[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 95 (Tuesday, July 10, 2001)]
[House]
[Pages H3811-H3818]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  ENCOURAGING CORPORATIONS TO CONTRIBUTE TO FAITH-BASED ORGANIZATIONS

  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to 
the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 170) encouraging corporations 
to contribute to faith-based organizations.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                            H. Con. Res. 170

       Whereas America's community of faith has long played a 
     leading role in dealing with difficult societal problems that 
     might otherwise have gone unaddressed;
       Whereas President Bush has called upon Americans ``to 
     revive the spirit of citizenship . . . to marshal the 
     compassion of our people to meet the continuing needs of our 
     Nation'';
       Whereas although the work of faith-based organizations 
     should not be used by government as an excuse for backing 
     away from its historic and rightful commitment to help those 
     who are disadvantaged and in need, such organizations can and 
     should be seen as a valuable partner with government in 
     meeting societal challenges;
       Whereas every day faith-based organizations in the United 
     States help people recover from drug and alcohol addiction, 
     provide food and shelter for the homeless, rehabilitate 
     prison inmates so that they can break free from the cycle of 
     recidivism, and teach people job skills that will allow them 
     to move from poverty to productivity;
       Whereas faith-based organizations are often more successful 
     in dealing with difficult societal problems than government 
     and non-sectarian organizations;
       Whereas, as President Bush recently stated, ``It is not 
     sufficient to praise charities and community groups; we must 
     support them. And this is both a public obligation and a 
     personal responsibility.'';
       Whereas corporate foundations contribute billions of 
     dollars each year to a variety of philanthropic causes;
       Whereas according to a recent study produced by the Capital 
     Research Center, the 10 largest corporate foundations in the 
     United States contributed $1,900,000,000 to such causes;
       Whereas according to the same study, faith-based 
     organizations only receive a small fraction of the 
     contributions made by corporations in the United States, and 
     6 of the 10 corporations that give the most to philanthropic 
     causes explicitly ban or restrict contributions to faith-
     based organizations: Now, therefore, be it

[[Page H3812]]

       Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 
     concurring), That--
       (1) Congress calls on corporations in the United States, in 
     the words of the President, ``to give more and to give 
     better'' by making greater contributions to faith-based 
     organizations that are on the front lines battling some of 
     the great societal challenges of our day; and
       (2) it is the sense of Congress that--
       (A) corporations in the United States are important 
     partners with government in efforts to overcome difficult 
     societal problems; and
       (B) no corporation in the United States should adopt 
     policies that prohibit the corporation from contributing to 
     an organization that is successfully advancing a 
     philanthropic cause merely because such organization is faith 
     based.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) 
each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield).


                             General Leave

  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their 
remarks on this legislation and to insert extraneous material on the 
concurrent resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Kentucky?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of House Concurrent 
Resolution 170, which calls on America's corporations to increase their 
support of faith-based charities.
  In 1999, the last year in which facts were available, a total of 
$190.16 billion were contributed to charities throughout America. Of 
that amount, corporations contributed $11.02 billion to charities, 
which is 5.8 percent of the total amount given to charities in America 
came from corporations. Unfortunately, some of America's largest 
corporations as a matter of policy explicitly discriminate against 
faith-based organizations.
  Now, there are many effective charitable groups throughout our 
country. These organizations have developed effective programs to 
assist people to recover from drug and alcohol addiction, provide food 
and shelter for the homeless, rehabilitate prison inmates, and to teach 
job skills that will allow individuals to move from poverty to 
productivity, from dependence to independence.
  Now, in this resolution, we are not encouraging faith-based groups to 
do any proselytizing. As a matter of fact, they do not proselytize and 
recommend their particular religion. They are there for one purpose and 
one purpose only, and that is to provide assistance to people who need 
assistance.
  For example, charities like the Alpha Alternative Pregnancy Care 
Center in my hometown of Hopkinsville, Kentucky. Alpha Alternative is a 
place where women in an unwanted pregnancy situation can turn for 
Christian compassion and help in a time of great personal crisis. They 
minister to their clients with parenting skills, classes, material 
assistance, and counseling. If this faith-based charity were to receive 
more corporate support, perhaps Alpha Alternative could also expand its 
services to include other medical diagnostic services and job training 
programs. But with corporate policies banning support for worthwhile 
faith-based charities, community groups like Alpha Alternative will 
never reach their true potential.
  I ask my colleagues today to join with me in voting for this 
resolution calling on the conscience of America's largest companies not 
to discriminate against an organization that is successfully advancing 
philanthropic and human causes, and not to discriminate merely because 
they happen to be faith based. As I said earlier, these groups are not 
out proselytizing. They are not out trying to impose their religion on 
anyone, and this legislation is not trying to impose religion on 
anyone. This legislation simply asks corporate America to help 
effective organizations, whether they be faith based or secular.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I am not sure exactly what role Congress should have in 
trying to dictate to American families or American corporations how 
they should contribute their charitable contributions and to whom they 
should contribute those dollars, but I would point out that this 
particular resolution has, in effect, no real legal teeth to it. Much 
of it is a sense of Congress, and to the extent that the goal of this 
resolution is to say to individuals and corporate leaders to take a 
look at faith-based organizations in America, they are doing a lot of 
good work addressing social problems, then I endorse that approach.
  Were this resolution more than, in effect, a sense of Congress and 
was actually going to dictate policy to corporate trusts, I certainly 
would have thought it would have made sense for the House committees to 
have met either the Committee on the Judiciary, or the Committee on 
Commerce, to at least have a hearing on this to try and direct $1.9 
billion in charitable giving. It is my understanding that there was no 
House committee hearing of either the Committee on the Judiciary or the 
Committee on Commerce on this measure. However, because this resolution 
is basically a voluntary message to corporations to consider the good 
work of many faith-based charities, I would not adamantly object to the 
principal goal of this.
  But what, Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment on today is why this 
voluntary approach toward giving to faith-based charities is much more 
acceptable to me and other Members of Congress and religious leaders 
than the President's faith-based initiative. The President's faith-
based initiative in contrast to this has several fundamental flaws, and 
if this bill had any of these flaws built into it in the essence of 
law, I would oppose this resolution.
  First of all, the President's faith-based initiative as exemplified 
in H.R. 7 would, for the first time in our country's history, direct 
Federal tax dollars going immediately into the coffers of our houses of 
worship, our churches, our synagogues, and other houses of worship. I 
think that approach to supporting faith-based charities is patently 
unconstitutional. I think giving billions of Federal dollars directly 
to faith-based organizations, tax dollars to faith-based organizations 
would inevitably and absolutely lead to government regulation of 
religion and our churches.
  Thirdly, I think the administration approach toward faith-based 
initiatives as exemplified in H.R. 7 would lead to religious strife, as 
thousands of different faith-based groups would be coming to 
Washington, D.C. competing for tens of billions of Federal tax dollars. 
If one wants to write a prescription for religious strife in America, 
Mr. Speaker, I could think of no better way to do it than to have 
thousands of churches and houses of worship coming to our Nation's 
capital and competing before Cabinet Members for tens of billions of 
dollars of Federal money.
  The fourth problem I have with the faith-based initiative and the 
President's program in contrast to this resolution is that the 
President's faith-based initiative would actually subsidize, subsidize 
religious discrimination. It would actually take Federal tax dollars 
and allow a faith-based group to put up a sign, paid for by our tax 
dollars, that would say, no Jew, no Catholic, no Mormon, no Baptist 
need apply here for a federally funded job. I think that type of 
approach to helping charities is really a great retreat in our 40-year 
march toward greater civil rights in America.
  The fifth objection I have to the President's proposal on faith-based 
initiatives versus this sense of Congress resolution is that the 
President's proposal really puts Congress and faith-based groups into a 
Catch-22. If we say that they cannot use Federal dollars to 
proselytize, to push their religion and their faith upon others, then, 
in effect, what we are doing is giving Federal dollars to faith-based 
groups and saying that one cannot use their faith in carrying out one's 
social mission. So in effect, the President's program, if implemented, 
would actually take the faith out of faith-based organizations, the 
very thing I would believe the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield) 
and I would agree makes many faith-based organizations so special, the 
fact that they can inject their faith into

[[Page H3813]]

their process of turning around people's lives and solving their 
problems.

                              {time}  1430

  So my point, Mr. Speaker, is this: I am not sure exactly whether this 
should be a top priority today for Congress, and in fact a sense of 
Congress resolution, to be telling corporate foundations how to spend 
billions of dollars, but I do applaud the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. 
Whitfield) in what I interpret is his basic approach, to send a message 
to America to say, look at the good work of faith-based organizations.
  As a person of faith, I believe these organizations are doing 
excellent work in many cases. Not in all cases, but in many cases, they 
truly are changing people's lives in a positive manner.
  But I think it is very important for Members to know that in 
supporting this resolution today, they are not adopting the provisions 
of H.R. 7 as proposed by the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Watts) and 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall) and others. We are not endorsing 
those resolutions that would actually allow Federal tax dollars to go 
directly to houses of worship. I would passionately oppose such a bill, 
such a proposal, or such a resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Green), who was the author and primary sponsor of this 
resolution.
  Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend and colleague, 
the gentleman from Kentucky, for yielding time to me, and for his kind 
words.
  Mr. Speaker, the seeds for this resolution come from a speech that 
our President gave at the University of Notre Dame commencement 
ceremony a few months ago. In that speech, President Bush laid out for 
America a great challenge. In his words, that challenge ``was to revive 
the spirit of citizenship, to marshall the compassion of our people to 
meet the continuing needs of our Nation.''
  He went on to remind us that, in his words, ``It is not sufficient to 
praise charities and community groups. We must support them.'' This is 
both a public obligation and a personal responsibility.
  Mr. Speaker, unlike my friend and colleague, the gentleman from 
Texas, I hope this body will take up H.R. 7, the Community Solutions 
Act, and take it up soon. It will create enhanced incentives for 
charitable giving, it will expand charitable choice, it will break down 
the barriers that prevent charitable sectors from being greater 
partners in the war on poverty.
  I believe the debate on the faith-based initiative will be a great 
and historic one, one that may help us turn the corner in the war on 
poverty, so I am a strong and passionate supporter.
  But in the meantime, this resolution that is before us today is 
designed to nudge corporate America into providing even more immediate 
reinforcements to faith-based organizations that are already taking up 
the mission that the President has called for, organizations that have 
heeded the President's call, and that of so many, many American leaders 
that have gone before him.
  This resolution seeks to draw attention to charitable efforts that 
are already under way, that are already working so beautifully; more 
importantly, to draw attention to the sad lack of support that these 
groups have received, not from individuals but from America's 
wealthiest foundations.
  This resolution celebrates good news, and it points out tragic news.
  First, the good news. As both of the previous speakers have noted, 
each Member of this House can point with pride and with gratitude to 
organizations in his or her community that are lifting lives and 
healing neighborhoods and making a wonderful difference. These groups 
are the conscience of our people. They are helping people recover from 
drug and alcohol addiction. They are providing shelter, comfort, and 
food for the homeless. They are rehabilitating prison inmates and 
breaking the cycle of recidivism.
  Hundreds of these organizations were represented recently at the 
faith-based summit here in Washington. As a participant in that summit, 
I can say there was more positive energy for poverty relief gathered 
here in the Capital than at any time in decades.
  There were wonderful organizations like Rawhide Boys Ranch from 
northeastern Wisconsin. Established nearly four decades ago as a faith-
based alternative to juvenile detention, Rawhide accepts 100 troubled 
boys each year without regard to race or religious belief or economic 
background. These boys are counseled, given personal academic and 
vocational training, and they are taught discipline and given love. 
This program changes lives because it changes hearts.
  There were organizations like Urban Hope, a faith-based ministry in 
Green Bay, Wisconsin, committed to empowering and revitalizing people 
and communities through entrepreneurship; yes, entrepreneurship. It 
teaches credit and budgeting, entrepreneurial ideas, and has a 
microloan program. In its brief time of existence, it has launched over 
121 new businesses in the Green Bay area.
  Of course, nearly every community in America has a Bureau of Catholic 
Charities. There are over 1,400 agencies, institutions, and 
organizations that make up Catholic Charities. Over 9\1/2\ million 
people each year, people who are in need, turn to them for services 
ranging from adoption to soup kitchens, child care to prison ministry, 
disaster relief to refugee and immigration assistance.
  In summary, these armies of compassion are fighting brush fires all 
across this great land.
  Now the sad news, the tragic news. According to the Capital Research 
Center my colleague, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield) has 
just mentioned, the 10 largest U.S. corporate foundations have given 
out roughly $2 billion each year to charities, but a mere fraction of 
that has gone to these very organizations that each of us have referred 
to.
  It has given little to them regardless of their effectiveness. In 
fact, of the 10 largest corporations in America, six have specific 
restrictions that either ban outright giving to faith-based 
organizations, or greatly restricting it. In fact, of the 10 which have 
provided enough information, not one of them has given 5 percent.
  Mr. Speaker, according to that same Capital Research Center report, 
the leading 1,000 foundations in America have targeted just 2.3 percent 
of their grants to faith-based organizations. The top 100 foundations 
have given just 1.5 percent.
  I do not know if this is political correctness, I do not know if this 
is a lack of awareness of what these great organizations are doing. I 
am wondering if these organizations, these corporations, these 
foundations, have become conscientious objectors in the battle against 
poverty. I hope not. I am sure my colleagues share that sentiment.
  Whatever the cause, whatever the reason, it is time for these 
restrictions to fall. It is time for the reticence of corporate America 
to end. It is time for corporate America, it is time for foundations 
and American citizens everywhere, to take up the cause of these 
organizations; to contribute, to give them what they can, whether it be 
financial resources, tools, expertise, whatever they can give to help 
them help us fight poverty and the consequences of poverty.
  We are not asking these corporations to do any more than we should do 
each as individuals to turn citizenship and civic responsibility from 
an all too passive term to an activist philosophy, because it is only 
when each of us and these foundations and these corporations take up 
the fight, I believe it is only when that happens that we will make a 
difference.
  I urge my colleagues to support this resolution. It is a sense of the 
Congress resolution, but it shines a spotlight on the wonderful work 
that is being done, and it shines a spotlight on the sad tragedy that 
too many corporations, too many foundations have not been there to 
help. I think shining this spotlight is important, and I hope it will 
make a difference.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out, not knowing the facts, since 
there was not a committee hearing on this, that some of the 
corporations whose charitable contributions are in effect

[[Page H3814]]

being criticized today might not want to give to some faith-based 
groups because they do proselytize.
  I know the gentleman from Kentucky talked about groups that do not 
proselytize. There are many faith-based groups that provide soup 
kitchens, alcohol and drug rehabilitation programs, and they do not 
proselytize. But there are many other faith-based groups that part of 
their very mission as a religious, pervasively sectarian entity is to 
proselytize, to sell their faith to others to try to change their 
lives.
  So not knowing what the policy is, these corporations, that might be 
one valid reason why many of these corporations choose not to give 
their philanthropy to faith-based organizations.
  Again, I commend the gentleman from Kentucky today for pointing out 
the good work done by faith-based groups of many different religious 
faiths across the country. But Mr. Speaker, as we begin this opening 
chapter in the debate this summer on the role of government and faith-
based organizations, I think it is important that we keep in historical 
perspective the reason why our Founding Fathers felt so strongly about 
the separation of government and its ability to regulate religion.
  Mr. Speaker, many Americans would be surprised that God is not 
mentioned in America's governing document, our Constitution. Was this 
an unintended omission? Did our Founding Fathers intend to show 
disrespect toward God and faith? Did they not understand the importance 
of religion in our country?
  One could imagine modern-day politicians railing against this 
``discrimination'' against religion shown by our Founding Fathers. 
Worse yet, they could be attacked for beginning the Bill of Rights with 
these words: ``Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment 
of religion.''
  Were Madison, Jefferson, and others guilty of anti-religious, anti-
faith discrimination? The truth is, our Founding Fathers did not 
mention God in our Constitution not out of disrespect to God or 
religion, but out of total reverence for religious liberty. They 
believed human history proved that government involvement harmed rather 
than helped religion.
  Jefferson wrote reverently of the wall of separation between church 
and State. Mr. Speaker, that wall of separation is not designed to keep 
people of faith out of government, but rather, to keep government and 
its regulations out of religion and our faith.
  Were our Founding Fathers right or wrong in separating politics from 
religion? Let us fast-forward to today's world. In Denmark, churches 
are subsidized by taxes, and church attendance is extremely low. In 
China, citizens are put in prison for their religious beliefs. In 
Afghanistan, the government is taking religious minorities and forcing 
them to wear identification symbols that evoke Nazi tactics. In the 
Middle East and Sudan, religious differences have been the basis for 
conflict and hatred and terrorism.
  In contrast to those countries where government and religion are so 
entwined, in the United States religious faith and freedom, tolerance, 
and generosity are flourishing. The difference is that in the other 
countries, government and religion are intertwined. But in the United 
States, our Bill of Rights prohibits government from direct involvement 
in our religion and our own personal faith.
  Madison and Jefferson were not so anti-religion after all when they 
created the wall of separation between church and State. As I said, 
that wall is not intended to keep people of faith out of being involved 
in government or having a voice in government, but rather, it was 
clearly intended to keep government from being able to control 
religion.
  How wise they were in establishing that wall. Maybe our Founding 
Fathers expressed true reverence in recognizing that faith should be a 
matter only between an individual and God, with no need for government 
interference.
  Despite the wisdom of our Founding Fathers and all the lessons of 
human history, I believe it should alarm Americans of all faiths that 
the administration and some Members of Congress propose other 
legislation, in contrast to this, that would allow the Federal 
government to send billions of dollars directly to churches, synagogues 
and houses of worship. This proposal, soon to be voted on in the House, 
is known as charitable choice. Unlike this resolution, it would have 
the teeth of law.
  So-called charitable choice legislation is a bad choice. Direct 
government funding of our houses of worship would inevitably lead to 
government regulation of religion. Government simply cannot spend 
billions of tax dollars without audits and regulations. Do we really 
want Federal auditors and investigators digging through the financial 
records of our churches, synagogues, and houses of worship? Do we 
really want prosecutors going after pastors and rabbis who have not 
handled their faith-based Federal money properly?
  It would be also a huge step backwards in our march of civil rights 
for charitable choice legislation to not only allow but to actually 
subsidize religious discrimination. Under that bill, a religious group 
using tax dollars could refuse to hire someone for a secular job simply 
because of that person's sincere religious faith.
  Do we really want government officials deciding which religions and 
which houses of worship should receive billions of Federal tax dollars? 
I could not think of a better cause or a better basis for religious 
strife in America than to encourage the competition between churches, 
synagogues, and mosques, causing them to compete for billions of 
Federal dollars.
  Even the short recent debate over the charitable choice issue has 
already caused religious tension in our country as some religious 
leaders have recently said they do not want other religions different 
from their own to receive Federal tax dollars. The President even 
several weeks ago accused those opposed to his faith-based initiatives 
as being skeptics who do not understand the power of faith.

                              {time}  1445

  Forgetting the fact that numerous religious leaders oppose the 
President's proposals on church-State grounds, is it healthy to have a 
President challenging citizens' religious faith because they differ 
with him on a public policy issue? I think not.
  In the face, Mr. Speaker, of religious strife throughout the world, I 
would hope that Americans would understand that religious freedom and 
tolerance, protected by the Bill of Rights, is the crown jewel of 
America's experiment in democracy. We tamper with that freedom at our 
own peril.
  As a person of faith, I am willing to say that this resolution today 
is well intended, is intended to voluntarily encourage corporations to 
give their money to faith-based organizations if they believe those 
organizations are doing good work for our country. But let us be very 
clear in drawing the line between this voluntary-type Sense of Congress 
Resolution and actually using the power of government to regulate and 
fund our faith in our houses of worship.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Souder).
  (Mr. SOUDER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, first I would like to thank the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Green) for his leadership in bringing this 
resolution to the floor, his enthusiasm for the concept, as he has 
battled through committee and defended the whole concept, but 
particularly this in the private sector.
  I would like to make a couple other comments here at the beginning as 
well. Those in the gallery and those who have been here to the House 
floor can see we are surrounded by lawgivers, all whose heads are 
turned sideways, except for Moses, who looks straight down on the 
Speaker of the House, or the acting Speaker; and it says ``In God We 
Trust.'' Clearly, Congress has decided that what is wrong, and the 
reason in the Constitution they decided what was wrong, was to use 
government funds to proselytize for sectarian purposes. They did not 
mean a total separation of church and State.
  When the wall of separation line was developed, it was developed in 
Virginia because they were paying even for the pastor's home and the 
actual church in Virginia, and the Evangelicals objected to funding the 
Anglicans. That is not

[[Page H3815]]

what the founding fathers intended. They did not want proselytization, 
but they did not have a complete separation as long as there was no 
proselytizing.
  I also want to thank my friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Edwards). I appreciate his support of this resolution today and working 
with me and others on tax alternatives. He has been consistent. We have 
a disagreement on charitable choice and government funding, but we do 
not oppose private funding. It is wrong for us to cast aspersions on 
others who disagree with certain parts because we have an honest 
disagreement about what this country should do and how we should 
proceed. And we have had several good debates on that. This resolution 
is not part of that debate.
  This resolution should be unanimous because those who oppose public 
funds also speak in favor of private funds, and this encourages more 
private-sector funding. But if corporate private-sector funding does 
not go to faith-based and is biased against faith-based organizations 
as well, where do these resource-poor organizations go?
  Many of our most effective poverty-fighting organizations are in the 
country's poorest areas, in the poorest areas of my hometown of Fort 
Wayne, of Milwaukee, of Chicago, of New York, of Boston, wherever you 
go, they are people rich but resource poor. They are often struggling 
to get through that day or that week. They often have volunteers who 
work many, many hours and into the night. When government employees 
often leave at 5 o'clock, we see these people volunteering, because 
many of the problems in our toughest neighborhoods occur between 10 at 
night and 4 in the morning; not often when government employees are 
there. Often they work without health benefits or any other kind of 
benefits. Also, the churches from which they rise often have no 
financial resources.
  We are not here talking about the church itself or the ministry. 
Because I agree, if the money goes straight to the churches and gets 
incorporated and they become dependent on that, we will wreck the 
churches of America, like has happened to some degree, as the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Edwards) pointed out, around the world. But this is in 
their outreach ministries. Can they, if they do not proselytize with 
government funds, can they be included in faith-based organizations?
  Now, the problem, as President Bush has pointed out and the Capital 
Research Center and as previous speakers have previously pointed out, 
many of our top organizations ban funding for faith-based 
organizations. Number one, General Motors, says that contributions 
generally are not provided to religious organizations. Number three, 
the Ford Motor Company, says as a general policy they do not support 
religious or sectarian programs. Number four, ExxonMobile, says we do 
not provide funds for political or religious causes. Number six, IBM, 
does not make corporate donations or grants from corporate 
philanthropic funds to religious groups.
  Where are they to turn? If the biggest funders deny them, if the 
government denies them, if their churches are poor, and yet they are 
the most effective, where do they turn?
  In President Bush's Notre Dame commencement speech, and I am proud I 
graduated from Notre Dame and I am thrilled he gave this speech at 
Notre Dame, he quoted Knute Rockne, certainly the most famous football 
coach in American history, next to our fellow congressman, the 
gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne), Knute Rockne said, ``I have 
found prayers work best when you have big players.'' Big players in 
this case are the volunteers and also the dollars.
  There has been a lot of misunderstanding about President Bush's 
faith-based initiative. He has always said from the beginning that 
private giving is first and foremost. The amount of private giving in 
America far exceeds anything that the government will do in these 
areas.
  Number one are individual contributions, which are in this bill, 
which would allow nonitemizers to tax deduct, as well as some other 
incentives for individual giving and corporate giving; and, number two, 
is to urge corporate foundations and corporate entities themselves to 
give private donations. That is where the real dollars will come, and 
that is where there is the least strings. At a minimum, this Congress 
should not only pass this resolution today but the tax part of the 
President's initiative.
  His second most important part was the so-called compassion fund, 
because even now faith-based organizations are eligible but they have 
no idea where the grants are. They have no idea, a lot of times, what 
the laws are on proselytizing, how to set up 501(c)(3)'s, how to have 
an isolated fund so they do not get sued and so they do not get 
intermingled. That compassion fund is a critical part of the 
President's agenda. All the focus has been on number three, which we 
have already passed through the House, which is already law in welfare 
reform, and which is law in other areas, and that is the so-called 
charitable choice provision. It is important. I strongly support it.
  The bill that passed out of the committees just before we left for 
the July 4th break made the differentiations that I believe are needed 
to follow constitutional law, and I strongly support that. But it is 
most important for us to remember that the key thing is to get the 
dollars to where the resources, the people resources are. And that 
starts first and foremost with individual giving and corporate giving.
  Once again, I commend the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green) for 
his resolution today, for our House leadership, for the gentleman from 
Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield), and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards), 
and others, for doing this. We are a diverse country. We need to 
protect our diversity. But our multiple faiths in this country will 
always be the anchor of our diversity.
  Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the commencement speech the 
President gave at Notre Dame, which I referred to earlier.

            Remarks By The President In Commencement Address

       THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, Father Malloy. Thank you all for 
     that warm welcome. Chairman McCartan, Father Scully, Dr. 
     Hatch, Notre Dame trustees, members of the class of 2001. 
     (Applause.) It is a high privilege to receive this degree. 
     I'm particularly pleased that it bears the great name of 
     Notre Dame. My brother, Jeb, may be the Catholic in the 
     family--(laughter)--but between us, I'm the only Domer. 
     (Laughter and applause.)
       I have spoken in this campus once before. It was in 1980, 
     the year my Dad ran for Vice President with Ronald Reagan. I 
     think I really won over the crowd that day. (Laughter). In 
     fact, I'm sure of it, because all six of them walked me to my 
     car. (Laughter.)
       That was back when Father Hesburgh was president of this 
     university, during a tenure that in many ways defined the 
     reputation and values of Notre Dame. It's a real honor to be 
     with Father Hesburgh, and with Father Joyce. Between them, 
     these two good priests have given nearly a century of service 
     to Notre Dame. I'm told that Father Hesburgh now holds 146 
     honorary degrees. (Applause.) That's pretty darn impressive. 
     Father, but I'm gaining on you. (Laughter.) As of today, I'm 
     only 140 behind. (Laughter.)
       Let me congratulate all the members of the class of 2001. 
     (Applause.) You made it, and we're all proud of you on this 
     big day. I also congratulate the parents, who, after these 
     years, are happy, proud--and broke. (Laughter and applause.)
       I commend this fine faculty, for the years of work and 
     instruction that produced this outstanding class.
       And I'm pleased to join my fellow honorees, as well. I'm in 
     incredibly distinguished company with authors, executives, 
     educators, church officials and an eminent scientist. We're 
     sharing a memorable day and a great honor, and I congratulate 
     you all. (Applause.)
       Notre Dame, as a Catholic university, carries forward a 
     great tradition of social teaching. It calls on all of us, 
     Catholic and non-Catholic, to honor family, to protect life 
     in all its stages, to serve and uplift the poor. This 
     university is more than a community of scholars, it is a 
     community of conscience--and an ideal place to report on our 
     nation's commitment to the poor, and how we're keeping it.
       In 1964, the year I started college, another President from 
     Texas delivered a commencement address talking about this 
     national commitment. In that speech, President Lyndon Johnson 
     issued a challenge. He said, ``This is the time for decision. 
     You are the generation which must decide. Will you decide to 
     leave the future a society where a man is condemned to 
     hopelessness because he was born poor? Or will you join to 
     wipe out poverty in this land?
       In that speech, Lyndon Johnson advocated a War on Poverty 
     which has noble intentions and enduring success. Poor 
     families got basic health care; disadvantaged children were 
     given a head start in life. Yet, there were also some 
     consequences that no one wanted or intended. The welfare 
     entitlement became an enemy of personal effort and 
     responsibility, turning many recipients into dependents. The 
     War on Poverty also turned too

[[Page H3816]]

     many citizens into bystanders, convinced that compassion had 
     become the work of government alone.
       In 1996, welfare reform confronted the first of these 
     problems, with a five-year time limit on benefits, and a work 
     requirement to receive them. Instead of a way of life, 
     welfare became an officer of temporary help--not an 
     entitlement, but a transition. Thanks in large part of this 
     change, welfare rolls have been cut in half. Work and self-
     respect have been returned to many lives. This is a tribute 
     to the Republicans and democrats we agreed on reform, and to 
     the President who signed it: President Bill Clinton. 
     (Applause.)
       Our nation has confronted welfare dependency. But our work 
     is only half done. Now we must confront the second problem: 
     to revive the spirit of citizenship--to marshal the 
     compassion of our people to meet the continuing needs of our 
     nation. This is a challenge to my administration, and to each 
     one of you. We must meet that challenge--because it is right, 
     and because it is urgent.
       Welfare as we knew it has ended, but poverty has not. When 
     over 12 million children live below the poverty line, we are 
     not a post-poverty America. Most states are seeing the first 
     wave of welfare recipients who have reached the law's five-
     year time limit. The easy cases have already left the welfare 
     rolls. The hardest problems remain--people with far fewer 
     skills and greater barriers to work. People with complex 
     human problems, like illiteracy and addiction, abuse and 
     mental illness. We do not yet know what will happen to these 
     men and women, or to their children. But we cannot sit and 
     watch, leaving them to their own struggles and their own 
     fate.
       There is a great deal at stake. In our attitudes and 
     actions, we are determining the character of our country. 
     When poverty is considered hopeless, America is condemned to 
     permanent social division, becoming a nation of caste and 
     class, divided by fences and gates and guards.
       Our task is clear, and it's difficult: we must build our 
     country's unity by extending our country's blessings. We make 
     that commitment because we are Americans. Aspiration is the 
     essence of our country. We believe in social mobility, not 
     social Darwinism. We are the country of the second chance, 
     where failure is never final. And that dream has sometimes 
     been deferred. It must never be abandoned.
       We are committed to compassion for practical reasons. When 
     men and women are lost to themselves, they are also lost to 
     our nation. When millions are hopeless, all of us are 
     diminished by the loss of their gifts.
       And we're committed to compassion for moral reasons. Jewish 
     prophets and Catholic teaching both speak of God's special 
     concern for the poor. This is perhaps the most radical 
     teaching of faith--that the value of life is not contingent 
     on wealth or strength or skill. That value is a reflection of 
     God's image.
       Much of today's poverty has more to do with troubled lives 
     than a troubled economy. And often when a life is broken, it 
     can only be restored by another caring, concerned human 
     being. The answer for an abandoned child is not a job 
     requirement--it is the loving presence of a mentor. The 
     answer to addiction is not a demand for self-sufficiency--it 
     is personal support on the hard road to recovery.
       The hope we seek is found in safe havens for battered women 
     and children, in homeless shelters, in crisis pregnancy 
     centers, in programs that tutor and conduct job training and 
     help young people when they happen to be on parole. All these 
     efforts provide not just a benefit, but attention and 
     kindness, a touch of courtesy, a dose of grace.
       Mother Teresa said that what the poor often need, even more 
     than shelter and food--though these are desperately needed, 
     as well--is to be wanted. And that sense of belonging is 
     within the power of each of us to provide. Many in this 
     community have shown what compassion can accomplish.
       Notre Dame's own Lou Nanni is the former director of South 
     Bend's Center for the Homeless--an institution founded by two 
     Notre Dame professors. It provides guests with everything 
     from drug treatment to mental health service, to classes in 
     the Great Books, to preschool for young children. Discipline 
     is tough. Faith is encouraged, not required. Student 
     volunteers are committed and consistent and central to its 
     mission. Lou Nanni describes this mission as ``repairing the 
     fabric'' of society by letting people see the inherent 
     ``worth and dignity and God-given potential'' of every human 
     being.
       Compassion often works best on a small and human scale. It 
     is generally better when a call for help is local, not long 
     distance. Here at this university, you've heard that call and 
     responded. It is part of what makes Notre Dame a great 
     university.
       This is my message today: there is no great society which 
     is not a caring society. And any effective war on poverty 
     must deploy what Dorothy Day called ``the weapons of 
     spirit.''
       There is only one problem with groups like South Bend's 
     Center for the Homeless--there are not enough of them. It's 
     not sufficient to praise charities and community groups, we 
     must support them. And this is both a public obligation and a 
     personal responsibility.
       The War on Poverty established a federal commitment to the 
     poor. The welfare reform legislation of 1996 made that 
     commitment more effective. For the task ahead, we must move 
     to the third stage of combating poverty in America. Our 
     society must enlist, equip and empower idealistic Americans 
     in the works of compassion that only they can provide.
       Government has an important role. It will never be replaced 
     by charities. My administration increases funding for major 
     social welfare and poverty programs by 8 percent. Yet, 
     government must also do more to take the side of charities 
     and community healers, and support their work. We've had 
     enough of the stale debate between big government and 
     indifferent government. Government must be active enough to 
     fund services for the poor--and humble enough to let good 
     people in local communities provide those services.
       So I have created a White House Office of Faith-based and 
     Community Initiatives. (Applause.) Through that office we are 
     working to ensure that local community helpers and healers 
     receive more federal dollars, greater private support and 
     face fewer bureaucratic barriers. We have proposed a 
     ``compassion capital fund,'' that will match private giving 
     with federal dollars. (Applause.)
       We have proposed allowing all taxpayers to deduct their 
     charitable contributions--including non-itemizers. 
     (Applause.) This could encourage almost $15 billion a year in 
     new charitable giving. My attitude is, everyone in America--
     whether they are well-off or not--should have the same 
     incentive and reward for giving.
       And we're in the process of implementing and expanding 
     ``charitable choice''--the principle, already established in 
     federal law, that faith-based organizations should not suffer 
     discrimination when they compete for contracts to provide 
     social services. (Applause.) Government should never fund the 
     teaching of faith, but it should support the good works of 
     the faithful. (Applause.)
       Some critics of this approach object to the idea of 
     government funding going to any group motivated by faith. But 
     they should take a look around them. Public money already 
     goes to groups like the Center for the Homeless and, on a 
     larger scale, to Catholic Charities. Do the critics really 
     want to cut them off? Medicaid and Medicare money currently 
     goes to religious hospitals. Should this practice be ended? 
     Child care vouchers for low income families are redeemed 
     every day at houses of worship across America. Should this be 
     prevented? Government loans send countless students to 
     religious colleges. Should that be banned? Of course not. 
     (Applause.)
       America has a long tradition of accommodating and 
     encouraging religious institutions when they pursue public 
     goals. My administration did not create that tradition--but 
     we will expand it to confront some urgent problems.
       Today, I am adding two initiatives to our agenda, in the 
     areas of housing and drug treatment. Owning a home is a 
     source of dignity for families and stability for 
     communities--and organizations like Habitat for Humanity 
     make that dream possible for many low income Americans. 
     Groups of this type currently receive some funding from 
     the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The 
     budget I submit to Congress next year will propose a 
     three-fold increase in this funding--which will expand 
     homeownership, and the hope and pride that come with it. 
     (Applause.)
       And nothing is more likely to perpetuate poverty than a 
     life enslaved to drugs. So we've proposed $1.6 billion in new 
     funds to close what I call the treatment gap--the gap between 
     5 million Americans who need drug treatment, and the 2 
     million who currently receive it. We will also propose that 
     all these funds--all of them--be opened to equal competition 
     from faith-based and community groups.
       The federal government should do all these things; but 
     others have responsibilities, as well--including corporate 
     America.
       Many corporations in America do good work, in good causes. 
     But if we hope to substantially reduce poverty and suffering 
     in our country, corporate America needs to give more--and to 
     give better. (Applause.) Faith-based organizations receive 
     only a tiny percentage of overall corporate giving. 
     Currently, six of the 10 largest corporate givers in America 
     explicitly rule out or restrict donations to faith-based 
     groups, regardless of their effectiveness. The federal 
     government will not discriminate against faith-based 
     organizations, and neither should corporate America. 
     (Applause.)
       In the same spirit, I hope America's foundations consider 
     ways they may devote more of their money to our nation's 
     neighborhood and their helpers and their healers. I will 
     convene a summit this fall, asking corporate and 
     philanthropic leaders throughout America to join me at the 
     White House to discuss ways they can provide more support to 
     community organizations--both secular and religious.
       Ultimately, your country is counting on each of you. Knute 
     Rockne once said, ``I have found that prayers work best when 
     you have big players.'' (Laugher and applause.) We can pray 
     for the justice of our country, but you're the big players we 
     need to achieve it. Government can promote compassion, 
     corporations and foundations can fund it, but the citizens--
     it's the citizens who provide it. A determined assault on 
     poverty will require both an active government, and active 
     citizens.
       There is more to citizenship than voting--though I urge you 
     to do it. (Laughter.) There is more to citizenship than 
     paying your taxes--though I'd strongly advise you to pay 
     them. (Laughter.) Citizenship is empty without concern for 
     our fellow citizens, without

[[Page H3817]]

     the ties that bind us to one another and build a common good.
       If you already realize this and you're acting on it, I 
     thank you. If you haven't thought about it, I leave you with 
     this challenge: serve a neighbor in need. Because a life of 
     service is a life of significance. Because materialism, 
     ultimately, is boring, and consumerism can build a prison of 
     wants. Because a person who is not responsible for others is 
     a person who is truly alone. Because there are few better 
     ways to express our love for America than to care for other 
     Americans. And because the same God who endows us with 
     individual rights also calls us to social obligations.
       So let me return to Lyndon Johnson's charge. You're the 
     generation that must decide. Will you ratify poverty and 
     division with your apathy--or will you build a common good 
     with your idealism? Will you be the spectator in the renewal 
     of your country--or a citizen?
       The methods of the past may have been flawed, but the 
     idealism of the past was not an illusion. Your calling is not 
     easy, because you must do the acting and the caring. But 
     there is fulfillment in that sacrifice, which creates hope 
     for the rest of us. Every life you help proves that every 
     life might be helped. The actual proves the possible. And 
     hope is always the beginning of change.
       Thank you for having me, and God bless. (Applause.)

  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The gentleman from Kentucky 
has 2 minutes remaining.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I want to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green) for bringing 
this important issue to the forefront. We have a lot of people in 
America reaching out asking for a helping hand. We have a lot of 
organizations who have programs in place that can assist those people. 
This resolution today simply calls on corporate America to not 
discriminate against a group simply because they are faith based.
  I would also like to thank the gentleman from Texas for his remarks 
today.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I too rise in support of H. Con. Res. 170, 
which calls for increased support of faith-based charities by U.S. 
corporations.
  The United States is blessed with an industrious people and great 
wealth; we are the envy of the world. But a great and prosperous nation 
can and must do better--each of us has a duty to alleviate the 
suffering of the poor and oppressed in our own communities. Some of the 
most effective organizations for meeting the needs of impoverished 
Americans are faith-based, yet these are the very groups that face 
discrimination by corporate America.
  According to Leslie Lenkowsky in last month's edition of Commentary, 
in 1998 only some 2 percent of the money donated by the nation's 
largest foundations went to religiously affiliated institutions, and 
much of that was earmarked for institutions like hospitals and 
universities. The Capital Research Center found that six of the ten 
largest companies in America explicitly ``ban or restrict'' donations 
to faith-based charities.
  Why would some of the greatest corporations in the country institute 
policies that prevent funding of some of America's most effective 
charities at a time when Congress has taken a leading role in knocking 
down discriminatory barriers that prevent faith-based charities from 
competing for government grants and contracts?
  On a bipartisan basis, Congress first started the work of expanding 
charitable choice in 1996 with welfare reform, and followed up with the 
welfare-to-work grant program in 1997. In 1998, Congress added 
charitable choice to the Community Services Block Grant Program and in 
2000 we added charitable choice to substance abuse treatment and 
prevention services under the Public Health Services Act.
  We know that these programs work, and the States are also finding 
great success. A study of Indiana's ``Faith Works'' program, which 
allows welfare recipients to get assistance from faith-based charities 
instead of secular providers, found that those opting for such 
charities came from more distressed family situations and had deeper 
personal crises than those opting for the secular alternative. The 
study concluded that what these people found at faith-based charities 
was more emotional and spiritual support than what could ever be 
offered by a secular institution. In some personal situations, that 
additional support might be the difference between life and death.
  I predict that Congress will knock down more barriers against faith-
based charities in programs like the Community Health Centers program 
this year, and many more next year. As Congress has already moved to 
provide more access to faith-based charities by Americans in the 
greatest need, I believe that Congress should call on American 
corporations to give more even-handedly and generously to faith-based 
charities.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition of H. Con. Res. 
170, a Resolution Encouraging Corporations to Contribute to Faith-Based 
Organizations.
  I am a strong supporter of corporations increasing donations to 
philanthropic organizations to help the most needy in our society. Even 
with the strong economy over the past few years, many Americans have 
not shared in this nation's prosperity. Thus, more corporate donations 
are needed to help the many Americans living in poverty.
  However, I do not support the government advocating corporate support 
of one charitable organization over another. Our Founding Fathers 
included the establishment clause in the United States Constitution to 
ensure that the government did not play the role of endorsing religion. 
This policy has given Americans the freedom to carry out their 
religious worship in whichever manner they choose without fear of 
government oppression. Today, this resolution takes the first step 
toward the government playing the role of supporting religious 
charitable organization over others and challenging the Founding 
Fathers' wisdom to include the establishment clause in our 
constitution.
  Even more disturbing, it appears that this resolution is the first 
step in the Bush Administration attempt to promote their faith-based 
initiative that supports the ungodly action of promoting government 
sponsored discrimination. it has been reported that the Bush 
administration has agreed to create a regulation that would allow 
religious charitable organizations to legally avoid hiring gay 
employees because of their sexual orientation in exchange for these 
groups' support for their faith-based initiative.
  In the mid-20th century, many racial minorities, women and gays began 
the long fight for equal rights in this nation. It is a fight that 
still has a long way to go. The struggle of these groups to obtain 
equality continues to inspire a nation to make America a better place 
where all men and women are truly created equal.
  If the reported allegation about the administration creating a 
regulation to promote discrimination is true, then the Bush 
Administration has signaled to the nation that it wants to return to 
the dark days in this nation's history when our government sponsored 
discrimination against certain groups. If today, the Bush 
Administration is willing to support government sponsored 
discrimination against homosexuals, then which group is next? Will it 
be women? Will it be African Americans or Hispanics? Will it be 
religious worshipers of Catholicism, Judaism or the Nation of Islam?
  It is time that the leaders in this country stood up together and 
stopped usurping the principles of separation of church and state and 
the principle that all are created equal. These principles help to 
create a nation that cherishes tolerance for all groups and should be 
preserved.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose H. Con. Res. 170 and say no to 
discrimination.
  Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Con. Res. 170, 
which encourages corporations in the United States to increase their 
support of faith-based organizations.
  America is privileged materially, but there still remains poverty and 
a lack of hope for some. Government has a duty to meet the needs of 
poor Americans, but it does not have to do it alone. The indispensable 
and gracious work of faith-based and other charitable service groups 
must be encouraged as a means of people helping people--as a 
significant addition to government service.
  Faith has played an important role in America's handling of serious 
social problems. Faith-based organizations in the United States help 
people recover from drug and alcohol addiction, provide food and 
shelter for the homeless, and teach people job skills that will allow 
them to move from poverty to productivity. These organizations have 
proven to be effective in solving some of society's troubles.
  Corporations donate billions of dollars to philanthropic causes every 
year. However, of these billions of dollars, faith-based organizations 
receive only a small portion. In fact, many corporations specifically 
ban or restrict contributions to faith-based organizations.
  This legislation encourages them to make greater contributions to 
faith-based organizations and recommends that they refrain from 
policies that prohibit corporations from donating to faith-based 
organizations. I urge my colleagues to support H. Con. Res. 170.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield) that the House suspend the 
rules and agree to the concurrent resolution, H. Con. Res. 170.
  The question was taken.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds of 
those present have voted in the affirmative.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

[[Page H3818]]

  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be 
postponed.

                          ____________________