
Mr. Anderson. Thank you. I guess I would like to encourage
you that true faith-based organizations are not going to be
able to segregate their thinking and their organizations. If
they can, they probably aren't faith-based. They're faith-based
individuals, but not as an organization.
There's a Haitian proverb that says, ``A hungry stomach has
no ears.'' And I think all of us are here and recognize that
people have needs, and we're here to meet those needs.
Some have faith-based programs and others have components
in those programs.
I would encourage you not to have fear of propagating what
might be a very efficient and effective organization.
Mr. Souder. Thank you.
Ms. Jaramillo.
Ms. Jaramillo. Thank you very much for allowing us to
testify today. And I just would probably say in closing comment
that Faith Partners really organized a response. It was the
faith community's response to welfare reform in our community,
and that we became the poster child of charitable choice in our
community.
It has been very difficult for us to continue getting help
from our supporting churches. They'll give us volunteers, but
it's very difficult for them to let go of some of the funds
that they really should be giving us.
And I see that they need to shore that up in order for it
to be a true partnership. I feel uncomfortable with being
totally supported by a government contract. However, I'll get
the work done however we can get the work done. And we
outsource the work that we do.
I'm not mentoring families. It's the wonderful volunteers
from those churches. And the work that we produce could not be
done by the welfare department. And the effect that we have on
families could not happen without our presence in their lives.
So we stepped out in faith and tested the waters of
charitable choice, and we're still in testing that. And I don't
think we're going to see results. We didn't get into this
public policy issue overnight, and we're not going to get out
of it overnight.
So in the wisdom of Mark Okasky, he says, ``It's taken
generations, decades since we ushered in the entitlement
mentality with our social policy in this country. It's going to
take decades for us to reverse that.''
So those of us that are just brave enough to weather the
storm are out there. And I don't know where this debate will
end up, but I'm glad to be a player.
Mr. Souder. Thank you.
Mr. Cote.
Mr. Cote. I commend you, Congressman, and your staff for
putting this together and having us here today. Step 13 will
not accept Federal, State, or city moneys as long as I'm
around. But I pray that you take a real, real hard look at
these faith-based organizations, because I hope that they do
get some money, a piece of the pie.
You know, try it and see what works and why, and go with
it. That's what we need to do is start fixing people instead of
just feeding them, and solving problems.
Mr. Souder. I thank you each for your testimony. My
interest in this issue arose when one of my friends got elected
to Congress, Dan Coates. And he became the senior Republican on
the Children and Family Committee.
And we went to hearing after hearing on this problem, and
it became clear to us that unless we could figure out how to
get a broader base of support, other than just government, we
weren't going to be able to deal with the social questions.
And I think there's wisdom in the words of Bob Woodson:
``Don't be a typical White guy who sits on your duff. Get out
and meet people.''
I couldn't believe the story in San Antonio. And I've gone
to see it, and I go back every few years and say, ``Are you
still here?'' Kim Gray and Gene Watkins in Los Angeles, and
Richard Guiness, and lots of grass roots organizations. Because
even in the toughest areas of the United States, there are
flowers blooming. And we need to figure out, ``OK, how do we
nurture those flowers?''
The debate will never end. I remember I met one guy in
Newark who told me he was with International Harvest. ``I came
here to save New Jersey, and then to save south Newark, and
then to save my community area, then this block, then this
house, and now if I can just get to one kid,'' he said.
Because it's important what we're trying to do, and to
reach people.
And I ran for Congress partly because of this issue. I
believe in trying to resolve it. Not just with direct funding,
but in this whole range of things. It's clearly important. And
it's too easy to ignore those that have been unfortunate. And
I've told this story multiple times. But Juan Rivera, who was
part of Freddie's ministry, the first time I went down there,
the first thing he said was, ``Are you hot? Can you I get you
some water?'' He then said, ``Can I tell you how I met Jesus?''
And I went into one housing area after another. And I met
about 50 or 60 people working in homeless shelters who went
through this same process, who had been addicts, and then later
I met another group of 50, and then met another 100 later who
went cold turkey, in some cases, off cocaine and heroin.
And I had just been at John Hopkins, where they said you
couldn't do it. Look, there are multiple methods of doing
wonderful work. Others are doing wonderful work. But for many
people, the spiritual side is a critical component of a really
huge transformation. How do we do that.
And I'm reminded of the days we were at this shelter where
people were going through the drug rehab. And this was in part
of San Antonio where American Beauty was based off of, the
movie. They had one lonely tree in the back yard.
And Juan Rivera said, ``After I got off of drugs, they gave
me a Bible, and I started to read the Bible. And every time I
come back here, it reminds me what transformed my life and how
my life transformed. And I praise God every day.''
And I said, ``I feel so ungrateful because of what I've
been given.'' And Juan said to me, ``My dream is that someday
my kids can be like you, and have the opportunities that you
have. And that's my goal.'' And I said, ``I feel so ashamed.''
And he said, ``Well, you should be ashamed. You're
ungrateful.'' I said, ``No, I'm unashamed.'' He said, ``You
should be ashamed. People who have been given much, much is
expected.''
And in trying to do that, and in trying to figure out how
we can do this with our Constitutional provisions, how to do
this with the fact that lots of Christians wouldn't want their
tax dollars going to people that hit the mat and pray to Allah
at 5 is a condition for getting sued.
This is not an easy matter to work through. And we're
trying to work through it and yet say, ``Look, there are not
enough people who are focused on helping people who are in
need. And we can't have these divisions and bitterness among
us, because we're so few.'' And we're trying to work that
through. And it's going to be very difficult to get anything
done.
This year will be like this, but I'm hoping as we get
through the election year, we can come back through and move
some of these things, at least move in the executive branch.
Last statement. I feel compelled to say, and I'm sorry Mr.
Tollefson is not here, but the National Day of Prayer is not
funded by the Federal Government. It has not nothing to do with
it. And Shirley Dobson and some other people formed that.
And they're required to have all kinds of people in it,
because it's a private sector project that anybody can join
from different programs. And you can argue about that, but it
really wasn't relevant. And I didn't feel that was a fair
statement to have in the record unresponded to.
And I also think Colorado Springs is a good place to come
to have a public hearing. There is a lot of diversity in
Colorado Springs, as you broach the different issues. And I
wanted to put that on the record.
Thank you for taking time out of your busy day. And more
importantly, thank you for each of your organizations working
to help people who desperately need your help. And if you could
express that to those people who are working back in your
organizations, because without them, there would be people who
would be both hungry and hurting and also need spiritual help
too.
With that, the subcommittee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 1:16 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Additional information submitted for the hearing record
follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4492.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4492.043