Congressional Record, Volume 147 Issue 101 (Thursday, July 19, 2001)

[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 101 (Thursday, July 19, 2001)]
[House]
[Pages H4222-H4281]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

{time} 1030
COMMUNITY SOLUTIONS ACT OF 2001

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on
Rules, I call up House Resolution 196 and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

H. Res. 196

Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order without intervention of any point of order
to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 7) to provide
incentives for charitable contributions by individuals and
businesses, to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of
government program delivery to individuals and families in
need, and to enhance the ability of low-income Americans to
gain financial security by building assets. The bill shall be
considered as read for amendment. In lieu of the amendments
recommended by the Committees on Ways and Means and the
Judiciary now printed in the bill, the amendment in the
nature of a substitute printed in the Congressional Record
and numbered 1 pursuant to clause 8 of rule XVIII shall be
considered as adopted. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any
further amendment thereto to final passage without
intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate on the
bill, as amended, equally divided and controlled by the
chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways
and Means; (2) the further amendment in the nature of a
substitute printed in the report of the Committee on Rules
accompanying this resolution, if offered by Representative
Rangel of New York, Representative Conyers of Michigan, or a
designee, which shall be in order without intervention of any
point of order, shall be considered as read, and shall be
separately debatable for one hour equally divided and
controlled by the proponent and an opponent; and (3) one
motion to recommit with or without instructions.

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bonilla). The gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms.
Pryce) is recognized for 1 hour.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I
yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall),
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose
of debate only.
Mr. Speaker, to quote the chairman of the Committee on Ways and
Means, House Resolution 196 is an ``appropriate'' and fair rule
providing for the consideration of H.R. 7, the Community Solutions Act
of 2001; and it is consistent with previous rules that our committee
has reported and the House has adopted on legislation that amends

[[Page H4223]]

the Tax Code. This rule provides for 1 hour of general debate equally
divided between the chairman and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Ways and Means.
After general debate, it will be in order to consider a substitute
amendment offered by the minority which is printed in the Committee on
Rules report and will be debatable for 1 hour. Finally, the rule
permits the minority another opportunity to amend the bill through a
motion to recommit, with or without instructions. The rule waives all
points of order against consideration of the bill as well as the
amendment in the nature of a substitute.
Mr. Speaker, before I go any further, let me take this opportunity to
congratulate the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Watts) and the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Hall) for all their hard work on this legislation. They
are certainly dedicated leaders in the quest to help the poor and the
needy, both here and abroad. As our President, George W. Bush, has
stated, the Community Solutions Act will allow us ``to enlist, equip,
enable, empower, and expand the heroic works of faith-based and
community groups all across America.''
The Community Solutions Act features three primary provisions to
encourage charitable works. First, it provides important tax incentives
to increase charitable giving by allowing more than 80 million
taxpayers who do not itemize their returns to take a deduction for
charitable contributions. In doing so, we are recognizing that
generosity flows not only from the wealthy but just as often from the
less affluent, some of whom have worked their way out of poverty and
wish to give something back to struggling communities and families. It
is not necessarily extra incentives these good souls need, but should
we not at least show them appreciation for their philanthropy through
equitable treatment under the Tax Code?
The bill goes further to encourage philanthropy by also permitting
tax-free distributions from individual retirement accounts for
donations to qualified charities.
In addition to individuals, there are businesses that stand ready and
willing to help the less fortunate and lift up their communities. H.R.
7 enables this charity through commonsense policies that allow
resources to be directed to the needy rather than being discarded. We
are a wealthy Nation where resources abound, and we cannot succumb to
the luxury of wastefulness. We must do better by our citizens in need,
and this legislation embraces that principle.
For example, through an enhanced tax deduction, H.R. 7 encourages
restaurants and small businesses to donate food to the hungry that
might otherwise perish, uneaten, while children go to bed with empty
bellies and seniors choose medicine over food. The bill also helps the
business community fulfill their charitable missions by removing the
threat of frivolous lawsuits that punish the good deeds of donating
equipment, facilities, or vehicles to nonprofit organizations.
Mr. Speaker, these are commonsense, meaningful steps that we can take
to make a real difference in people's lives.

``Charitable choice'' is another tenet of H.R. 7. As first
established in 1996 and expanded in subsequent years, charitable choice
applies to the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program, or
TANF, provisions of welfare and the social services block grant
program. The Community Solutions Act appropriately expands charitable
choice provisions to include nine new program areas, including juvenile
delinquency and prevention, crime prevention, housing, job training,
senior citizen programs, community development, domestic violence
prevention and intervention and hunger relief.
The Community Solutions Act builds on these existing charitable
choice provisions which were signed into law already on four separate
occasions. I would note to my colleagues that each of these important
laws passed this House with wide bipartisan support and well over 300
votes.
Mr. Speaker, the charitable choice provisions in this bill prohibit
the government from discriminating based on religion against
organizations that apply to provide services under specified federally
funded programs. In other words, charitable choice provides a level
playing field for any group, any group, religious or secular, that
wishes to compete for Federal social service funding. Charitable choice
says that what an organization believes has no bearing whatsoever on
how it is evaluated regarding what it can do for the poor and the
needy.
In my hometown of Columbus, Ohio, the historic parish of Holy Family
Church under the direction of Father Kevin Lutz feeds over 500 people
daily in its soup kitchen and provides clothing and needed medical care
to those who might otherwise go without. But in addition to the food
and the clothing and the medicine, Father Lutz and the many volunteers
of Holy Family are proven providers of care and compassion. I am proud
of the work they are doing at home in my community. They are able to
touch the lives of the needy and the poor in ways that government never
can, because those grounded in faith can often provide the steadiest
helping hand for those in despair.
Of course, charitable choice and the Community Solutions Act maintain
important safeguards to protect the fundamental character of these
organizations and to prevent them from discriminating against or
proselytizing to the individuals which they serve. As crafted under the
bipartisan leadership of the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Watts) and
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall) and honed by the Committee on the
Judiciary, this bill strikes a careful balance between expanding the
universe of social care and protecting individual and organizational
religious freedom.
Finally, the Community Solutions Act creates individual development
accounts which will allow low-income individuals to save and have
matching funds so that they can accumulate a small nest egg, maybe
enough to allow them to reach the dream of buying their first home or
completing a college education or even starting a small business. It is
a helping hand for those who need it most, who might never get a leg up
any other way.
This is commonsense legislation that encourages charitable giving and
enlists the strongest of our allies in our effort to provide
desperately needed social services.
Mr. Speaker, we should never turn our backs on those who wish to help
in the battle against despair, poverty, crime, and drug addiction. We
should never turn our backs on those who have demonstrated an
incredibly superior capacity to help over and over, one neighbor at a
time. If we do turn our backs on those who seek to help, we turn our
backs on those who need the help.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from
Ohio (Ms. Pryce) for yielding me the time, and I yield myself such time
as I may consume.
This is what they call a modified closed rule that will allow for
consideration of H.R. 7, the Community Solutions Act of 2001, which
supports the President's faith-based initiative. As my colleague has
described, this rule permits a Democratic substitute and a motion to
recommit. This is similar to other rules for tax-related bills.
When the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Watts) and the White House
asked if I would be interested in sponsoring this faith-based
initiative, I did not hesitate. It was not much of a stretch for me. It
was, as some people have said, a no-brainer. I did not have to think
too long or hard about it because I have had a lot of experience with
faith-based programs and people of faith. I admire them and what they
do.
I am involved with this issue because I am determined to see an end
to hunger in America.
My experience with faith-based programs in my hometown of Dayton,
Ohio, in Appalachia, here in the District of Columbia and in other
countries has shown me that people who work in the field are not just
dedicated, they are inspired. They feel called by their faith to make a
difference. One of the values of that calling is that it brings new
perspectives and encourages creativity and ingenuity.
Over the July 4th recess, I traveled to East Timor and Indonesia and
visited poverty alleviation projects. I toured squalid neighborhoods in
Jakarta where hundreds of thousands of

[[Page H4224]]

people lived in dumps and in conditions not fit for humans. As I
visited these projects where repugnant smells were everywhere and
hunger and sickness were rampant, I asked the workers why they did this
work that they did. I knew what they were going to say to me, because
when I ask this question, whether I am in Indonesia; Dayton, Ohio; or
rural Appalachia, I always get the same answer. They tell me what
motivates them is their faith. I ask them if they tell people about
their faith. They say, ``We don't have to.'' ``We don't have to
proselytize or force a sermon on them,'' they answer. ``Our faith
speaks for itself. We love the people. They respond to our love. And
they respond to our programs. They recognize our faith by the work that
we do without us forcing it down their throats.''
This bill specifically prohibits Federal funds from being used for
sectarian purposes. We need to include everybody in this fight if we
ever hope to win the battle against poverty. That means that everybody
should have a chance to compete for Federal funds to address our
problems. Existing government and nonprofit programs do not have all
the answers to these problems. Some have done tremendous work, but we
still have 25 million people in the country that are hungry, we have
homeless people, we have domestic violence, we have a horrendous drug
problem, we have millions of working families and senior citizens that
are not making it. The list of challenges goes on and on and on.
Many large faith-based organizations have for years been receiving
millions of government dollars, and we have been very happy with their
efforts. But what about the thousands of smaller groups that cannot
compete for Federal moneys because of burdensome red tape? These
programs have few employees. They rely instead on volunteers. They have
small budgets, barely keeping their heads above water financially. That
is what this bill is about, including these smaller groups that are
motivated by their love and faith to work in areas where nobody else
will work.
In Vinton County which is one of Ohio's poorest counties, I recently
visited CARE United Methodist Outreach. It is an organization that
distributes food, household necessities, clothing; it gives help with
job assistance, almost anything that a person might need. A long way
from Vinton County, just a few minutes from here across the river in
Anacostia, is a program called The House. It is an initiative that
works with youth from Anacostia High School in one of the toughest
neighborhoods in the District of Columbia.

{time} 1045

These are just two of the thousands of examples of small faith-based
community-minded organizations working where no one else will go.
Actually, if these two groups were not there, nobody would be there.
This bill will allow these religious organizations to compete on a
level playing field. This is not about favoring certain religions; it
is about funding the groups that will get the best results in caring
for the least, the last, and the lost.
Problems in our country are real, and many are getting worse; and
none of them are going away without some response. If faith-based
groups can respond effectively, I think we should encourage them to do
so.
I urge my colleagues to make finding solutions to these problems a
priority, and I hope that they will give faith-based groups no less a
chance than their secular counterparts have.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes
to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas), a member
of the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule that is before
us and for the debate that follows.
At first I had been considering appearing before the Committee on
Rules to try to make in order some kind of amendment that would prevent
cults and other fringe groups or groups that would gather together and
form for the purpose of trying to take advantage of the new programs,
new spending programs, that would be accorded by this legislation.
Since then, in reviewing the legislation and in conferences with other
Members and with other individuals outside the Congress, I am convinced
that a so-called cult cannot succeed in applying or qualifying for one
of these programs.
Why? It is a certainty that these programs are going to be based on
the experience and track records mostly of existing faith-based
organizations, rather than doing the kind of work we contemplate for
years. So we have a foundation upon which these programs can be based.
In conversations with the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green), who
did an extensive study of these very same questions, he further
satisfied me that my worries about cults being eligible for these
programs is not founded on reality.
So, I have no need, did have no need, have no need now, to try to add
provisions to this to guard specifically against the dangerous cult, as
I view it.
Mr. Speaker, I am satisfied that the rule will allow for a full
debate that will encompass all the purposes of the legislation, without
indulging in allowing loopholes for fringe groups to enter the process.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
Mr. FRANK. Mr. Speaker, this rule is terribly unfair. The gentleman
from Ohio said, well, this is how we treat tax bills. But this is
hardly a tax bill. There is a very small piece of it that is tax
related. The great bulk of it is the social service aspect. It is very
important.
I am very proud of the work I have done with faith-based groups. I
care a lot about housing, and the Catholic Archdiocese of Boston has a
wonderful record in housing. In area after area, I have been proud to
cooperate with them. But none of those organizations have told me that
they needed the right to discriminate or ignore State and local anti-
discrimination laws.
That is what this bill does. I will insert into the Record here pages
from the transcript which will show the chairman of the committee
acknowledging that it preempts State and local anti-discrimination
laws, and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Scarborough) explaining why
it is important that Jewish groups be allowed to discriminate in the
serving of soup by not hiring non-Jews. I disagree with both of those.
I wish we had ample time to debate them.

Mr. Frank. There are further questions that we have. There
is also this list, the non-discrimination statutes, that must
be followed. They are the Federal statutes. Some States have
decided to go beyond what the Federal Government has done in
preventing discrimination, and I would ask, because it's not
clear to me, is this preemptive of State employment
discrimination laws other than those which might track the
Federal one? I would yield to anyone who could give me the
answer to that. By specifying the Federal anti-discrimination
laws that apply, does this mean that State anti-
discrimination laws which cover subjects not covered under
the Federal law, would be preempted in effect, and the
religious organizations would not have to apply--follow them?
I would yield to anyone who would answer that.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Frank. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. I'll answer the second part of our
question and I'll seek my own time for the first part. The
second part, relative to Federal preemption. Federal law
applies where Federal funds go, and State law does not apply.
If the religious organization accepted State funds, and by
implication, local government funds, then State laws would
apply to them as well.
Mr. Frank. So it would preempt State laws or allow them
to----
Chairman Sensenbrenner. It would allow them to ignore State
laws when Federal--only Federal funds are used, but would not
allow them to ignore State laws when State funds are used.
Mr. Frank. What if there was a mix of Federal funds and
private funds?
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Then they could ignore State laws.
Mr. Frank. That seems to me to be a serious flaw and hardly
consistent with the sporadic States' rights professions that
we hear from the other side. The principle ought not to be
that you can get out of following a State's enactment because
you have accepted some Federal funds, and the Chairman has
very straightforwardly made it clear. If you get some Federal
funds and you have some of your own funds, you might--not
might--you are then allowed to ignore a State law that would
otherwise be binding on you. I do not think we ought to be
embodying the principle that the acceptance of Federal funds
somehow then cancels State law.
There are a number of things. For instance, the States get
highway money from

[[Page H4225]]

the Federal Government. Does that principal apply? Should we
then say that a State highway department can ignore its
State's own laws with regard--or contractors getting the
State highway money? That, really, frankly, surprises me in
the very radical nature of a repudiation of what the State
can do. In other words, you are in the State and you have set
a policy that there will not be discrimination based on this
or that or the other, other than what the Federal Government
does. And an organization in your State, which decides to do
a program, and it's got 70 percent of its money, and it gets
30 percent of the Federal money, that Federal money now
becomes a license to ignore State anti-discrimination law. If
there's a conflict between the laws, then the Federal would
apply, but I had not previously thought it would be
Mr. Scarborough. I do believe, although it has not been
articulated well, and I'm not trying to persuade you, I'm
just merely saying that there are some of us that believe
this that may not be able to articulate it very well, that
there is a culture in, let's say, an urban Protestant Church
that is separate from a culture in, let's say, an urban
synagogue or in a Catholic Church that is separate from
another.
And I see Ms. Waters. She's about to explode, and I'm sure
I'm going to be a bigot, and this, that, and the other, but
I'm just saying there is----
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The Chair is prepared to declare a
30-second recess.
Mr. Scarborough. Why is that?
Chairman Sensenbrenner. So that nobody explodes. We don't
want that to happen.
Mr. Scarborough. I love Ms. Waters----
[Laughter.]
Mr. Scarborough. I love Ms. Waters, and Ms. Waters loves
me. She hugs me on the floor every chance she gets. That's
why she got up. She couldn't resist herself. [Laughter.]
But there is a culture, seriously, there is an inherent
culture in these organizations, like, for instance, and I'll
talk about my church. I'm Southern Baptist. I disagree with a
lot of things they believe about people who are divorced not
being able to be deacons or, or women not being able to
preach, all right? But I do know that there are Southern--and
if that offends me, I can, I can take a hike. But there are,
even though I disagree with some of the things that people in
the Southern Baptist Church believe in, they can effectively
deliver services because of the culture of whether it's First
Baptist Church of Pensacola or----
Mr. Weiner. Will the gentleman yield on that point?
Mr. Scarborough. Yes, sir, I will.
Mr. Weiner. Would the gentleman yield on that? And I'm
convinced the Southern Baptist Church can deliver those under
this bill.
Perhaps you can enlighten me, and using the example of the
Southern Baptist Church or whatever you referred to, someone
coming in for a job interview to work in a job training
program to teach typing to someone who had been laid off----
Mr. Scarborough. Right.
Mr. Weiner. Why is it, give me an example, just so I can
fully get my mind around it, why is it necessary that they be
Baptist and why is it not only necessary, why is it so
important to this program that it means offending 35 or 40
Members around here who might be willing to make this a bill
that 300 people can vote for?
Mr. Scarborough. Yeah, well, I don't think it's--reclaiming
my time--I don't think it's necessary. And, obviously, I
think most of us on this panel, I would hope, would agree
that it would be extraordinarily bigoted for any, any
organization, be it a faith-based or secular organization, to
prevent people from being hired. But I think the biggest
concern is compelling, for instance, a synagogue in a certain
area to hire a fundamentalist, right wing, religious,
whatever, that would, after all----
Mr. Weiner. Typing teacher?
Mr. Scarborough. Hold on a second. Hold on a second.
Mr. Weiner. What does a right-wing typing teacher do, only
type with the right hand?
Mr. Scarborough. We're talking about, and again----
[Laughter.]
Mr. Scarborough. Again, if you want to get laughs, that's
fine, but, for instance, delivering soup, let's say, for
instance, in an area that's heavily served, let's say a
synagogue in an urban part of the area, listen, they want to
get their soup. They don't want to hear somebody with views
that's completely different from their own views. And I
understand, I understand what the bill says that they're not
allowed to do that. But, again, if you compel these
organizations, again, whose culture, many Americans believe,
allow faith-based organizations to deliver services more
effectively than, say, the Department of HHS----
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The time of the gentleman has
expired.
Mr. Scarborough [continuing]. There's a risk of changing
the very culture of those organizations.
Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The time of the gentleman has
expired.
Mr. Scarborough. Thank you.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. For what purpose does the
gentlewoman from California, Ms. Lofgren, seek recognition?
Ms. Lofgren. To strike the last word.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. Lofgren. I--I was fascinated by the last exchange
because, apparently, even though there is a prohibition on
proselytizing, the reality would be that there would be
proselytizing, and therefore we need to make sure that
religious institutions can discriminate against people who
are not of their religion so that they can violate this
statute, which I think is a very odd proposition.
But I would just, going back to my experience in local
government, I would just like to say I think this bill is a,
is a solution in search of a problem. I mean, we used all
kinds of contracts with religious-based organizations.
Catholic Charities ran the Immigration Counseling Center. The
only instance in my 14 years on the Board of Supervisors that
ever came to my attention that someone, a religious group
felt that they might not be--having treated fairly, was an
evangelical church who wondered were they being treated
fairly, and I met with them, and we made sure that they were
brought into the opportunity to provide food through the food
service, the largest faith-based group in Santa Clara County,
PAC, which has, I think now, 17 parishes and churches. They
provide homework centers, the biggest homework centers for
all the kids after school. They wouldn't even consider
discriminating against a tutor based on their religion, and
Catholic Charities wouldn't even consider discriminating
against a psychologist in hiring for one of the programs, the
mental health programs they run. It would be inconceivable.
So I really strongly believe that Mr. Scott's amendment is
necessary and that this bill is probably not, but I would
like to yield to Mr. Scott, at this point.

Mr. Speaker, this rule does a terrible disservice to democracy. This
is a fundamentally important issue. Many of us are in favor of helping
the faith-based groups, but want to put some safeguards in. There are
complicated issues. Instead, we are told we get one substitute and one
recommittal. The recommittal gets 10 minutes of debate.
This forces fundamental, philosophical, constitutional, and moral
issues of great importance into a shoehorn, apparently because the
majority did not want to debate them.
We are going to be told, well, you should not lump all these things
together. We only wanted four or five amendments. We are only getting a
couple of hours of debate on this fundamental issue, when we spend much
more time on things of less significance.
I will say this: Members who say, well, I could not vote for that
recommittal, I could not vote for that substitute because it did not
have everything I wanted, it had too much in there, then vote against
the rule.
Let us vote down this rule, and let us take this bill up where we can
offer amendments that deal with these serious moral and constitutional
issues in a significant way. Unfortunately, we are going to have a
debate in which there are going to be all kinds of charges of mission
representation, because the rule does not allow us time to air them.
But I want to just close by saying again, the chairman of the
committee honestly acknowledged that it preempts State and local anti-
discrimination laws where they use Federal laws, and others have talked
about the right to discriminate religiously in hiring for secular
purposes. Those should not be allowed to stand.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to
the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green).
Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time.
I do agree with my colleague from Massachusetts that these are
sensitive issues and weighty subjects that we debated today. Like
everyone, when I first looked at this legislation, I had questions. It
is complicated, it is complex, and it does touch upon delicate issues.
But I am proud of the work that has been done in this bill as it has
moved forward. I am proud of the work that the gentleman from Wisconsin
(Chairman Sensenbrenner) and the gentleman from California (Chairman
Thomas) have done.
This bill is constitutional, this bill is workable, this bill is the
right thing to do. It has strong accountability provisions. It requires
separate accounts for the Federal dollars. It has opt-out provisions.
It has secular alternative requirements.
This bill builds on current law. The religious exemption that we are
going to hear about so often today is current law. It has been law for
years. This body has reinforced this law on bipartisan votes several
times.

[[Page H4226]]

In many ways, this bill is nothing new, because much of this is in
current law; but in many ways, fundamental ways, it is new, because it
opens up to new services, it opens up to new battles, it opens us up to
new communities. With this bill, we can make a difference in lives, in
neighborhoods, in communities all across America. This is the right
thing to do.
Our President has pledged us as a Nation in his inaugural address
that when we see that wounded traveler on the road to Jericho, we will
not step to the other side. This legislation will ensure that that is
the case.
I am proud of this legislation. I think this rule makes sense. I look
forward to the debate, and I look forward to passing this law and
sending it on to the Senate and the President's desk.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Mississippi (Mr. Shows).
Mr. SHOWS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for yielding
me time.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity presented because of this
bill being introduced. I rise today to express my strong support of
H.R. 7, the Community Solutions Act of 2001. This bill is long overdue.
I come from a small town in rural Mississippi called Bassfield,
population 350, which is home to a few hundred families who work hard
every day. I invite you and my colleagues to visit Bassfield and see
what it is like in a real small town outside the Beltway. In my town,
churches and other houses of worship and religious institutions are the
bedrock of the community. This is true in small towns and big cities
across the country.
Where I come from, faith and family are common values; and, unlike
Washington, when people in Bassfield need help, they do not look to the
Government first, they look to the family and neighbors.
We cannot put a fence around the churches in Bassfield or anywhere
else. It is impossible, because religious institutions are and will
always be central to the lives of our communities. They do it because
it is the right thing to do, and they do it well.
It does not make sense to reinvent the wheel to establish government
programs to provide services in communities where services already
exist in an overzealous effort to isolate religious from public policy.
We must respect the foresight of our Founding Fathers, who knew that
our new democracy could not permit one religion to prevail over others.
But they also knew that our country was funded on the basic freedom to
express one's religion, not to silence it. While we must respect the
separation of church and State, we must also respect the rights of
people of faith.
Mr. Speaker, we always walk a fine line when we consider religion and
public policy in the same breath; but in the Community Solutions Act, I
believe we have crafted a bill that respects the separation of church
and State, and, at the same time, tolerates the rights of all Americans
to practice their religion.
We have crafted a measure that affords people in big cities and small
towns across the country the opportunity to receive essential services
from the people who know them best, their faith-based institutions that
already are the core of their communities. In a civil society in our
democracy we tolerate the views and religions of others. In this
spirit, I believe we can allow faith-based institutions to be our
partners in communities. Indeed, they already are.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to
the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns).
(Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks, and include extraneous material.)
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me
time.
Mr. Speaker, let me address two points. I do not know if my colleague
from Massachusetts is still in the Chamber, but this Charitable Choice
exists in Federal programs already. In addition, the House has provided
passage of Charitable Choice in child support, the Home Ownership Act,
Fathers Count Act of 11/10/99, and also the Juvenile Justice bill. So
we have four cases where Charitable Choice is already in place.
So for folks to come on the House floor and say vote against the rule
because this is not fair, this is a great constitutional question, that
is not true. However, President Clinton already signed into law four of
these Charitable Choice pieces of legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I am here because contained in the base bill, I have a
bill that was incorporated, and I want to thank the gentleman from
California (Chairman Thomas) and the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr.
Watts) for giving consideration to my bill, which repeals the excise
tax on the net investment income for private foundations. I would also
like to thank my colleagues who have cosponsored this legislation.
Though, of course, full repeal of the 2 percent excise tax on private
foundations would have been preferable, I want to thank my friends on
the Committee on Ways and Means for eliminating the two-tier system and
simplifying the tax to a flat 1 percent.
The tax was originally enacted in 1969 as a way to offset the cost of
government audit of these charitable organizations. In 1990, the excise
tax raised $204 million, and they conducted 1,200 audits of private
foundations. Then in 1999, the excise tax raised $500 million, and the
IRS only did roughly about 200 audits.
So private foundations generally must make annual distributions for
charitable purposes equal to roughly 5 percent of their fair market
value of the foundation's endowment assets. The excise tax acts as a
credit in reducing this requirement.
So I am glad my bill is part of the base bill. It is a tax cut. I
want to again remind my colleagues to vote for the rule.
Mr. Speaker, I first want to thank Chairman Thomas, along with
Congressman Watts, for giving consideration to my bill H.R. 804--a bill
to repeal the excise tax on the net investment income for private
foundations. I would also like to thank my colleagues who have
cosponsored this legislation.
Though, of course, full repeal of the 2 percent excise tax on private
foundations would have been preferable, I want to thank my friends on
the Ways and Means Committee for eliminating the two-tiered system and
simplifying the tax to a flat 1 percent.
The tax was originally enacted in the Tax Reform Act of 1969 as a way
to offset the cost of government audits of these organizations. In
1990, the excise tax raised $204 million and the IRS conducted 1,200
audits of private foundations. In 1999, the last year for which figures
are available, the excise tax raised $499.6 million with the IRS
conducting 191 audits.
Private foundations generally must make annual distributions for
charitable purposes equal to roughly 5 percent of the fair market value
of the foundation's endowment assets. The excise tax paid acts as a
credit in reducing the 5 percent requirement.
By reducing the excise tax, we are placing needed money into the
hands of our nation's charities. I thank Chairman Thomas and
Congressman Watts for their leadership and support.
Across this country, faith-based charitable organizations have
brought healing to broken lives and suffering communities by providing
emergency services, drug treatment, after school programs, as well as
many other vital services. However, too often the Federal Government
has valued process over performance and not welcomed faith-based
charities as partners in fighting social ills.
To address this bias Congress has repeatedly supported a program
called Charitable Choice. This idea is not revolutionary. It has been
adopted four separate times by bipartisan majorities and was signed
into law by President Clinton each time, the first being the landmark
welfare reform legislation in 1996. Charitable Choice is bipartisan,
consensus law that expands options for needy Americans while
safeguarding the character of faith-based charities and protects the
rights of beneficiaries.
In fact, it already exists in Federal law and applies to three
domestic programs. It enjoys broad support because it is not a special
fund for religious charities; it simply makes faith-based groups
eligible to compete for Federal dollars.
Charitable Choice corrects this prejudice that discriminates against
charities on the sole basis of their belief system. This program
because it is grounded in the Constitution, requires nondiscrimination.
It includes all people of goodwill--whether Methodists, Muslim, Mormon,
or good people of no faith at all.
It preserves the first amendment because it insists on a separation
between programs operating on the Federal dollar and those operating on
the private dollar. Faith-based organizations may make federal programs
available

[[Page H4227]]

by advocating values but not engaging in religious worship.
The question then becomes, why would any faith-based group want to
participate with these limitations. The answer is that the funding is
always going to be there and therefore will we continue to discriminate
or will we open the process and ferret out discrimination.
Charitable Choice is about funding affective public services, not
religious worship. It explicitly states that no direct funds ``may be
expended for sectarian worship, instruction or proselytization.'' While
securing this separation, it also allows ``conversion-centered'' groups
to participate via vouchers. This is nothing new in Federal law. Since
1990, low-income parents have used vouchers to enroll their children in
thoroughly religious child-care services.
This voucher option is critical for beneficiaries because when
helping needy Americans one size does not fit all.
Charitable Choice offers assistance in both the form of vouchers (to
recipients) and grants (to organizations) to fund civic assistance
programs. This variety expands service to needy Americans because it
allows them to participate in a program that suits them without respect
to religion.
The President established the office of Faith-based and Community
Initiatives, which is the first of its kind, to correct this glaring
discreptency. The purpose of this office is to devise a constitutional
means by which religious organizations are brought to the table and
allowed to compete for Federal moneys regardless of their belief
system.
This is consistent with the President's objective to unleash private
money for public good. It establishes charitable giving incentives for
taxpayers to increase the level of money given directly to public
service organizations.
Charitable Choice allows faith-based and secular civic organizations
to compete on the basis of the same criteria. Charitable Choice asks
the question, ``What can you do?'' rather than ``Who are you?'' It
holds both the religious and secular civic organizations to the same
standard: Results.
It is our responsibility to expand the range of care for people in
crisis and Charitable Choice is an innovative way of achieving that
goal. It is a way to empower that which is small and holistic.
American's deserve a variety of alternatives; the goal is not to
favor one group or belief system over another but to simply level the
playing field such that any effective social service is made eligible
for Federal moneys already designated for public services. It doesn't
favor any religious organization; it only ends some of the burdens that
often impede them. Surely this is something that every American can
support.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. Scott).
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule. It is clear
that the majority is avoiding the amendment process because they cannot
defend the underlying bill. I offered an amendment that was rejected in
Rules that would have required agencies when making funding decisions
to consider objective merits when they consider the proposals.
Now, I would like to ask, if you are not using objective merits, are
the Federal officials supposed to just pick and choose between the
religions based on the religion they like the best?
In addition to discriminating in the grant process, it prevents
amendments on the issue of whether we ought to roll back civil rights
by 60 years. The Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the NAACP, a
host of other organizations, oppose this bill because of what it does
to civil rights.
We have heard we are not changing any present laws. Well, if you are
not changing any present laws, you do not need a bill. This changes
present laws, and that is the major controversy in the bill. We have
not been able to discriminate in Federal contracts based on religion
for decades. You can under this bill.
In fact, this bill is not about small organizations, and it is not
about faith organizations. Any program that can get funded under this
bill can get funded today, except those sponsored by organizations who
insist on discriminating based on religion.

{time} 1100

We ought to have a process where we can debate the question of
discrimination in this bill. We ought to have a rule that allows that;
this rule does not, and therefore, this rule ought to be rejected.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Indiana (Mr. Souder), my distinguished colleague.
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this
time.
First, I want to make a comment on the rule itself, which is this
debate. The gentleman from Virginia just commented that he was
frustrated that the rule does not allow for the ability to offer
amendments. I cast a very difficult vote the other day. I do not favor
campaign finance reform, but I believe that our leadership had been
trying to work out a way for Shays-Meehan to have a straight up-or-down
vote. In fact, this is what we need on charitable choice and this is
what we need in health care.
I believe this rule is fair. Most Members of this House, in effect,
both on this side and on the other side, argued for a rule that gave
people who are arguing a position the ability to have a vote on their
bill, and I believe this bill falls into the same category as campaign
finance reform, the Fletcher medical bill, and other bills. When we
have these conflicts where there are two clear sides, we ought to have
straight up-or-down votes on those bills.
Secondly, while the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) is
technically correct that this bill is different, it actually protects
current religious exemptions. It does not change the religious freedom
law. What we have done in this country is said that people who want to
preserve their religious freedom are not eligible, even if they do not
proselytize, even if they are just distributing soup to the hungry or
if they are building a home for somebody who is homeless or if they are
helping somebody who is dying of AIDS. Even if they do no
evangelization, even if they do not pray with that individual, they are
not allowed to build the house unless they change their entire religion
or basic beliefs. That is what religious freedom is in this country,
and that is what this bill is trying to uphold with current procedures
as to how we do charitable work in this country so as to not step on
religious freedom, and this bill attempts to rectify that.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Tennessee (Mr. Clement).
Mr. CLEMENT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time. I might say about the gentleman, he is a champion, not only in
the United States but worldwide, when it comes to hunger and fighting
hunger.
I rise today in support of the rule, in support of H.R. 7, The
Community Solutions Act of 2001. The heart of the so-called faith-based
program would allow religious organizations to bid for Federal funds to
feed the hungry, fight juvenile crime, assist older Americans, aid
students, and help welfare recipients find work, among other charitable
activities. I applaud the tremendous work that faith-based
organizations have done to provide much-needed services to our
communities.
Organizations such as the Nashville Rescue Mission in my district
offer a hand up to those in need without any influx of Federal dollars.
This legislation would give the mission and other groups the
opportunity to compete for such funds should they so desire. These
important faith-based service programs no doubt play an extremely
important role in transforming lives as they daily reach out to the
less fortunate in Tennessee and across the Nation. The time has come to
recognize these unique entities by passing charitable choice
legislation.
Charitable choice simply means equal access by faith-based
organizations when they compete with other organizations for Federal
social service contracts. Nothing is guaranteed. They must compete with
everyone else and demonstrate their proven effectiveness in providing
basic social services before they will be awarded Federal grants.
Charitable choice is not a new idea. Existing charitable choice
programs and national programs across the country have benefited
thousands of people.
Faith-based organizations have long been on the front lines of
helping our communities' most needy and broken. They have taken on the
challenges of society that others have left behind. It is time that the
Federal Government recognized the work they do and assist them in
meeting these challenges. Let us improve our delivery system; let us
support this bill and pass it.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht).

[[Page H4228]]

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me
this time.
Mr. Speaker, I would like my colleagues to join me in a little
visualization, the Members that are gathered here and perhaps others
here in the Chamber. This story, I will give credit, came from John
Fund who is an editorial writer, and I would like you all to close your
eyes for a minute if it makes it easier. Imagine for a minute that you
go home today and open your mail and there is a letter there from an
attorney who is a long ways away, and as you read that letter you
realize that you have been named an heir to an enormous fortune that
you did not even know existed and, all of a sudden, you are wealthy
beyond your wildest dreams. Think about that for just a minute. You
think, this is a windfall. I would like to take a significant portion
of this money that I did not know I was going to get and I would like
to put it into something that will help the less fortunate. Think about
that for a minute. What would you do with that windfall? How would you
help the less fortunate?
Now, be honest. How many of you, the first thing you thought of was,
I know, I will give the money to the Federal Government.
Now, you might have thought about giving the money to the Salvation
Army, you might have thought about giving it to the Red Cross, to a
church group, to some other organization, but I will guarantee very few
people gathered here in this Chamber today, very few Americans, the
very first thing they would have said is, I know, I will give the money
to the Federal Government.
That is what this bill is really all about. Let us give faith a
chance. We all know deep down in our bones that we have wasted billions
of dollars over the last 20 or 30 years in failed social programs run
by the Federal bureaucracy. All this bill simply says is, give faith a
chance.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Pelosi).
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, my husband, my children and I have among us
100 years of Catholic education. That education has taught us our
responsibilities to the poor and the mission of the Gospel of Matthew.
Indeed, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall) is the living embodiment of
the gospel of Matthew to minister to the needs of the hungry, the
homeless, and others in need. That Catholic education has also taught
us to oppose discrimination in every place in our country. That is why
I have to oppose this legislation, H.R. 7, that is before us today.
I am very proud that Catholic charities is the largest private
network of social service agencies in the country, but in order to
receive Federal funds, which they do now, Catholic charities and other
religious affiliated nonprofits must agree to abide by all applicable
antidiscrimination laws and to provide services without religious
proselytizing. H.R. 7 would remove those important protections.
So as a Catholic and one driven by the Gospel of Matthew and proud of
the work that our nonprofits and all denominations do, what is the
problem with this bill? The problem is that today, this House will vote
to legalize discrimination as we minister to the needs of the poor. I
hope that course of action will not be taken, and I urge my colleagues
to oppose this unfair rule and to oppose H.R. 7.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Smith), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio
(Ms. Pryce), a member of the Committee on Rules, for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Speaker, I am happy to support our Nation's faith-based
organizations. I want to mention some people back home who are doing
this kind of work. In downtown San Antonio at the Little Church of La
Villita, for almost 40 years, people like Cleo Edmonds and David Gross
have given their time and resources to feed the hungry. They feed about
100 people each day, primarily single mothers. Some people come in to
get a meal; others to get groceries.
In addition to meeting the nutritional needs of those who come
seeking help, the Little Church of La Villita meets the spiritual needs
in our community, offering prayer and counseling to those who request
it.
Some want to tell us that the faithful should leave their faith at
the door. But, Mr. Speaker, everyone involved in serving the poor has
faith; everyone has convictions. The only difference is that some
believe in the power of God and some believe in the power of
government.
The Constitution does not envision a government devoid of all
religion; rather, it envisions a rich menagerie of faiths, a patchwork
of beliefs and convictions, all under the protection of one
Constitution.
Whether or not this bill becomes law, the Little Church of La Villita
will continue its work. The question is not: Does the Little Church of
La Villita need government money? The question is: Does the government
need places like the Little Church of La Villita?
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. Davis).
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I feel like I am caught between a
rock and a hard place. I say that because I support the concepts of
faith-based initiatives. I support the elements of this legislation. I
think it is going to go a long way towards finding solutions and
helping address some of the many social ills and problems.
On the other hand, I do not believe that we can allow any hint of
discrimination or the opportunity to discriminate against any segment
of our population, no matter whether we are dealing with race, color,
national origin, sexual orientation, it matters not. Each and every
human being in this country must feel that they have equal protection
under the law, must know that they are not going to be discriminated
against.
While I hope that we will end up at the end of the day having passed
this legislation, I hope we will end up at the end of the day sending a
message to all of America that we will not allow discrimination in any
shape, form, or fashion.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the chairman of the Committee on Education and
the Workforce.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentlewoman from Ohio for
yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to rise in support of President
Bush's charitable choice initiative, the Community Solutions Act of
2001. I wish to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner)
of the Committee on the Judiciary and the gentleman from California
(Mr. Thomas), the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, for
their diligent efforts in crafting this legislation which has taken
into account many different points of view.
As chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, I am
pleased that the legislation clearly indicates that faith-based
organizations will be able to compete to provide services under several
programs within our committee's jurisdiction. Every day throughout our
Nation, community and faith-based organizations are playing a key role
in meeting the needs of many Americans. Whether operating a soup
kitchen, helping to build homes, providing child care, or providing
training to welfare recipients, community and faith-based organizations
are reaching out to others, and, in doing so, improving the quality of
life for many Americans.
President Bush has called them ``armies of compassion''; and, indeed,
these organizations have demonstrated compassion on many fronts: caring
for children after school, providing emergency food and shelter,
offering mentoring and counseling, uplifting families of prisoners, and
helping to rescue young men and women from gangs and violence.
While many of these organizations have had success, some faith-based
organizations have faced barriers in accessing Federal funds. H.R. 7,
the Community Solutions Act, addresses this problem by making Federal
programs friendlier to faith-based organizations. It will enable these
organizations to compete for Federal funds and grants on the same basis
as other organizations; and, in short, it will ensure that they have a
seat at the table with other nonprofit providers.

[[Page H4229]]

Charitable choice is not a new idea, and over the past several years,
Democrats and Republicans alike have voted for charitable choice in the
Welfare Reform Act, the community services block grant law, and two
substance abuse laws under the public health services act. The
Community Solutions Act of 2001 represents a logical extension of these
laws and would expand charitable choice to juvenile justice programs,
housing programs, employment and training programs, child abuse, and
violence prevention programs, hunger relief activities, high school
equivalency and adult education programs, after-school programs and
programs under the Older Americans Act, as well as many more.

{time} 1115

For those who might be concerned about the excessive entanglement of
religion in H.R. 7, it prohibits faith-based organizations from
discriminating against participants on the basis of religion, a
religious belief, or a refusal to hold a religious belief.
Other safeguards include a prohibition on using government funds for
religious worship, instruction or proselytizing, and a requirement for
separate accounting for the government funds.
Finally, if one objects to receiving services from a faith-based
provider, alternative providers must be made available.
I think another important part of this legislation is the expansion
of charitable deductions to those who do not itemize on their tax
returns. One organization in my home State that would benefit from this
change in tax law, as well as the charitable choice provisions, is
Reach Out Lakota, located in West Chester, Ohio. This group began
nearly 8 years ago after a one-time Christmas charity event, and now
has expanded into a year-round organization which provides food,
clothing, and other social services to about 45 families each month.
It is this kind of organization and this kind of involvement by
community and faith-based organizations that I think is truly making a
difference in the lives of many Americans. It is this kind of
involvement that the Federal Government should be promoting and
encouraging, the kind of involvement that H.R. 7 envisions.
I urge my colleagues to support President Bush in his efforts to
transform cities and neighborhoods all across the land. I will ask all
of my colleagues to vote for the rule and to vote for this most
important bill.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Nadler).
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule because it
forces Members who have genuine concerns about some very troublesome
elements of the bill to raise all those concerns in a single substitute
motion.
This rule permits not a single amendment to this bill to be heard on
the floor. We will not be allowed to have clear votes on any of these
questions, so the majority can shield from scrutiny the fiscal
irresponsibility contained in this bill, the legislative green light in
this bill for invidious discrimination, the nullification of State and
local antidiscrimination laws contained in this bill.
Their effort to allow the administration to completely rewrite the
billions of dollars of social service programs into vouchers, without
any legislative investigation into what we are talking about there,
without congressional consideration, and allowing religious groups to
subject the most vulnerable in our society to religious pressure and
proselytizing using Federal dollars.
Why are they so afraid of open and unstrained debate on this bill
that makes such radical changes to our laws regarding religious freedom
and the provision of social services? Why are they afraid to have clean
up or down votes on these various issues? Does it have anything to do
with the fear that those radical proposals considered one by one might
not pass this body? Does it have anything to do with the fact that they
are having trouble holding their own Members in line to vote for
legalizing religious discrimination with taxpayer dollars?
This is compassion? This is what the majority thinks of our first
freedom? This is what the Republican leadership and the compassionate
conservative in the White House think of the merits of this proposal,
that they will not permit amendments to be introduced on the floor and
considered and voted on?
This House should have the chance to look carefully at each of these
issues within this bill separately. We should have the chance to vote
on these issues separately. We should have the chance to consider
separately the several radical changes this bill would make in the very
good and satisfactory way that religious organizations have been
competing for and winning and using Federal funds for providing social
services for the last 6 or 7 decades.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes
to my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant).
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I also yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from Ohio.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bonilla). The gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Traficant) is recognized for 2\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, let us cut to the chase here. Opponents
say that the Constitution separates church and State. Let us get down
to business. But all legislative history clearly states and reflects
the fact that the Founders' intent was only to prohibit the
establishment of one state-sponsored religion.
The Founders put God on our buildings, the Founders put God on our
currency, and the Founders never intended to separate God and the
American people.
Think about what is happening in America. We have guns, drugs, murder
in our schools, but prayer and God in our schools is actually
prohibited by our government, we the people. Beam me up, Mr. Speaker.
The Founders are rolling over in their graves.
I say today on the House floor, a nation that denies God is a nation
that invites the devil and welcomes massive social problems, and that
is exactly what is happening in America. Look around.
I stand here today in strong support of President Bush's initiative.
I want to commend the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Watts) and the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall) for their great leadership in taking
America back to the intended course that our Founders had planned for
our great Nation, founded on religious liberty.
We have let a few people in America decide what faith means. It is
time to change that. This is the place to start. I commend those who
are responsible for this great initiative.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Lee).
Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me.
Today I rise in strong opposition to this rule and this bill. As one
who attended a Catholic school for 8 years, and a person of very deep
faith, I believe faith-based organizations do enormous good in our
communities, our country, and across the world helping millions of
people. They feed the hungry, heal the sick, house the homeless.
Nonprofit religious organizations should be supported with increased
funding and technical assistance. That is what charitable choice should
do. There is not one cent in this bill to help these organizations in
their noble work.
However, providing Federal funding directly to churches, synagogues,
and houses of worships, mosques, which this bill does, represents
direct government intrusion into matters of faith. Government cannot
and government should not interfere with the practice of religion.
This bill subjects houses of worship to government control. Mr.
Speaker, the IRS will have a field day. This bill will allow
government-sponsored discrimination. It tramples State and local civil
rights laws, and allows the use of Federal taxpayer dollars to fund
discrimination in employment.
For example, it would allow organizations to refuse to hire Jews,
Catholics, African American Baptists, depending on their religious
policies and practices of their denomination. It would use taxpayer
funds to fund that discrimination.
That is intolerable. Our government cannot turn its back on decades
of fighting against discrimination and start funding discrimination. I
urge Members to oppose this rule.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes
to

[[Page H4230]]

my friend and distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Kingston).
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time
to me.
Mr. Speaker, I stand in strong support of this rule. I am a little
confused. Those who are against it are saying they are against it
because they cannot get their amendments in. Yet, that same group last
week, when the Committee on Rules said, let us have a campaign finance
reform bill with lots of amendments, they were totally against that
rule. So the reality is here they are against H.R. 7.
Let us review. In 1996, President Clinton, a liberal Democrat, signed
into law welfare reform, welfare reform which said that faith-based
organizations could participate in the delivery of some certain welfare
services. The sky did not fall. For some reason, the sky is still up
there.
All this does, H.R. 7, is say, we are going to take the 1996 bedrock
signed by President Clinton and expand it to say that faith-based
organizations who participate in some form of social services can be
eligible to compete for Federal grants that fund such services.
Therefore, St. Paul's A.M.E. Church in Savannah, Georgia, run by
Reverend Delaney, in all of his services of food and shelter and
education and health care and family structure and family counseling,
what they are saying to him is, ``Reverend Delaney, if you can divide
the soup from the sermon, then what we will do is we will let you
compete for a grant to feed the hungry. And what really matters is the
full stomach here. That is the Federal Government's interest, not the
conversion. You have to divide the soup in the sermon. But if you are
doing a good job based on outcome, we are going to let you compete for
that grant.'' That is what the Federal Government interest is, is the
outcome.
If the Federal Government and all our Federal agencies were doing
such a darned good job of delivering these services, we should have
wiped out poverty, because since 1964 we have spent more on the war on
poverty than we did to fight World War II.
It is not working. They need a helping hand. Let those who know the
recipients, who live in the same ZIP Code and area code, let them
compete for this money. They will do a good job.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
North Carolina (Mr. Watt).
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I find it very interesting
to serve in a body where the Committee on Rules 1 week decides that
democracy is all about debating every single amendment separately, and
then the very next week decides that it will not allow a separate
debate on an amendment that would eliminate the ability of religious
institutions to discriminate in their employment practices and remove
the offensive provision that everybody is concerned about from this
bill.
This is not a debate about government versus God. We made that choice
when the Founding Fathers wrote into the Constitution ``one Nation,
under God,'' and we have been living with that choice ever since.
But we made a different choice in 1965 when we outlawed
discrimination in this country. It was not a unanimous decision by the
Nation at that time, but I am appalled 20 or 40 years later now to be
debating the issue of whether we will allow religious discrimination to
be engaged in in the delivery of services by church institutions, and
we are doing it in the name of God.
The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Traficant) said, ``Beam me up.''
I want to be beamed up on that false choice. We should have a rule that
allows us to offer an amendment to strike this offensive provision from
this bill, and then we would have almost unanimous support for the
bill. But they would rather have the issue than the support.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman
from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from
Ohio for yielding time to me. I thank the Speaker for the opportunity
to characterize this date of history that we have today as a debate on
a very crucial issue dealing with our view and commitment to the first
amendment; that is, the idea of this government not establishing a
specific religion for the nation.

{time} 1130

I had hoped to offer the first amendment language as an amendment to
this legislation, because I do not believe that we should be charged in
this House with characterizing this debate as a question regarding our
faith or our commitment in this Nation to our religious beliefs. I
think it is important to understand that the Bill of Rights means
something, that we cannot establish a religion through government. And
certainly I think that as this legislation moves through this House
today, giving direct funds to religious institutions makes this
legislation as a violation of the Bill of Rights.
I believe if we pass legislation that gives direct funds to religious
institutions and then affirms the right of these religious institutions
to discriminate as it relates to employment, we are doing the contrary
to what the Founding Fathers determined in those early years. Might I
say that in the story of the Good Samaritan it was a diverse individual
that helped a different individual, used his religion, his commitment
of faith and charity, but I do not believe he needed to have an
established law of providing Federal funds to a certain religion to
make him charitable.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman
from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, faith-based organizations currently play
an important and vital role in providing needed social welfare
programs; and we, as a government, wholeheartedly support this work.
In fiscal year 2000, faith-based organizations administered an
estimated $1 billion in Housing and Urban Development assistance.
Catholic Charities, Lutheran Services, Jewish Federation received
substantial support from the Federal Government. But in order to get
it, they agree not to discriminate. They simply comply with the
structure established to comply with two of our Nations's most
fundamental principles, equal protection of the law and separation of
church and State.
I have helped to establish many 501(c)(3)'s and wonderful
organizations who do this work. A thousand religious leaders and
organizations are opposed to H.R. 7, including American Baptist
Churches USA, Office of Government Relations, Jewish Council on Public
Affairs, Presbyterian Church USA, Episcopal Church, Unitarian
Universalist Church, United Church of Christ, United Methodist Church.
Join with them to oppose H.R. 7.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price).
(Mr. PRICE of North Carolina asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, many citizens, including
Members of this House, first got into politics and stay involved in
politics because of their moral and religious convictions. Religious
congregations and organizations are working in communities daily to
reach out to those in need, through Meals-on-Wheels, housing complexes
for the elderly and the disabled, after-school programs for at-risk
youth; and they are often doing this with the help of public funds.
This concept of faith-based initiatives is not new. My experience has
been that religious groups are eager and effective in delivering
greatly needed social services. But, Mr. Speaker, these groups have
willingly organized their activities so as to honor the constitutional
injunction against the establishment of religion when administering
government funds. They have kept sectarian and social service
activities institutionally separate. And they have understood that the
use of public funds carries with it an obligation to refrain from
discrimination, both among those served and among those hired to
provide the service.
While the Democratic substitute preserves these safeguards, the
President's proposal threatens to break them down, and for that reason
religious groups across the spectrum have raised red flags about the
bill before us.
The dual constitutional prohibitions against establishing religion
and prohibiting its free exercise protect fairness and freedom in the
public realm and also the autonomy and integrity of

[[Page H4231]]

religious practice. We must maintain these safeguards, even as we
encourage citizens to put their faith into action and thus to enrich
our community life.
My colleagues, support the carefully crafted Democratic substitute.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman
from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time. Mr. Speaker, regarding the so-called faith-based initiative, if I
were convinced that this initiative posed no threat to separation of
church and State, I could support it. And if I were convinced it held
no potential for the Government telling us what to believe, I could
support it. But I am not convinced.
I just want to point to one particular provision in the bill that
asks those receiving funds to set up not a separate 501(c)(3) to
receive the dollars and be audited, but only a separate account. It
specifically states that in the legislation. Religious organizations or
any organization that is not for-profit receiving government money
should be required to set up a separate 501(c)(3) to give them tax
exempt status and to keep the distinction between the religious side of
the organization and its social service activities.
In my district, the Lutheran Church already provides nursing home
care, for example, through Wolf Creek Lutheran Home; but they have a
separate 501(c)(3). Jewish Community Services, the same. Islamic Social
Services, the same. The establishment of the 501(c)(3) principle in the
base legislation is absolutely essential. I cannot support the faith-
based initiative as currently constituted.
As a freedom lover who happens to be a Roman Catholic, I also know if
our faith isn't deep enough, as sacrificing people, we don't need
government money to subsidize us. We must give of our substance, not
come to rely on a government subsidy.
But partnership between government and faith-based groups has its
place. If this initiative--or any faith-based initiative--had the
proper safeguards, I could give it my support. On page 29 of the bill,
any funds received by religious groups under this program shall be
placed in a ``separate account,'' not a separately incorporated
501(c)(3) legal entity. This means federal funds will be awarded
directly to religious organizations. This simply defies our Bill of
Rights and the separation of church and state so essential to the
maintenance of our fundamental freedoms.
This bill should require religious organizations to establish
separate 501(c)(3) organizations and give them a separate legal
standing from the religious mission of the faith-based group and a tax-
exempt status. Of course most involved in social services already do.
In that way, they can take government money but maintain the separate
legal structure that is necessary to protect religious freedom from
government incursion.
Of course, grantees should employ strict prohibitions against
discrimination in hiring and the provision of services and abide by all
applicable federal, state and local laws prohibiting discrimination.
Of course, Mr. Speaker, religious organizations providing social
services--augmented by taxpayer dollars--is hardly a new concept. And,
we have learned an enormous amount from this rich and worthy
experience. Let me give you some examples:

The Sisters of Mercy, the Franciscons, the Grey Nuns, the Dominicians
and members of other orders minister to the needy in hospitals and
hospices and homeless shelters throughout America. But they do so
through non-profit organizations that are separate and legally
distinct.
In my district, the Lutheran Church provides nursing home care and
other service through Wolf Creek Lutheran Home. But they have a
separate 501(c)(3).
Jewish Community Services throughout the nation offer social
services, including federally-subsidized independent housing for
elderly and handicapped people. But they keep a separate accounting
through a 501(c)(3) status.
Islamic Social Services Association provides a wide range of social
services to the growing Muslim population in North America--through its
non-profit arm.
Certainly we want to encourage religious organizations to provide
social services to our fellow Americans. And certainly we want to do
nothing that would discourage such compassionate activity.
Priviate philantropy has its place, and we want to encourage our
fellow citizens to give of their time and money to help the less
fortunate. We know private philanthropy will never be a complete
substitute for substantial social services funded by the U.S.
Government. Our needs in America are so great, and many of the private
groups boats are so small.
I believe it is crucial--in order to protect taxpayer dollars and
also to protect religious institutions from government interference--to
keep not just two separate accounts, but separate and distinct
organizations legally incorprated with their mission clearly defined.
That is why the establishment of 501(c)(3) organizations is so
crucial--not just for the integrity of government grant money but also
for the independence of the religious organizations using it.
I cannot support the faith-based initiative as currently proposed.
Please vote ``no'' on the rule and on the bill, unless amended.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Schiff).
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and to H.R.
7. The Founding Fathers established a separation of church and State
out of a solicitude for religion and for the State; and this initiative
as drafted, I believe, is a threat to both. It is a threat to the State
and the efficient operation of its services by preventing the State
from ensuring that Federal funds are spent.
Who among us in this body is prepared to ask for an audit of a Jewish
synagogue or the Catholic Church or the Mormon Temple for its
expenditures of Federal funds? I would say probably none of us. And so
the effective delivery of services cannot be effectively audited.
But more than that, the risk of excessive entanglement of religion,
of having religious denominations compete with each other for Federal
grants, becoming vendors of Federal services, of being told if they
receive Federal money they cannot talk about faith being a necessary
part of recovery, is this a position we want the Government to be in,
saying if you take the Federal money, you cannot talk about faith, but
if you do not, you can?
This is not in the best interest of either State or church, and I
urge a ``no'' vote.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Edwards).
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, as a person of faith, I believe in the
power of faith to change lives, and I believe in the good work of
faith-based groups. Yet today I join with over 1,000 religious leaders
across America, and with civil rights groups, such as the NAACP, and
educations groups, such as the National PTA and the National
Association of School Administrators, who strongly oppose this bill.
Mr. Speaker, when Members cast their vote on this bill today, I hope
they will ask themselves two fundamental questions: one, should
citizens' tax dollars be used to directly fund churches and houses of
worship? And, two, is it right to discriminate in job hiring when using
Federal dollars?
I believe the answer to those two questions is no, and that is why I
oppose this bill. Sending billions of tax dollars each year directly to
churches is unconstitutional under the first amendment. It will lead to
government regulation of our churches, which is exactly why our
Founding Fathers rejected the idea of using tax dollars to fund our
churches when they wrote the Bill of Rights.
It would be a huge step backwards in our Nation's march for civil
rights to allow groups to fire employees from federally funded jobs
solely because of their religious faith. Having a religious test for
tax-supported jobs is wrong. No American citizen, not one, should have
to pass someone else's religious test to qualify for a federally funded
job.
Mr. Speaker, this idea was a bad idea when Mr. Madison and Mr.
Jefferson and our Founding Fathers rejected it in writing the
Constitution two centuries ago. It is a bad idea today. This bill will
harm religion, not help it. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this
unfair rule and ``no'' on this bill.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Horn).
Mr. HORN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this
time, and I rise today in support of H.R. 7 and encourage my colleagues
to vote for this important legislation.
There is little doubt that faith-based organizations are often the
most effective providers of social services in our communities. They
are highly motivated, generous in spirit, and their motivation stems
from a deep conviction about how one should live daily by giving to
others in need. I have had a very

[[Page H4232]]

strong record in this Chamber of separation of church and State, but I
think we should give the President a chance on this. If something goes
awry, then let us change it. But I think it will not, and I think
thousands of people will be able to help hundreds of people.
Through the welfare law passed in 1996, Congress provided
opportunities for religious organizations, and I think there has been
some very good language in H.R. 7. This program will work.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Pickering).
Mr. PICKERING. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in proud support of both the
rule and H.R. 7. I want to commend the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall),
who is an example to all of us, and the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr.
Watts). They are the best of this institution.
I want to say that in my home State of Mississippi we have the proud
distinction of being the most charitable State in the Nation, the most
generous. And because of the faith-based initiative, we have had an
effort that has brought our christian community together with the
Jewish community, with Muslims, with black, with white, people of all
ages to organize in support of this initiative, because we know in
Mississippi, just as we know across this country, that for the addict,
for the alcoholic, for the struggling family, for the hungry, for the
prisoner, for those troubled, faith heals, faith renews, faith gives
the hope that this country needs.
Our President has called on us to remove the hindrances, to remove
the hostility to the faith-based approaches so that there can be
neutrality between the secular and the religious in healing our land.
It is to remove the discrimination that we now have against the faith-
based solutions.
I believe this approach can help heal our land, can bring our people
together. It is happening in my own State of Mississippi; it is
happening all across this land. I believe this is the right way at the
right time to stand with organizations from the Salvation Army to
Catholic Charities, to Evangelical Christians, to groups that represent
the full breadth of this land and the greatest traditions of our faith.
Our founders knew that faith needed to guide us to give us the
political prosperity and the peace and the reconciliation and the
renewal. May we rise to the occasion today and pass this great and good
legislation.

{time} 1145

Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, before I yield back the balance of my time, I would
simply say that if I were to believe what has been said in the past few
days, even the past couple weeks, even some of the stories I have read
in the news, if I were to believe it without reading the bill, I would
probably vote against this bill, too. But I have read the bill.
I have lived and worked with some of these people that we are trying
to help. It is time to reach out to them. It is time to encourage them,
instead of beating them down. We beat them down. We turn them away from
us when we have these kinds of discussions. It is time to reach out.
That is what this bill does.
Vote for the rule. Vote for the bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues not to lose sight of our goal here
to empower those organizations that can truly help in ways that the
government could only wish, those organizations that are capable of
really producing results in their own communities, neighbor to
neighbor, one at a time. We need them far more than they need us.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the
underlying legislation so that we can join our President and heroes
like the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall) and the gentleman from Oklahoma
(Mr. Watts) and truly unleash the best of America.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bonilla). The question is on ordering
the previous question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground
that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum
is not present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair will reduce to 5 minutes
the minimum time for electronic voting, if ordered, on the question of
agreeing to the resolution.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 228,
nays 199, not voting 6, as follows:

[Roll No. 250]

YEAS--228

Aderholt
Akin
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Barton
Bass
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilirakis
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Coble
Collins
Combest
Cooksey
Cox
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Everett
Ferguson
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Graham
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Grucci
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kerns
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
Matheson
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Morella
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Nussle
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reynolds
Riley
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaffer
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Stump
Sununu
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Traficant
Upton
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins (OK)
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Wu
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NAYS--199

[[Page H4233]]

McGovern
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Mink
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Phelps
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott
Serrano
Sherman
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson (CA)
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wynn

NOT VOTING--6

Bartlett
Engel
Hinojosa
McKinney
Norwood
Spence

{time} 1207

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas, Mr. LUCAS of Kentucky, Mr. CLEMENT, Ms.
PELOSI, and Mr. WEXLER changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. SHADEGG changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bonilla). The question is on the
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 233,
noes 194, not voting 6, as follows:

[Roll No. 251]

AYES--233

Aderholt
Akin
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Clement
Coble
Collins
Combest
Cooksey
Cox
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Everett
Ferguson
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Grucci
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kerns
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
Matheson
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Morella
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Nussle
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reynolds
Riley
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaffer
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Stump
Sununu
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Traficant
Upton
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins (OK)
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOES--194

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barcia
Barrett
Becerra
Bentsen
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Clay
Clayton
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank
Frost
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hill
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jefferson
John
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Mink
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Phelps
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott
Serrano
Sherman
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson (CA)
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn

NOT VOTING--6

Engel
Hinojosa
Johnson (CT)
McKinney
Norwood
Spence

{time} 1219

So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

personal explanation

Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Speaker, I regret that I was unavoidably detained
this last evening and this morning. Had I been present, I would have
voted ``yes'' on rollcall 243, ``yes'' on rollcall 244, ``no'' on
rollcall 245, ``no'' on rollcall 246, ``yes'' on rollcall 247, ``yes''
on rollcall 248, ``yes'' on rollcall 249, ``no'' on rollcall 250, and
``no'' on rollcall 251.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 196, I call up
the bill (H.R. 7) to provide incentives for charitable contributions by
individuals and businesses, to improve the effectiveness and efficiency
of government program delivery to individuals and families in need, and
to enhance the ability of low-income Americans to gain financial
security by building assets, and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Pursuant to House Resolution
196, the bill is considered read for amendment.
The text of H.R. 7 is as follows:

H.R. 7

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Community
Solutions Act of 2001''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents is as
follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.

TITLE I--CHARITABLE GIVING INCENTIVES PACKAGE

TITLE II--EXPANSION OF CHARITABLE CHOICE

Sec. 201. Provision of assistance under government programs by
religious and community organizations.

TITLE III--INDIVIDUAL DEVELOPMENT ACCOUNTS

Sec. 301. Purposes.

[[Page H4234]]

Sec. 302. Definitions.
Sec. 303. Structure and administration of qualified individual
development account programs.
Sec. 304. Procedures for opening and maintaining an individual
development account and qualifying for matching funds.
Sec. 305. Deposits by qualified individual development account
programs.
Sec. 306. Withdrawal procedures.
Sec. 307. Certification and termination of qualified individual
development account programs.
Sec. 308. Reporting, monitoring, and evaluation.
Sec. 309. Authorization of appropriations.
Sec. 310. Account funds disregarded for purposes of certain means-
tested Federal programs.
Sec. 311. Matching funds for individual development accounts provided
through a tax credit for qualified financial
institutions.

TITLE I--CHARITABLE GIVING INCENTIVES PACKAGE

SEC. 101. DEDUCTION FOR PORTION OF CHARITABLE CONTRIBUTIONS
TO BE ALLOWED TO INDIVIDUALS WHO DO NOT ITEMIZE
DEDUCTIONS.

(a) In General.--Section 170 of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986 (relating to charitable, etc., contributions and
gifts) is amended by redesignating subsection (m) as
subsection (n) and by inserting after subsection (l) the
following new subsection:
``(m) Deduction for Individuals Not Itemizing Deductions.--
In the case of an individual who does not itemize his
deductions for the taxable year, there shall be taken into
account as a direct charitable deduction under section 63 an
amount equal to the lesser of--
``(1) the amount allowable under subsection (a) for the
taxable year, or
``(2) the amount of the standard deduction.''
(b) Direct Charitable Deduction.--
(1) In general.--Subsection (b) of section 63 of such Code
is amended by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (1),
by striking the period at the end of paragraph (2) and
inserting ``, and'', and by adding at the end thereof the
following new paragraph:
``(3) the direct charitable deduction.''
(2) Definition.--Section 63 of such Code is amended by
redesignating subsection (g) as subsection (h) and by
inserting after subsection (f) the following new subsection:
``(g) Direct Charitable Deduction.--For purposes of this
section, the term `direct charitable deduction' means that
portion of the amount allowable under section 170(a) which is
taken as a direct charitable deduction for the taxable year
under section 170(m).''
(3) Conforming amendment.--Subsection (d) of section 63 of
such Code is amended by striking ``and'' at the end of
paragraph (1), by striking the period at the end of paragraph
(2) and inserting ``, and'', and by adding at the end thereof
the following new paragraph:
``(3) the direct charitable deduction.''
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after the date of the
enactment of this Act.

SEC. 102. TAX-FREE DISTRIBUTIONS FROM INDIVIDUAL RETIREMENT
ACCOUNTS FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSES.

(a) In General.--Subsection (d) of section 408 of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to individual
retirement accounts) is amended by adding at the end the
following new paragraph:
``(8) Distributions for charitable purposes.--
``(A) In general.--No amount shall be includible in gross
income by reason of a qualified charitable distribution from
an individual retirement account to an organization described
in section 170(c).
``(B) Special rules relating to charitable remainder
trusts, pooled income funds, and charitable gift annuities.--
``(i) In general.--No amount shall be includible in gross
income by reason of a qualified charitable distribution from
an individual retirement account--

``(I) to a charitable remainder annuity trust or a
charitable remainder unitrust (as such terms are defined in
section 664(d)),
``(II) to a pooled income fund (as defined in section
642(c)(5)), or
``(III) for the issuance of a charitable gift annuity (as
defined in section 501(m)(5)).

The preceding sentence shall apply only if no person holds an
income interest in the amounts in the trust, fund, or annuity
attributable to such distribution other than one or more of
the following: the individual for whose benefit such account
is maintained, the spouse of such individual, or any
organization described in section 170(c).
``(ii) Determination of inclusion of amounts distributed.--
In determining the amount includible in the gross income of
any person by reason of a payment or distribution from a
trust referred to in clause (i)(I) or a charitable gift
annuity (as so defined), the portion of any qualified
charitable distribution to such trust or for such annuity
which would (but for this subparagraph) have been includible
in gross income--

``(I) shall be treated as income described in section
664(b)(1), and
``(II) shall not be treated as an investment in the
contract.

``(iii) No inclusion for distribution to pooled income
fund.--No amount shall be includible in the gross income of a
pooled income fund (as so defined) by reason of a qualified
charitable distribution to such fund.
``(C) Qualified charitable distribution.--For purposes of
this paragraph, the term `qualified charitable distribution'
means any distribution from an individual retirement
account--
``(i) which is made on or after the date that the
individual for whose benefit the account is maintained has
attained age 59\1/2\, and
``(ii) which is made directly from the account to--

``(I) an organization described in section 170(c), or
``(II) a trust, fund, or annuity referred to in
subparagraph (B).

``(D) Denial of deduction.--The amount allowable as a
deduction under section 170 to the taxpayer for the taxable
year shall be reduced (but not below zero) by the sum of the
amounts of the qualified charitable distributions during such
year which would be includible in the gross income of the
taxpayer for such year but for this paragraph.''
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall apply to taxable years beginning after the date of the
enactment of this Act.

SEC. 103. CHARITABLE DEDUCTION FOR CONTRIBUTIONS OF FOOD
INVENTORY.

(a) In General.--Subsection (e) of section 170 of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to certain
contributions of ordinary income and capital gain property)
is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(7) Special rule for contributions of food inventory.--
For purposes of this section--
``(A) Contributions by non-corporate taxpayers.--In the
case of a charitable contribution of food by a taxpayer,
paragraph (3)(A) shall be applied without regard to whether
or not the contribution is made by a corporation.
``(B) Limit on reduction.--In the case of a charitable
contribution of food which is a qualified contribution
(within the meaning of paragraph (3)(A), as modified by
subparagraph (A) of this paragraph)--
``(i) paragraph (3)(B) shall not apply, and
``(ii) the reduction under paragraph (1)(A) for such
contribution shall be no greater than the amount (if any) by
which the amount of such contribution exceeds twice the basis
of such food.
``(C) Determination of basis.--For purposes of this
paragraph, if a taxpayer uses the cash method of accounting,
the basis of any qualified contribution of such taxpayer
shall be deemed to be 50 percent of the fair market value of
such contribution.
``(D) Determination of fair market value.--In the case of a
charitable contribution of food which is a qualified
contribution (within the meaning of paragraph (3), as
modified by subparagraphs (A) and (B) of this paragraph) and
which, solely by reason of internal standards of the
taxpayer, lack of market, or similar circumstances, or which
is produced by the taxpayer exclusively for the purposes of
transferring the food to an organization described in
paragraph (3)(A), cannot or will not be sold, the fair market
value of such contribution shall be determined--
``(i) without regard to such internal standards, such lack
of market, such circumstances, or such exclusive purpose, and
``(ii) if applicable, by taking into account the price at
which the same or similar food items are sold by the taxpayer
at the time of the contribution (or, if not so sold at such
time, in the recent past).''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2001.

SEC. 104. CHARITABLE DONATIONS LIABILITY REFORM FOR IN-KIND
CORPORATE CONTRIBUTIONS.

[[Page H4235]]

(9) State.--The term ``State'' means each of the several
States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the Northern
Mariana Islands, any other territory or possession of the
United States, or any political subdivision of any such
State, territory, or possession.
(b) Liability.--
(1) Liability of business entities that donate equipment to
nonprofit organizations.--
(A) In general.--Subject to subsection (c), a business
entity shall not be subject to civil liability relating to
any injury or death that results from the use of equipment
donated by a business entity to a nonprofit organization.
(B) Application.--This paragraph shall apply with respect
to civil liability under Federal and State law.
(2) Liability of business entities providing use of
facilities to nonprofit organizations.--
(A) In general.--Subject to subsection (c), a business
entity shall not be subject to civil liability relating to
any injury or death occurring at a facility of the business
entity in connection with a use of such facility by a
nonprofit organization, if--
(i) the use occurs outside of the scope of business of the
business entity;
(ii) such injury or death occurs during a period that such
facility is used by the nonprofit organization; and
(iii) the business entity authorized the use of such
facility by the nonprofit organization.
(B) Application.--This paragraph shall apply--
(i) with respect to civil liability under Federal and State
law; and
(ii) regardless of whether a nonprofit organization pays
for the use of a facility.
(3) Liability of business entities providing use of a motor
vehicle or aircraft.--
(A) In general.--Subject to subsection (c), a business
entity shall not be subject to civil liability relating to
any injury or death occurring as a result of the operation of
aircraft or a motor vehicle of a business entity loaned to a
nonprofit organization for use outside of the scope of
business of the business entity, if--
(i) such injury or death occurs during a period that such
motor vehicle or aircraft is used by a nonprofit
organization; and
(ii) the business entity authorized the use by the
nonprofit organization of motor vehicle or aircraft that
resulted in the injury or death.
(B) Application.--This paragraph shall apply--
(i) with respect to civil liability under Federal and State
law; and
(ii) regardless of whether a nonprofit organization pays
for the use of the aircraft or motor vehicle.
(4) Liability of business entities providing tours of
facilities.--
(A) In general.--Subject to subsection (c), a business
entity shall not be subject to civil liability relating to
any injury to, or death of an individual occurring at a
facility of the business entity, if--
(i) such injury or death occurs during a tour of the
facility in an area of the facility that is not otherwise
accessible to the general public; and
(ii) the business entity authorized the tour.
(B) Application.--This paragraph shall apply--
(i) with respect to civil liability under Federal and State
law; and
(ii) regardless of whether an individual pays for the tour.
(c) Exceptions.--Subsection (b) shall not apply to an
injury or death that results from an act or omission of a
business entity that constitutes gross negligence or
intentional misconduct, including any misconduct that--
(1) constitutes a crime of violence (as that term is
defined in section 16 of title 18, United States Code) or act
of international terrorism (as that term is defined in
section 2331 of title 18, United States Code) for which the
defendant has been convicted in any court;
(2) constitutes a hate crime (as that term is used in the
Hate Crime Statistics Act (28 U.S.C. 534 note));
(3) involves a sexual offense, as defined by applicable
State law, for which the defendant has been convicted in any
court; or
(4) involves misconduct for which the defendant has been
found to have violated a Federal or State civil rights law.
(d) Superseding Provision.--
(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2) and subsection
(e), this title preempts the laws of any State to the extent
that such laws are inconsistent with this title, except that
this title shall not preempt any State law that provides
additional protection for a business entity for an injury or
death described in a paragraph of subsection (b) with respect
to which the conditions specified in such paragraph apply.
(2) Limitation.--Nothing in this title shall be construed
to supersede any Federal or State health or safety law.
(e) Election of State Regarding Nonapplicability.--A
provision of this title shall not apply to any civil action
in a State court against a business entity in which all
parties are citizens of the State if such State enacts a
statute--
(1) citing the authority of this section;
(2) declaring the election of such State that such
provision shall not apply to such civil action in the State;
and
(3) containing no other provisions.
(f) Effective Date.--This section shall apply to injuries
(and deaths resulting therefrom) occurring on or after the
date of the enactment of this Act.

TITLE II--EXPANSION OF CHARITABLE CHOICE

SEC. 201. PROVISION OF ASSISTANCE UNDER GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS
BY RELIGIOUS AND COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS.

Title XXIV of the Revised Statutes is amended by inserting
after section 1990 (42 U.S.C. 1994) the following:

``SEC. 1994A. CHARITABLE CHOICE.

``(a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the
`Charitable Choice Act of 2001'.
``(b) Purposes.--The purposes of this section are--
``(1) to provide assistance to individuals and families in
need in the most effective and efficient manner;
``(2) to prohibit discrimination against religious
organizations on the basis of religion in the administration
and distribution of government assistance under the
government programs described in subsection (c)(4);
``(3) to allow religious organizations to assist in the
administration and distribution of such assistance without
impairing the religious character of such organizations; and
``(4) to protect the religious freedom of individuals and
families in need who are eligible for government assistance,
including expanding the possibility of choosing to receive
services from a religious organization providing such
assistance.
``(c) Religious Organizations Included as NonGovernmental
Providers.--
``(1) In general.--
``(A) Inclusion.--For any program described in paragraph
(4) that is carried out by the Federal Government, or by a
State or local government with Federal funds, the government
shall consider, on the same basis as other nongovernmental
organizations, religious organizations to provide the
assistance under the program, if the program is implemented
in a manner that is consistent with the Establishment Clause
and the Free Exercise Clause of the first amendment to the
Constitution.
``(B) Discrimination prohibited.--Neither the Federal
Government nor a State or local government receiving funds
under a program described in paragraph (4) shall discriminate
against an organization that provides assistance under, or
applies to provide assistance under, such program, on the
basis that the organization has a religious character.
``(2) Funds not aid to religion.--Federal, State, or local
government funds or other assistance that is received by a
religious organization for the provision of services under
this section constitutes aid to individuals and families in
need, the ultimate beneficiaries of such services, and not
aid to the religious organization.
``(3) Funds not endorsement of religion.--The receipt by a
religious organization of Federal, State, or local government
funds or other assistance under this section is not and
should not be perceived as an endorsement by the government
of religion or the organization's religious beliefs or
practices.
``(4) Programs.--For purposes of this section, a program is
described in this paragraph--
``(A) if it involves activities carried out using Federal
funds--
``(i) related to the prevention and treatment of juvenile
delinquency and the improvement of the juvenile justice
system, including programs funded under the Juvenile Justice
and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5601 et
seq.);
``(ii) related to the prevention of crime, including
programs funded under title I of the Omnibus Crime Control
and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3701 et seq.);
``(iii) under the Federal housing laws;
``(iv) under title I of the Workforce Investment Act of
1998 (29 U.S.C. 2801 et seq.)
``(v) under the Older Americans Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3001
et seq.);
``(vi) under the Child Care Development Block Grant Act of
1990 (42 U.S.C. 9858 et seq.);
``(vii) under the Community Development Block Grant Program
established under title I of the Housing and Community
Development Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.);
``(viii) related to the intervention in and prevention of
domestic violence;
``(ix) related to hunger relief activities; or
``(x) under the Job Access and Reverse Commute grant
program established under section 3037 of the Federal Transit
Act of 1998 (49 U.S.C. 5309 note); or
``(B)(i) if it involves activities to assist students in
obtaining the recognized equivalents of secondary school
diplomas and activities relating to non-school-hours
programs; and
``(ii) except as provided in subparagraph (A) and clause
(i), does not include activities carried out under Federal
programs providing education to children eligible to attend
elementary schools or secondary schools, as defined in
section 14101 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 8801).
``(d) Organizational Character and Autonomy.--
``(1) In general.--A religious organization that provides
assistance under a program described in subsection (c)(4)
shall retain its autonomy from Federal, State, and local
governments, including such organization's

[[Page H4236]]

control over the definition, development, practice, and
expression of its religious beliefs.
``(2) Additional safeguards.--Neither the Federal
Government nor a State or local government shall require a
religious organization in order to be eligible to provide
assistance under a program described in subsection (c)(4)--
``(A) to alter its form of internal governance; or
``(B) to remove religious art, icons, scripture, or other
symbols because they are religious.
``(e) Employment Practices.--
``(1) In general.--In order to aid in the preservation of
its religious character, a religious organization that
provides assistance under a program described in subsection
(c)(4) may, notwithstanding any other provision of law,
require that its employees adhere to the religious practices
of the organization.
``(2) Title vii exemption.--The exemption of a religious
organization provided under section 702 or 703(e)(2) of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e-1, 2000e-2(e)(2))
regarding employment practices shall not be affected by the
religious organization's provision of assistance under, or
receipt of funds from, a program described in subsection
(c)(4).
``(3) Effect on other laws.--Nothing in this section alters
the duty of a religious organization to comply with the
nondiscrimination provisions in title VI of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq.) (prohibiting
discrimination on the basis of race, color, and national
origin), title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (20
U.S.C. 1681-1686) (prohibiting discrimination in educational
institutions on the basis of sex and visual impairment),
section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 794)
(prohibiting discrimination against otherwise qualified
disabled individuals), and the Age Discrimination Act of 1975
(42 U.S.C. 6101-6107) (prohibiting discrimination on the
basis of age).
``(f) Rights of Beneficiaries of Assistance.--
``(1) In general.--If an individual described in paragraph
(3) has an objection to the religious character of the
organization from which the individual receives, or would
receive, assistance funded under any program described in
subsection (c)(4), the appropriate Federal, State, or local
governmental entity shall provide to such individual (if
otherwise eligible for such assistance) within a reasonable
period of time after the date of such objection, assistance
that--
``(A) is an alternative, including a nonreligious
alternative, that is accessible to the individual; and
``(B) has a value that is not less than the value of the
assistance that the individual would have received from such
organization.
``(2) Notice.--The appropriate Federal, State, or local
governmental entity shall guarantee that notice is provided
to the individuals described in paragraph (3) of the rights
of such individuals under this section.
``(3) Individual described.--An individual described in
this paragraph is an individual who receives or applies for
assistance under a program described in subsection (c)(4).
``(g) Nondiscrimination Against Beneficiaries.--
``(1) Grants and contracts.--A religious organization
providing assistance through a grant or contract under a
program described in subsection (c)(4) shall not
discriminate, in carrying out the program, against an
individual described in subsection (f)(3)on the basis of
religion, a religious belief, or a refusal to hold a
religious belief.
``(2) Indirect forms of disbursement.--A religious
organization providing assistance through a voucher,
certificate, or other form of indirect disbursement under a
program described in subsection (c)(4) shall not
discriminate, in carrying out the program, against an
individual described in subsection (f)(3) on the basis of
religion, a religious belief, or a refusal to hold a
religious belief.
``(h) Accountability.--
``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), a
religious organization providing assistance under any program
described in subsection (c)(4) shall be subject to the same
regulations as other nongovernmental organizations to account
in accord with generally accepted accounting principles for
the use of such funds provided under such program.
``(2) Limited audit.--Such organization shall segregate
government funds provided under such program into a separate
account or accounts. Only the government funds shall be
subject to audit by the government.
``(i) Limitations on Use of Funds for Certain Purposes.--No
funds provided through a grant or contract to a religious
organization to provide assistance under any program
described in subsection (c)(4) shall be expended for
sectarian worship, instruction, or proselytization. A
certificate shall be signed by such organizations and filed
with the government agency that disbursed the funds that
gives assurance the organization will comply with this
subsection.
``(j) Effect on State and Local Funds.--If a State or local
government contributes State or local funds to carry out a
program described in subsection (c)(4), the State or local
government may segregate the State or local funds from the
Federal funds provided to carry out the program or may
commingle the State or local funds with the Federal funds. If
the State or local government commingles the State or local
funds, the provisions of this section shall apply to the
commingled funds in the same manner, and to the same extent,
as the provisions apply to the Federal funds.
``(k) Treatment of Intermediate Contractors.--If a
nongovernmental organization (referred to in this subsection
as an `intermediate contractor'), acting under a contract or
other agreement with the Federal Government or a State or
local government, is given the authority under the contract
or agreement to select nongovernmental organizations to
provide assistance under the programs described in subsection
(c)(4), the intermediate contractor shall have the same
duties under this section as the government when selecting or
otherwise dealing with subcontractors, but the intermediate
contractor, if it is a religious organization, shall retain
all other rights of a religious organization under this
section.
``(l) Compliance.--A party alleging that the rights of the
party under this section have been violated by a State or
local government may bring a civil action pursuant to section
1979 against the official or government agency that has
allegedly committed such violation. A party alleging that the
rights of the party under this section have been violated by
the Federal Government may bring a civil action for
appropriate relief in Federal district court against the
official or government agency that has allegedly committed
such violation.''.

TITLE III--INDIVIDUAL DEVELOPMENT ACCOUNTS

SEC. 301. PURPOSES.

The purposes of this title are to provide for the
establishment of individual development account programs that
will--
(1) provide individuals and families with limited means an
opportunity to accumulate assets and to enter the financial
mainstream;
(2) promote education, homeownership, and the development
of small businesses;
(3) stabilize families and build communities; and
(4) support United States economic expansion.

SEC. 302. DEFINITIONS.

As used in this title:
(1) Eligible individual.--
(A) In general.--The term ``eligible individual'' means an
individual who--
(i) has attained the age of 18 years but not the age of 61;
(ii) is a citizen or legal resident of the United States;
(iii) is not a student (as defined in section 151(c)(4));
and
(iv) is a taxpayer the adjusted gross income of whom for
the preceding taxable year does not exceed--

(I) $20,000, in the case of a taxpayer described in section
1(c) or 1(d) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986;
(II) $25,000, in the case of a taxpayer described in
section 1(b) of such Code; and
(III) $40,000, in the case of a taxpayer described in
section 1(a) of such Code.

(B) Inflation adjustment.--
(i) In general.--In the case of any taxable year beginning
after 2002, each dollar amount referred to in subparagraph
(A)(iv) shall be increased by an amount equal to--

(I) such dollar amount, multiplied by
(II) the cost-of-living adjustment determined under section
(1)(f)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 for the
calendar year in which the taxable year begins, by
substituting ``2001'' for ``1992''.

(ii) Rounding.--If any amount as adjusted under clause (i)
is not a multiple of $50, such amount shall be rounded to the
nearest multiple of $50.
(2) Individual development account.--The term ``Individual
Development Account'' means an account established for an
eligible individual as part of a qualified individual
development account program, but only if the written
governing instrument creating the account meets the following
requirements:
(A) The sole owner of the account is the individual for
whom the account was established.
(B) No contribution will be accepted unless it is in cash.
(C) The holder of the account is a qualified financial
institution.
(D) The assets of the account will not be commingled with
other property except in a common trust fund or common
investment fund.
(E) Except as provided in section 306(b), any amount in the
account may be paid out only for the purpose of paying the
qualified expenses of the account owner.
(3) Parallel account.--The term ``parallel account'' means
a separate, parallel individual or pooled account for all
matching funds and earnings dedicated to an Individual
Development Account owner as part of a qualified individual
development account program, the sole owner of which is a
qualified financial institution, a qualified nonprofit
organization, or an Indian tribe.
(4) Qualified financial institution.--
(A) In general.--The term ``qualified financial
institution'' means any person authorized to be a trustee of
any individual retirement account under section 408(a)(2).
(B) Rule of construction.--Nothing in this paragraph shall
be construed as preventing a person described in subparagraph

[[Page H4237]]

(A) from collaborating with 1 or more contractual affiliates,
qualified nonprofit organizations, or Indian tribes to carry
out an individual development account program established
under section 303.
(5) Qualified nonprofit organization.--The term ``qualified
nonprofit organization'' means--
(A) any organization described in section 501(c)(3) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and exempt from taxation under
section 501(a) of such Code;
(B) any community development financial institution
certified by the Community Development Financial Institution
Fund; or
(C) any credit union chartered under Federal or State law.
(6) Indian tribe.--The term ``Indian tribe'' means any
Indian tribe as defined in section 4(12) of the Native
American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of
1996 (25 U.S.C. 4103(12), and includes any tribal subsidiary,
subdivision, or other wholly owned tribal entity.
(7) Qualified individual development account program.--The
term ``qualified individual development account program''
means a program established under section 303 under which--
(A) Individual Development Accounts and parallel accounts
are held by a qualified financial institution; and
(B) additional activities determined by the Secretary as
necessary to responsibly develop and administer accounts,
including recruiting, providing financial education and other
training to account owners, and regular program monitoring,
are carried out by the qualified financial institution, a
qualified nonprofit organization, or an Indian tribe.
(8) Qualified expense distribution.--
(A) In general.--The term ``qualified expense
distribution'' means any amount paid (including through
electronic payments) or distributed out of an Individual
Development Account and a parallel account established for an
eligible individual if such amount--
(i) is used exclusively to pay the qualified expenses of
the Individual Development Account owner or such owner's
spouse or dependents, as approved by the qualified financial
institution, qualified nonprofit organization, or Indian
tribe;
(ii) is paid by the qualified financial institution,
qualified nonprofit organization, or Indian tribe--

(I) except as otherwise provided in this clause, directly
to the unrelated third party to whom the amount is due;
(II) in the case of distributions for working capital under
a qualified business plan (as defined in subparagraph
(B)(iv)(IV)), directly to the account owner;
(III) in the case of any qualified rollover, directly to
another Individual Development Account and parallel account;
or
(IV) in the case of a qualified final distribution,
directly to the spouse, dependent, or other named beneficiary
of the deceased account owner; and

(iii) is paid after the account owner has completed a
financial education course as required under section 304(b).
(B) Qualified expenses.--
(i) In general.--The term ``qualified expenses'' means any
of the following:

(I) Qualified higher education expenses.
(II) Qualified first-time homebuyer costs.
(III) Qualified business capitalization or expansion costs.
(IV) Qualified rollovers.
(V) Qualified final distribution.

(ii) Qualified higher education expenses.--

(I) In general.--The term ``qualified higher education
expenses'' has the meaning given such term by section
72(t)(7) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, determined by
treating postsecondary vocational educational schools as
eligible educational institutions.
(II) Postsecondary vocational education school.--The term
``postsecondary vocational educational school'' means an area
vocational education school (as defined in subparagraph (C)
or (D) of section 521(4) of the Carl D. Perkins Vocational
and Applied Technology Education Act (20 U.S.C. 2471(4)))
which is in any State (as defined in section 521(33) of such
Act), as such sections are in effect on the date of the
enactment of this Act.
(III) Coordination with other benefits.--The amount of
qualified higher education expenses for any taxable year
shall be reduced as provided in section 25A(g)(2) of such
Code and may not be taken into account for purposes of
determining qualified higher education expenses under section
135 or 530 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.

(iii) Qualified first-time homebuyer costs.--The term
``qualified first-time homebuyer costs'' means qualified
acquisition costs (as defined in section 72(t)(8) of such
Code without regard to subparagraph (B) thereof) with respect
to a principal residence (within the meaning of section 121
of such Code) for a qualified first-time homebuyer (as
defined in section 72(t)(8) of such Code).
(iv) Qualified business capitalization or expansion
costs.--

(I) In general.--The term ``qualified business
capitalization or expansion costs'' means qualified
expenditures for the capitalization or expansion of a
qualified business pursuant to a qualified business plan.
(II) Qualified expenditures.--The term ``qualified
expenditures'' means expenditures included in a qualified
business plan, including capital, plant, equipment, working
capital, inventory expenses, attorney and accounting fees,
and other costs normally associated with starting or
expanding a business.
(III) Qualified business.--The term ``qualified business''
means any business that does not contravene any law.
(IV) Qualified business plan.--The term ``qualified
business plan'' means a business plan which has been approved
by the qualified financial institution, qualified nonprofit
organization, or Indian tribe and which meets such
requirements as the Secretary may specify.

(v) Qualified rollovers.--The term ``qualified rollover''
means the complete distribution of the amounts in an
Individual Development Account and parallel account to
another Individual Development Account and parallel account
established in another qualified financial institution,
qualified nonprofit organization, or Indian tribe for the
benefit of the account owner.
(vi) Qualified final distribution.--The term ``qualified
final distribution'' means, in the case of a deceased account
owner, the complete distribution of the amounts in an
Individual Development Account and parallel account directly
to the spouse, any dependent, or other named beneficiary of
the deceased.
(9) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Treasury.

SEC. 303. STRUCTURE AND ADMINISTRATION OF QUALIFIED
INDIVIDUAL DEVELOPMENT ACCOUNT PROGRAMS.

(a) Establishment of Qualified Individual Development
Account Programs.--Any qualified financial institution,
qualified nonprofit organization, or Indian tribe may
establish 1 or more qualified individual development account
programs which meet the requirements of this title.
(b) Basic Program Structure.--
(1) In general.--All qualified individual development
account programs shall consist of the following 2 components:
(A) An Individual Development Account to which an eligible
individual may contribute cash in accordance with section
304.
(B) A parallel account to which all matching funds shall be
deposited in accordance with section 305.
(2) Tailored ida programs.--A qualified financial
institution, a qualified nonprofit organization, or an Indian
tribe may tailor its qualified individual development account
program to allow matching funds to be spent on 1 or more of
the categories of qualified expenses.
(c) Tax Treatment of Parallel Accounts.--Any account
described in subparagraph (B) of subsection (b)(1) is exempt
from taxation under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.

SEC. 304. PROCEDURES FOR OPENING AND MAINTAINING AN
INDIVIDUAL DEVELOPMENT ACCOUNT AND QUALIFYING
FOR MATCHING FUNDS.

(a) Opening an Account.--An eligible individual may open an
Individual Development Account with a qualified financial
institution, a qualified nonprofit organization, or an Indian
tribe upon certification that such individual maintains no
other Individual Development Account (other than an
Individual Development Account to be terminated by a
qualified rollover).
(b) Required Completion of Financial Education Course.--
(1) In general.--Before becoming eligible to withdraw
matching funds to pay for qualified expenses, owners of
Individual Development Accounts must complete a financial
education course offered by a qualified financial
institution, a qualified nonprofit organization, an Indian
tribe, or a government entity.
(2) Standard and applicability of course.--The Secretary,
in consultation with representatives of qualified individual
development account programs and financial educators, shall
establish minimum quality standards for the contents of
financial education courses and providers of such courses
offered under paragraph (1) and a protocol to exempt
individuals from the requirement under paragraph (1) because
of hardship or lack of need.
(c) Status as an Eligible Individual.--Federal income tax
forms from the preceding taxable year (or in the absence of
such forms, such documentation as specified by the Secretary
proving the eligible individual's adjusted gross income and
the status of the individual as an eligible individual) shall
be presented to the qualified financial institution,
qualified nonprofit organization, or Indian tribe at the time
of the establishment of the Individual Development Account
and in any taxable year in which contributions are made to
the Account to qualify for matching funds under section
305(b)(1)(A).
(d) Direct Deposits.--The Secretary may, under regulations,
provide for the direct deposit of any portion (not less than
$1) of any overpayment of Federal tax of an individual as a
contribution to the Individual Development Account of such
individual.

SEC. 305. DEPOSITS BY QUALIFIED INDIVIDUAL DEVELOPMENT
ACCOUNT PROGRAMS.

(a) Parallel Accounts.--The qualified financial
institution, qualified nonprofit organization, or Indian
tribe shall deposit all matching funds for each Individual
Development Account into a parallel account at a qualified
financial institution, a qualified nonprofit organization, or
an Indian tribe.
(b) Regular Deposits of Matching Funds.--
(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), the qualified
financial institution, qualified

[[Page H4238]]

nonprofit organization, or Indian tribe shall not less than
quarterly (or upon a proper withdrawal request under section
306, if necessary) deposit into the parallel account with
respect to each eligible individual the following:
(A) A dollar-for-dollar match for the first $500
contributed by the eligible individual into an Individual
Development Account with respect to any taxable year.
(B) Any matching funds provided by State, local, or private
sources in accordance to the matching ratio set by those
sources.
(2) Inflation adjustment.--
(A) In general.--In the case of any taxable year beginning
after 2002, the dollar amount referred to in paragraph (1)(A)
shall be increased by an amount equal to--
(i) such dollar amount, multiplied by
(ii) the cost-of-living adjustment determined under section
(1)(f)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 for the
calendar year in which the taxable year begins, by
substituting ``2001'' for ``1992''.
(B) Rounding.--If any amount as adjusted under subparagraph
(A) is not a multiple of $20, such amount shall be rounded to
the nearest multiple of $20.
(3) Cross reference.--

For allowance of tax credit for Individual Development Account
subsidies, including matching funds, see section 30B of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986.

(c) Deposit of Matching Funds Into Individual Development
Account of Individual Who Has Attained Age 61.--In the case
of an Individual Development Account owner who attains the
age of 61, the qualified financial institution, qualified
nonprofit organization, or Indian tribe which holds the
parallel account for such individual shall deposit the funds
in such parallel account into the Individual Development
Account of such individual on the first day of the succeeding
taxable year of such individual.
(d) Uniform Accounting Regulations.--To ensure proper
recordkeeping and determination of the tax credit under
section 30B of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, the
Secretary shall prescribe regulations with respect to
accounting for matching funds in the parallel accounts.
(e) Regular Reporting of Accounts.--Any qualified financial
institution, qualified nonprofit organization, or Indian
tribe shall report the balances in any Individual Development
Account and parallel account of an individual on not less
than an annual basis to such individual.

SEC. 306. WITHDRAWAL PROCEDURES.

(a) Withdrawals for Qualified Expenses.--To withdraw money
from an individual's Individual Development Account to pay
qualified expenses of such individual or such individual's
spouse or dependents, the qualified financial institution,
qualified nonprofit organization, or Indian tribe shall
directly transfer such funds from the Individual Development
Account, and, if applicable, from the parallel account
electronically to the distributees described in section
302(8)(A)(ii). If the distributee is not equipped to receive
funds electronically, the qualified financial institution,
qualified nonprofit organization, or Indian tribe may issue
such funds by paper check to the distributee.
(b) Withdrawals for Nonqualified Expenses.--An Individual
Development Account owner may unilaterally withdraw any
amount of funds from the Individual Development Account for
purposes other than to pay qualified expenses, but shall
forfeit a proportionate amount of matching funds from the
individual's parallel account by doing so, unless such
withdrawn funds are recontributed to such Account by
September 30 following the withdrawal.
(c) Withdrawals From Accounts of Noneligible Individuals.--
If the individual for whose benefit an Individual Development
Account is established ceases to be an eligible individual,
such account shall remain an Individual Development Account,
but such individual shall not be eligible for any further
matching funds under section 305(b)(1)(A) during the period--
(1) beginning on the first day of the taxable year of such
individual following the beginning of such ineligibility, and
(2) ending on the last day of the taxable year of such
individual in which such ineligibility ceases.
(d) Tax Treatment of Matching Funds.--Any amount withdrawn
from a parallel account shall not be includible in an
eligible individual's gross income.
(e) Withdrawal Liability Rests Only With Eligible
Individuals.--Nothing in this title may be construed to
impose liability on a qualified financial institution, a
qualified nonprofit organization, or an Indian tribe for non-
compliance with the requirements of this title related to
withdrawals from Individual Development Accounts.

SEC. 307. CERTIFICATION AND TERMINATION OF QUALIFIED
INDIVIDUAL DEVELOPMENT ACCOUNT PROGRAMS.

(a) Certification Procedures.--Upon establishing a
qualified individual development account program under
section 303, a qualified financial institution, a qualified
nonprofit organization, or an Indian tribe shall certify to
the Secretary on forms prescribed by the Secretary and
accompanied by any documentation required by the Secretary,
that--
(1) the accounts described in subparagraphs (A) and (B) of
section 303(b)(1) are operating pursuant to all the
provisions of this title; and
(2) the qualified financial institution, qualified
nonprofit organization, or Indian tribe agrees to implement
an information system necessary to monitor the cost and
outcomes of the qualified individual development account
program.
(b) Authority To Terminate Qualified IDA Program.--If the
Secretary determines that a qualified financial institution,
a qualified nonprofit organization, or an Indian tribe under
this title is not operating a qualified individual
development account program in accordance with the
requirements of this title (and has not implemented any
corrective recommendations directed by the Secretary), the
Secretary shall terminate such institution's, nonprofit
organization's, or Indian tribe's authority to conduct the
program. If the Secretary is unable to identify a qualified
financial institution, a qualified nonprofit organization, or
an Indian tribe to assume the authority to conduct such
program, then any funds in a parallel account established for
the benefit of any individual under such program shall be
deposited into the Individual Development Account of such
individual as of the first day of such termination.

SEC. 308. REPORTING, MONITORING, AND EVALUATION.

(a) Responsibilities of Qualified Financial Institutions,
Qualified Nonprofit Organizations, and Indian Tribes.--Each
qualified financial institution, qualified nonprofit
organization, or Indian tribe that operates a qualified
individual development account program under section 303
shall report annually to the Secretary within 90 days after
the end of each calendar year on--
(1) the number of eligible individuals making contributions
into Individual Development Accounts;
(2) the amounts contributed into Individual Development
Accounts and deposited into parallel accounts for matching
funds;
(3) the amounts withdrawn from Individual Development
Accounts and parallel accounts, and the purposes for which
such amounts were withdrawn;
(4) the balances remaining in Individual Development
Accounts and parallel accounts; and
(5) such other information needed to help the Secretary
monitor the cost and outcomes of the qualified individual
development account program (provided in a non-individually-
identifiable manner).
(b) Responsibilities of the Secretary.--
(1) Monitoring protocol.--Not later than 12 months after
the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall
develop and implement a protocol and process to monitor the
cost and outcomes of the qualified individual development
account programs established under section 303.
(2) Annual reports.--In each year after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit a progress
report to Congress on the status of such qualified individual
development account programs. Such report shall include from
a representative sample of qualified individual development
account programs information on--
(A) the characteristics of participants, including age,
gender, race or ethnicity, marital status, number of
children, employment status, and monthly income;
(B) deposits, withdrawals, balances, uses of Individual
Development Accounts, and participant characteristics;
(C) the characteristics of qualified individual development
account programs, including match rate, economic education
requirements, permissible uses of accounts, staffing of
programs in full time employees, and the total costs of
programs; and
(D) information on program implementation and
administration, especially on problems encountered and how
problems were solved.

SEC. 309. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

There is authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary
$1,000,000 for fiscal year 2002 and for each fiscal year
through 2008, for the purposes of implementing this title,
including the reporting, monitoring, and evaluation required
under section 308, to remain available until expended.

SEC. 310. ACCOUNT FUNDS DISREGARDED FOR PURPOSES OF CERTAIN
MEANS-TESTED FEDERAL PROGRAMS.

Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal law that
requires consideration of 1 or more financial circumstances
of an individual, for the purposes of determining eligibility
to receive, or the amount of, any assistance or benefit
authorized by such provision to be provided to or for the
benefit of such individual, an amount equal to the sum of--
(1) all amounts (including earnings thereon) in any
Individual Development Account; plus
(2) the matching deposits made on behalf of such individual
(including earnings thereon) in any parallel account,
shall be disregarded for such purposes.

SEC. 311. MATCHING FUNDS FOR INDIVIDUAL DEVELOPMENT ACCOUNTS
PROVIDED THROUGH A TAX CREDIT FOR QUALIFIED
FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS.

(a) In General.--Subpart B of part IV of subchapter A of
chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to
other credits) is amended by inserting after section 30A the
following new section:

``SEC. 30B. INDIVIDUAL DEVELOPMENT ACCOUNT INVESTMENT CREDIT
FOR QUALIFIED FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS.

``(a) Determination of Amount.--There shall be allowed as a
credit against the applicable tax for the taxable year an
amount

[[Page H4239]]

equal to the individual development account investment
provided by an eligible entity during the taxable year under
an individual development account program established under
section 303 of the Community Solutions Act of 2001.
``(b) Applicable Tax.--For the purposes of this section,
the term `applicable tax' means the excess (if any) of--
``(1) the tax imposed under this chapter (other than the
taxes imposed under the provisions described in subparagraphs
(C) through (Q) of section 26(b)(2)), over
``(2) the credits allowable under subpart B (other than
this section) and subpart D of this part.
``(c) Individual Development Account Investment.--
``(1) In general.--For purposes of this section, the term
`individual development account investment' means, with
respect to an individual development account program of a
qualified financial institution in any taxable year, an
amount equal to the sum of--
``(A) the aggregate amount of dollar-for-dollar matches
under such program under section 305(b)(1)(A) of the
Community Solutions Act of 2001 for such taxable year, plus
``(B) an amount equal to the sum of--
``(i) with respect to each Individual Development Account
opened during such taxable year, $100, plus
``(ii) with respect to each Individual Development Account
maintained during such taxable year, $30.
``(2) Inflation adjustment.--
``(A) In general.--In the case of any taxable year
beginning after 2002, each dollar amount referred to in
paragraph (1)(B) shall be increased by an amount equal to--
``(i) such dollar amount, multiplied by
``(ii) the cost-of-living adjustment determined under
section (1)(f)(3) for the calendar year in which the taxable
year begins, by substituting `2001' for `1992'.
``(B) Rounding.--If any amount as adjusted under
subparagraph (A) is not a multiple of $5, such amount shall
be rounded to the nearest multiple of $5.
``(d) Eligible Entity.--For purposes of this section, the
term `eligible entity' means a qualified financial
institution, or 1 or more contractual affiliates of such an
institution as defined by the Secretary in regulations.
``(e) Other Definitions.--For purposes of this section, any
term used in this section and also in the Community Solutions
Act shall have the meaning given such term by such Act.
``(f) Denial of Double Benefit.--No deduction or credit
(other than under this section) shall be allowed under this
chapter with respect to any expense which is taken into
account under subsection (c)(1)(A) in determining the credit
under this section.
``(g) Regulations.--The Secretary may prescribe such
regulations as may be necessary or appropriate to carry out
this section, including regulations providing for a recapture
of the credit allowed under this section (notwithstanding any
termination date described in subsection (h)) in cases where
there is a forfeiture under section 306(b) of the Community
Solutions Act of 2001 in a subsequent taxable year of any
amount which was taken into account in determining the amount
of such credit.
``(h) Application of Section.--This section shall apply to
any expenditure made in any taxable year beginning after
December 31, 2001, and before January 1, 2009, with respect
to any Individual Development Account opened before January
1, 2007.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--The table of sections for
subpart B of part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1 is amended
by inserting after the item relating to section 30A the
following new item:

``Sec. 30B. Individual development account investment credit for
qualified financial institutions.''.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. In lieu of the amendments recommended by the
Committee on Ways and Means and the Committee on the Judiciary printed
in the bill, the amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in the
Congressional Record and numbered 1 is adopted.
The text of the bill as amended by the amendment in the nature of a
substitute printed in the Congressional Record and numbered 1 is as
follows:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Community
Solutions Act of 2001''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents is as
follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.

TITLE I--CHARITABLE GIVING INCENTIVES PACKAGE

Sec. 101. Deduction for portion of charitable contributions to be
allowed to individuals who do not itemize deductions.
Sec. 102. Tax-free distributions from individual retirement accounts
for charitable purposes.
Sec. 103. Increase in cap on corporate charitable contributions.
Sec. 104. Charitable deduction for contributions of food inventory.
Sec. 105. Reform of excise tax on net investment income of private
foundations.
Sec. 106. Excise tax on unrelated business taxable income of charitable
remainder trusts.
Sec. 107. Expansion of charitable contribution allowed for scientific
property used for research and for computer technology
and equipment used for educational purposes.
Sec. 108. Adjustment to basis of S corporation stock for certain
charitable contributions.

TITLE II--EXPANSION OF CHARITABLE CHOICE

Sec. 201. Provision of assistance under government programs by
religious and community organizations.

TITLE III--INDIVIDUAL DEVELOPMENT ACCOUNTS

Sec. 301. Additional qualified entities eligible to conduct projects
under the Assets for Independence Act.
Sec. 302. Increase in limitation on net worth.
Sec. 303. Change in limitation on deposits for an individual.
Sec. 304. Elimination of limitation on deposits for a household.
Sec. 305. Extension of program.
Sec. 306. Conforming amendments.
Sec. 307. Applicability.

TITLE IV--CHARITABLE DONATIONS LIABILITY REFORM FOR IN-KIND CORPORATE
CONTRIBUTIONS

Sec. 401. Charitable donations liability reform for in-kind corporate
contributions.

TITLE I--CHARITABLE GIVING INCENTIVES PACKAGE

SEC. 101. DEDUCTION FOR PORTION OF CHARITABLE CONTRIBUTIONS
TO BE ALLOWED TO INDIVIDUALS WHO DO NOT ITEMIZE
DEDUCTIONS.

``For taxable years beginning in: The applicable amount is:
2002 and 2003............................................$25 .

2004, 2005, 2006.........................................$50 .

2007, 2008, 2009.........................................$75 .

2010 and thereafter.....................................$100..

In the case of a joint return, the applicable amount is twice
the applicable amount determined under the preceding
table.''.
(b) Direct Charitable Deduction.--
(1) In general.--Subsection (b) of section 63 of such Code
is amended by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (1),
by striking the period at the end of paragraph (2) and
inserting ``, and'', and by adding at the end thereof the
following new paragraph:
``(3) the direct charitable deduction.''.
(2) Definition.--Section 63 of such Code is amended by
redesignating subsection (g) as subsection (h) and by
inserting after subsection (f) the following new subsection:
``(g) Direct Charitable Deduction.--For purposes of this
section, the term `direct charitable deduction' means that
portion of the amount allowable under section 170(a) which is
taken as a direct charitable deduction for the taxable year
under section 170(m).''.
(3) Conforming amendment.--Subsection (d) of section 63 of
such Code is amended by striking ``and'' at the end of
paragraph (1), by striking the period at the end of paragraph
(2) and inserting ``, and'', and by adding at the end thereof
the following new paragraph:
``(3) the direct charitable deduction.''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2001.

SEC. 102. TAX-FREE DISTRIBUTIONS FROM INDIVIDUAL RETIREMENT
ACCOUNTS FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSES.

(a) In General.--Subsection (d) of section 408 of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to individual
retirement accounts) is amended by adding at the end the
following new paragraph:
``(8) Distributions for charitable purposes.--
``(A) In general.--No amount shall be includible in gross
income by reason of a qualified charitable distribution.
``(B) Qualified charitable distribution.--For purposes of
this paragraph, the term `qualified charitable distribution'
means any distribution from an individual retirement
account--
``(i) which is made on or after the date that the
individual for whose benefit the account is maintained has
attained age 70\1/2\, and
``(ii) which is made directly by the trustee--

``(I) to an organization described in section 170(c), or
``(II) to a split-interest entity.

A distribution shall be treated as a qualified charitable
distribution only to the extent that the distribution would
be includible in

[[Page H4240]]

gross income without regard to subparagraph (A) and, in the
case of a distribution to a split-interest entity, only if no
person holds an income interest in the amounts in the split-
interest entity attributable to such distribution other than
one or more of the following: the individual for whose
benefit such account is maintained, the spouse of such
individual, or any organization described in section 170(c).
``(C) Contributions must be otherwise deductible.--For
purposes of this paragraph--
``(i) Direct contributions.--A distribution to an
organization described in section 170(c) shall be treated as
a qualified charitable distribution only if a deduction for
the entire distribution would be allowable under section 170
(determined without regard to subsection (b) thereof and this
paragraph).
``(ii) Split-interest gifts.--A distribution to a split-
interest entity shall be treated as a qualified charitable
distribution only if a deduction for the entire value of the
interest in the distribution for the use of an organization
described in section 170(c) would be allowable under section
170 (determined without regard to subsection (b) thereof and
this paragraph).
``(D) Application of section 72.--Notwithstanding section
72, in determining the extent to which a distribution is a
qualified charitable distribution, the entire amount of the
distribution shall be treated as includible in gross income
without regard to subparagraph (A) to the extent that such
amount does not exceed the aggregate amount which would be so
includible if all amounts were distributed from all
individual retirement accounts otherwise taken into account
in determining the inclusion on such distribution under
section 72. Proper adjustments shall be made in applying
section 72 to other distributions in such taxable year and
subsequent taxable years.
``(E) Special rules for split-interest entities.--
``(i) Charitable remainder trusts.--Distributions made from
an individual retirement account to a trust described in
subparagraph (G)(ii)(I) shall be treated as income described
in section 664(b)(1) except to the extent that the
beneficiary of the individual retirement account notifies the
trustee of the trust of the amount which is not allocable to
income under subparagraph (D).
``(ii) Pooled income funds.--No amount shall be includible
in the gross income of a pooled income fund (as defined in
subparagraph (G)(ii)(II)) by reason of a qualified charitable
distribution to such fund.
``(iii) Charitable gift annuities.--Qualified charitable
distributions made for a charitable gift annuity shall not be
treated as an investment in the contract.
``(F) Denial of deduction.--Qualified charitable
distributions shall not be taken into account in determining
the deduction under section 170.
``(G) Split-interest entity defined.--For purposes of this
paragraph, the term `split-interest entity' means--
``(i) a charitable remainder annuity trust or a charitable
remainder unitrust (as such terms are defined in section
664(d)),
``(ii) a pooled income fund (as defined in section
642(c)(5)), and
``(iii) a charitable gift annuity (as defined in section
501(m)(5)).''.
(b) Modifications Relating to Information Returns by
Certain Trusts.--
(1) Returns.--Section 6034 of such Code (relating to
returns by trusts described in section 4947(a)(2) or claiming
charitable deductions under section 642(c)) is amended to
read as follows:

``SEC. 6034. RETURNS BY TRUSTS DESCRIBED IN SECTION
4947(A)(2) OR CLAIMING CHARITABLE DEDUCTIONS
UNDER SECTION 642(C).

``(a) Trusts Described in Section 4947(a)(2).--Every trust
described in section 4947(a)(2) shall furnish such
information with respect to the taxable year as the Secretary
may by forms or regulations require.
``(b) Trusts Claiming a Charitable Deduction Under Section
642(c).--
``(1) In general.--Every trust not required to file a
return under subsection (a) but claiming a charitable, etc.,
deduction under section 642(c) for the taxable year shall
furnish such information with respect to such taxable year as
the Secretary may by forms or regulations prescribe,
including:
``(A) the amount of the charitable, etc., deduction taken
under section 642(c) within such year,
``(B) the amount paid out within such year which represents
amounts for which charitable, etc., deductions under section
642(c) have been taken in prior years,
``(C) the amount for which charitable, etc., deductions
have been taken in prior years but which has not been paid
out at the beginning of such year,
``(D) the amount paid out of principal in the current and
prior years for charitable, etc., purposes,
``(E) the total income of the trust within such year and
the expenses attributable thereto, and
``(F) a balance sheet showing the assets, liabilities, and
net worth of the trust as of the beginning of such year.
``(2) Exceptions.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply in the
case of a taxable year if all the net income for such year,
determined under the applicable principles of the law of
trusts, is required to be distributed currently to the
beneficiaries. Paragraph (1) shall not apply in the case of a
trust described in section 4947(a)(1).''.
(2) Increase in penalty relating to filing of information
return by split-interest trusts.--Paragraph (2) of section
6652(c) of such Code (relating to returns by exempt
organizations and by certain trusts) is amended by adding at
the end the following new subparagraph:
``(C) Split-interest trusts.--In the case of a trust which
is required to file a return under section 6034(a),
subparagraphs (A) and (B) of this paragraph shall not apply
and paragraph (1) shall apply in the same manner as if such
return were required under section 6033, except that--
``(i) the 5 percent limitation in the second sentence of
paragraph (1)(A) shall not apply,
``(ii) in the case of any trust with gross income in excess
of $250,000, the first sentence of paragraph (1)(A) shall be
applied by substituting `$100' for `$20', and the second
sentence thereof shall be applied by substituting `$50,000'
for `$10,000', and
``(iii) the third sentence of paragraph (1)(A) shall be
disregarded.

If the person required to file such return knowingly fails to
file the return, such person shall be personally liable for
the penalty imposed pursuant to this subparagraph.''.
(3) Confidentiality of noncharitable beneficiaries.--
Subsection (b) of section 6104 of such Code (relating to
inspection of annual information returns) is amended by
adding at the end the following new sentence: ``In the case
of a trust which is required to file a return under section
6034(a), this subsection shall not apply to information
regarding beneficiaries which are not organizations described
in section 170(c).''.
(c) Effective Dates.--
(1) Subsection (a).--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2001.
(2) Subsection (b).--The amendments made by subsection (b)
shall apply to returns for taxable years beginning after
December 31, 2001.

SEC. 103. INCREASE IN CAP ON CORPORATE CHARITABLE
CONTRIBUTIONS.

(a) In General.--Paragraph (2) of section 170(b) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to corporations) is
amended by striking ``10 percent'' and inserting ``the
applicable percentage''.
(b) Applicable Percentage.--Subsection (b) of section 170
of such Code is amended by adding at the end the following
new paragraph:
``(3) Applicable percentage defined.--For purposes of
paragraph (2), the applicable percentage shall be determined
in accordance with the following table:

``For taxable years beginning The applicable
in calendar year-- percentage is--
2002 through 2007.............................................11
2008..........................................................12
2009..........................................................13
2010 and thereafter........................................15.''.
(c) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Sections 512(b)(10) and 805(b)(2)(A) of such Code are
each amended by striking ``10 percent'' each place it occurs
and inserting ``the applicable percentage (determined under
section 170(b)(3))''.
(2) Sections 545(b)(2) and 556(b)(2) of such Code are each
amended by striking ``10-percent limitation'' and inserting
``applicable percentage limitation''.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2001.

SEC. 104. CHARITABLE DEDUCTION FOR CONTRIBUTIONS OF FOOD
INVENTORY.

(a) In General.--Paragraph (3) of section 170(e) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to special rule for
certain contributions of inventory and other property) is
amended by redesignating subparagraph (C) as subparagraph (D)
and by inserting after subparagraph (B) the following new
subparagraph:
``(C) Special rule for contributions of food inventory.--
``(i) General rule.--In the case of a charitable
contribution of food, this paragraph shall be applied--

``(I) without regard to whether the contribution is made by
a C corporation, and
``(II) only for food that is apparently wholesome food.

``(ii) Determination of fair market value.--In the case of
a qualified contribution of apparently wholesome food to
which this paragraph applies and which, solely by reason of
internal standards of the taxpayer or lack of market, cannot
or will not be sold, the fair market value of such food shall
be determined by taking into account the price at which the
same or similar food items are sold by the taxpayer at the
time of the contribution (or, if not so sold at such time, in
the recent past).
``(iii) Apparently wholesome food.--For purposes of this
subparagraph, the term `apparently wholesome food' shall have
the meaning given to such term by section 22(b)(2) of the
Bill Emerson Good Samaritan Food Donation Act (42 U.S.C.
1791(b)(2)), as in effect on the date of the enactment of
this subparagraph.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2001.

SEC. 105. REFORM OF EXCISE TAX ON NET INVESTMENT INCOME OF
PRIVATE FOUNDATIONS.

[[Page H4241]]

(b) Repeal of Reduction In Tax Where Private Foundation
Meets Certain Distribution Requirements.--Section 4940 of
such Code is amended by striking subsection (e).
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2001.

SEC. 106. EXCISE TAX ON UNRELATED BUSINESS TAXABLE INCOME OF
CHARITABLE REMAINDER TRUSTS.

(a) In General.--Subsection (c) of section 664 of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to exemption from
income taxes) is amended to read as follows:
``(c) Taxation of Trusts.--
``(1) Income tax.--A charitable remainder annuity trust and
a charitable remainder unitrust shall, for any taxable year,
not be subject to any tax imposed by this subtitle.
``(2) Excise tax.--
``(A) In general.--In the case of a charitable remainder
annuity trust or a charitable remainder unitrust that has
unrelated business taxable income (within the meaning of
section 512, determined as if part III of subchapter F
applied to such trust) for a taxable year, there is hereby
imposed on such trust or unitrust an excise tax equal to the
amount of such unrelated business taxable income.
``(B) Certain rules to apply.--The tax imposed by
subparagraph (A) shall be treated as imposed by chapter 42
for purposes of this title other than subchapter E of chapter
42.
``(C) Character of distributions and coordination with
distribution requirements.--The amounts taken into account in
determining unrelated business taxable income (as defined in
subparagraph (A)) shall not be taken into account for
purposes of--
``(i) subsection (b),
``(ii) determining the value of trust assets under
subsection (d)(2), and
``(iii) determining income under subsection (d)(3).
``(D) Tax court proceedings.--For purposes of this
paragraph, the references in section 6212(c)(1) to section
4940 shall be deemed to include references to this
paragraph.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2001.

SEC. 107. EXPANSION OF CHARITABLE CONTRIBUTION ALLOWED FOR
SCIENTIFIC PROPERTY USED FOR RESEARCH AND FOR
COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY AND EQUIPMENT USED FOR
EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES.

(a) Scientific Property Used for Research.--Clause (ii) of
section 170(e)(4)(B) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
(defining qualified research contributions) is amended by
inserting ``or assembled'' after ``constructed''.
(b) Computer Technology and Equipment for Educational
Purposes.--Clause (ii) of section 170(e)(6)(B) of such Code
is amended by inserting ``or assembled'' after
``constructed'' and ``or assembling'' after ``construction''.
(c) Conforming Amendment.--Subparagraph (D) of section
170(e)(6) of such Code is amended by inserting ``or
assembled'' after ``constructed'' and ``or assembling'' after
``construction''.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2001.

SEC. 108. ADJUSTMENT TO BASIS OF S CORPORATION STOCK FOR
CERTAIN CHARITABLE CONTRIBUTIONS.

(a) In General.--Paragraph (1) of section 1367(a) of such
Code (relating to adjustments to basis of stock of
shareholders, etc.) is amended by striking ``and'' at the end
of subparagraph (B), by striking the period at the end of
subparagraph (C) and inserting ``, and'', and by adding at
the end the following new subparagraph:
``(D) the excess of the amount of the shareholder's
deduction for any charitable contribution made by the S
corporation over the shareholder's proportionate share of the
adjusted basis of the property contributed.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2001.

TITLE II--EXPANSION OF CHARITABLE CHOICE

SEC. 201. PROVISION OF ASSISTANCE UNDER GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS
BY RELIGIOUS AND COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS.

Title XXIV of the Revised Statutes of the United States is
amended by inserting after section 1990 (42 U.S.C. 1994) the
following:

``SEC. 1991. CHARITABLE CHOICE.

``(a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the
`Charitable Choice Act of 2001'.
``(b) Purposes.--The purposes of this section are--
``(1) to enable assistance to be provided to individuals
and families in need in the most effective and efficient
manner;
``(2) to supplement the Nation's social service capacity by
facilitating the entry of new, and the expansion of existing,
efforts by religious and other community organizations in the
administration and distribution of government assistance
under the government programs described in subsection (c)(4);
``(3) to prohibit discrimination against religious
organizations on the basis of religion in the administration
and distribution of government assistance under such
programs;
``(4) to allow religious organizations to participate in
the administration and distribution of such assistance
without impairing the religious character and autonomy of
such organizations; and
``(5) to protect the religious freedom of individuals and
families in need who are eligible for government assistance,
including expanding the possibility of their being able to
choose to receive services from a religious organization
providing such assistance.
``(c) Religious Organizations Included as Providers;
Disclaimers.--
``(1) In general.--
``(A) Inclusion.--For any program described in paragraph
(4) that is carried out by the Federal Government, or by a
State or local government with Federal funds, the government
shall consider, on the same basis as other nongovernmental
organizations, religious organizations to provide the
assistance under the program, and the program shall be
implemented in a manner that is consistent with the
establishment clause and the free exercise clause of the
first amendment to the Constitution.
``(B) Discrimination prohibited.--Neither the Federal
Government, nor a State or local government receiving funds
under a program described in paragraph (4), shall
discriminate against an organization that provides assistance
under, or applies to provide assistance under, such program
on the basis that the organization is religious or has a
religious character.
``(2) Funds not aid to religion.--Federal, State, or local
government funds or other assistance that is received by a
religious organization for the provision of services under
this section constitutes aid to individuals and families in
need, the ultimate beneficiaries of such services, and not
support for religion or the organization's religious beliefs
or practices. Notwithstanding the provisions in this
paragraph, title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 USC
2000d et seq.) shall apply to organizations receiving
assistance funded under any program described in subsection
(c)(4).
``(3) Funds not endorsement of religion.--The receipt by a
religious organization of Federal, State, or local government
funds or other assistance under this section is not an
endorsement by the government of religion or of the
organization's religious beliefs or practices.
``(4) Programs.--For purposes of this section, a program is
described in this paragraph--
``(A) if it involves activities carried out using Federal
funds--
``(i) related to the prevention and treatment of juvenile
delinquency and the improvement of the juvenile justice
system, including programs funded under the Juvenile Justice
and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5601 et
seq.);
``(ii) related to the prevention of crime and assistance to
crime victims and offenders' families, including programs
funded under title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe
Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3701 et seq.);
``(iii) related to the provision of assistance under
Federal housing statutes, including the Community Development
Block Grant Program established under title I of the Housing
and Community Development Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5301 et
seq.);
``(iv) under subtitle B or D of title I of the Workforce
Investment Act of 1998 (29 U.S.C. 2801 et seq.);
``(v) under the Older Americans Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3001
et seq.);
``(vi) related to the intervention in and prevention of
domestic violence, including programs under the Child Abuse
Prevention and Treatment Act (42 U.S.C. 5101 et seq.) or the
Family Violence Prevention and Services Act (42 U.S.C. 10401
et seq.);
``(vii) related to hunger relief activities; or
``(viii) under the Job Access and Reverse Commute grant
program established under section 3037 of the Federal Transit
Act of 1998 (49 U.S.C. 5309 note); or
``(B)(i) if it involves activities to assist students in
obtaining the recognized equivalents of secondary school
diplomas and activities relating to nonschool hours programs,
including programs under--
``(I) chapter 3 of subtitle A of title II of the Workforce
Investment Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-220); or
``(II) part I of title X of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act (20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq.); and
``(ii) except as provided in subparagraph (A) and clause
(i), does not include activities carried out under Federal
programs providing education to children eligible to attend
elementary schools or secondary schools, as defined in
section 14101 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 8801).
``(d) Organizational Character and Autonomy.--
``(1) In general.--A religious organization that provides
assistance under a program described in subsection (c)(4)
shall have the right to retain its autonomy from Federal,
State, and local governments, including such organization's
control over the definition, development, practice, and
expression of its religious beliefs.
``(2) Additional safeguards.--Neither the Federal
Government, nor a State or local government with Federal
funds, shall require a religious organization, in order to be
eligible to provide assistance under a program described in
subsection (c)(4), to--
``(A) alter its form of internal governance or provisions
in its charter documents; or
``(B) remove religious art, icons, scripture, or other
symbols, or to change its name, because such symbols or names
are of a religious character.

[[Page H4242]]

``(e) Employment Practices.--A religious organization's
exemption provided under section 702 of the Civil Rights Act
of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e-1) regarding employment practices
shall not be affected by its participation in, or receipt of
funds from, programs described in subsection (c)(4), and any
provision in such programs that is inconsistent with or would
diminish the exercise of an organization's autonomy
recognized in section 702 or in this section shall have no
effect. Nothing in this section alters the duty of a
religious organization to comply with the nondiscrimination
provisions of title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in
the use of funds from programs described in subsection
(c)(4).
``(f) Effect on Other Laws.--Nothing in this section shall
alter the duty of a religious organization receiving
assistance or providing services under any program described
in subsection (c)(4) to comply with the nondiscrimination
provisions in title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42
U.S.C. 2000d et seq.) (prohibiting discrimination on the
basis of race, color, and national origin), title IX of the
Education Amendments of 1972 (20 U.S.C. 1681-1688)
(prohibiting discrimination in education programs or
activities on the basis of sex and visual impairment),
section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 794)
(prohibiting discrimination against otherwise qualified
disabled individuals), and the Age Discrimination Act of 1975
(42 U.S.C. 6101-6107) (prohibiting discrimination on the
basis of age).
``(g) Rights of Beneficiaries of Assistance.--
``(1) In general.--If an individual described in paragraph
(3) has an objection to the religious character of the
organization from which the individual receives, or would
receive, assistance funded under any program described in
subsection (c)(4), the appropriate Federal, State, or local
governmental entity shall provide to such individual (if
otherwise eligible for such assistance) within a reasonable
period of time after the date of such objection, assistance
that--
``(A) is an alternative that is accessible to the
individual and unobjectionable to the individual on religious
grounds; and
``(B) has a value that is not less than the value of the
assistance that the individual would have received from such
organization.
``(2) Notice.--The appropriate Federal, State, or local
governmental entity shall guarantee that notice is provided
to the individuals described in paragraph (3) of the rights
of such individuals under this section.
``(3) Individual described.--An individual described in
this paragraph is an individual who receives or applies for
assistance under a program described in subsection (c)(4).
``(h) Nondiscrimination Against Beneficiaries.--
``(1) Grants and cooperative agreements.--A religious
organization providing assistance through a grant or
cooperative agreement under a program described in subsection
(c)(4) shall not discriminate in carrying out the program
against an individual described in subsection (g)(3) on the
basis of religion, a religious belief, or a refusal to hold a
religious belief.
``(2) Indirect forms of assistance.--A religious
organization providing assistance through a voucher,
certificate, or other form of indirect assistance under a
program described in subsection (c)(4) shall not deny an
individual described in subsection (g)(3) admission into such
program on the basis of religion, a religious belief, or a
refusal to hold a religious belief.
``(i) Accountability.--
``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraphs (2) and
(3), a religious organization providing assistance under any
program described in subsection (c)(4) shall be subject to
the same regulations as other nongovernmental organizations
to account in accord with generally accepted accounting
principles for the use of such funds and its performance of
such programs.
``(2) Limited audit.--
``(A) Grants and cooperative agreements.--A religious
organization providing assistance through a grant or
cooperative agreement under a program described in subsection
(c)(4) shall segregate government funds provided under such
program into a separate account or accounts. Only the
separate accounts consisting of funds from the government
shall be subject to audit by the government.
``(B) Indirect forms of assistance.--A religious
organization providing assistance through a voucher,
certificate, or other form of indirect assistance under a
program described in subsection (c)(4) may segregate
government funds provided under such program into a separate
account or accounts. If such funds are so segregated, then
only the separate accounts consisting of funds from the
government shall be subject to audit by the government.
``(3) Self audit.--A religious organization providing
services under any program described in subsection (c)(4)
shall conduct annually a self audit for compliance with its
duties under this section and submit a copy of the self audit
to the appropriate Federal, State, or local government
agency, along with a plan to timely correct variances, if
any, identified in the self audit.
``(j) Limitations on Use of Funds; Voluntariness.--No funds
provided through a grant or cooperative agreement to a
religious organization to provide assistance under any
program described in subsection (c)(4) shall be expended for
sectarian instruction, worship, or proselytization. If the
religious organization offers such an activity, it shall be
voluntary for the individuals receiving services and offered
separate from the program funded under subsection (c)(4). A
certificate shall be separately signed by religious
organizations, and filed with the government agency that
disburses the funds, certifying that the organization is
aware of and will comply with this subsection.
``(k) Effect on State and Local Funds.--If a State or local
government contributes State or local funds to carry out a
program described in subsection (c)(4), the State or local
government may segregate the State or local funds from the
Federal funds provided to carry out the program or may
commingle the State or local funds with the Federal funds. If
the State or local government commingles the State or local
funds, the provisions of this section shall apply to the
commingled funds in the same manner, and to the same extent,
as the provisions apply to the Federal funds.
``(l) Indirect Assistance.--When consistent with the
purpose of a program described in subsection (c)(4), the
Secretary of the department administering the program may
direct the disbursement of some or all of the funds, if
determined by the Secretary to be feasible and efficient, in
the form of indirect assistance. For purposes of this
section, `indirect assistance' constitutes assistance in
which an organization receiving funds through a voucher,
certificate, or other form of disbursement under this section
receives such funding only as a result of the private choices
of individual beneficiaries and no government endorsement of
any particular religion, or of religion generally, occurs.
``(m) Treatment of Intermediate Grantors.--If a
nongovernmental organization (referred to in this subsection
as an `intermediate grantor'), acting under a grant or other
agreement with the Federal Government, or a State or local
government with Federal funds, is given the authority under
the agreement to select nongovernmental organizations to
provide assistance under the programs described in subsection
(c)(4), the intermediate grantor shall have the same duties
under this section as the government when selecting or
otherwise dealing with subgrantors, but the intermediate
grantor, if it is a religious organization, shall retain all
other rights of a religious organization under this section.
``(n) Compliance.--A party alleging that the rights of the
party under this section have been violated by a State or
local government may bring a civil action for injunctive
relief pursuant to section 1979 against the State official or
local government agency that has allegedly committed such
violation. A party alleging that the rights of the party
under this section have been violated by the Federal
Government may bring a civil action for injunctive relief in
Federal district court against the official or government
agency that has allegedly committed such violation.
``(o) Training and Technical Assistance for Small
Nongovernmental Organizations.--
``(1) In general.--From amounts made available to carry out
the purposes of the Office of Justice Programs (including any
component or unit thereof, including the Office of Community
Oriented Policing Services), funds are authorized to provide
training and technical assistance, directly or through grants
or other arrangements, in procedures relating to potential
application and participation in programs identified in
subsection (c)(4) to small nongovernmental organizations, as
determined by the Attorney General, including religious
organizations, in an amount not to exceed $50 million
annually.
``(2) Types of assistance.--Such assistance may include--
``(A) assistance and information relative to creating an
organization described in section 501(c)(3) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 to operate identified programs;
``(B) granting writing assistance which may include
workshops and reasonable guidance;
``(C) information and referrals to other nongovernmental
organizations that provide expertise in accounting, legal
issues, tax issues, program development, and a variety of
other organizational areas; and
``(D) information and guidance on how to comply with
Federal nondiscrimination provisions including, but not
limited to, title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42
U.S.C. 2000d et seq.), title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq.), the Fair Housing Act, as
amended (42 U.S.C. 3601 et seq.), title IX of the Education
Amendments of 1972 (20 U.S.C. 1681-1688), section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 694), and the Age
Discrimination Act of 1975 (42 U.S.C. 6101-6107).
``(3) Reservation of funds.--An amount of no less than
$5,000,000 shall be reserved under this section. Small
nongovernmental organizations may apply for these funds to be
used for assistance in providing full and equal integrated
access to individuals with disabilities in programs under
this title.
``(4) Priority.--In giving out the assistance described in
this subsection, priority shall be given to small
nongovernmental organizations serving urban and rural
communities.''.

[[Page H4243]]

TITLE III--INDIVIDUAL DEVELOPMENT ACCOUNTS

SEC. 301. ADDITIONAL QUALIFIED ENTITIES ELIGIBLE TO CONDUCT
PROJECTS UNDER THE ASSETS FOR INDEPENDENCE ACT.

Section 404(7)(A)(iii)(I)(aa) of the Assets for
Independence Act (42 U.S.C. 604 note) is amended to read as
follows:
``(aa) a federally insured credit union; or''.

SEC. 302. INCREASE IN LIMITATION ON NET WORTH.

Section 408(a)(2)(A) of the Assets for Independence Act (42
U.S.C. 604 note) is amended by striking ``$10,000'' and
inserting ``$20,000''.

SEC. 303. CHANGE IN LIMITATION ON DEPOSITS FOR AN INDIVIDUAL.

Section 410(b) of the Assets for Independence Act (42
U.S.C. 604 note) is amended to read as follows:
``(b) Limitation on Deposits for an Individual.--Not more
than $500 from a grant made under section 406(b) shall be
provided per year to any one individual during the
project.''.

SEC. 304. ELIMINATION OF LIMITATION ON DEPOSITS FOR A
HOUSEHOLD.

Section 410 of the Assets for Independence Act (42 U.S.C.
604 note) is amended by striking subsection (c) and
redesignating subsections (d) and (e) as subsections (c) and
(d), respectively.

SEC. 305. EXTENSION OF PROGRAM.

Section 416 of the Assets for Independence Act (42 U.S.C.
604 note) is amended by striking ``2001, 2002, and 2003'' and
inserting ``and 2001, and $50,000,000 for each of fiscal
years 2002 through 2008''.

SEC. 306. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.

(a) Amendments to Text.--The text of each of the following
provisions of the Assets for Independence Act (42 U.S.C. 604
note) is amended by striking ``demonstration'' each place it
appears:
(1) Section 403.
(2) Section 404(2).
(3) Section 405(a).
(4) Section 405(b).
(5) Section 405(c).
(6) Section 405(d).
(7) Section 405(e).
(8) Section 405(g).
(9) Section 406(a).
(10) Section 406(b).
(11) Section 407(b)(1)(A).
(12) Section 407(c)(1)(A).
(13) Section 407(c)(1)(B).
(14) Section 407(c)(1)(C).
(15) Section 407(c)(1)(D).
(16) Section 407(d).
(17) Section 408(a).
(18) Section 408(b).
(19) Section 409.
(20) Section 410(e).
(21) Section 411.
(22) Section 412(a).
(23) Section 412(b)(2).
(24) Section 412(c).
(25) Section 413(a).
(26) Section 413(b).
(27) Section 414(a).
(28) Section 414(b).
(29) Section 414(c).
(30) Section 414(d)(1).
(31) Section 414(d)(2).
(b) Amendments to Subsection Headings.--The heading of each
of the following provisions of the Assets for Independence
Act (42 U.S.C. 604 note) is amended by striking
``Demonstration'':
(1) Section 405(a).
(2) Section 406(a).
(3) Section 413(a).
(c) Amendments to Section Headings.--The headings of
sections 406 and 411 of the Assets for Independence Act (42
U.S.C. 604 note) are amended by striking ``DEMONSTRATION''.

SEC. 307. APPLICABILITY.

(a) In General.--The amendments made by this title shall
apply to funds provided before, on or after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
(b) Prior Amendments.--The amendments made by title VI of
the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and
Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2001 (as
enacted into law by Public Law 106-554) shall apply to funds
provided before, on or after the date of the enactment of
such Act.

TITLE IV--CHARITABLE DONATIONS LIABILITY REFORM FOR IN-KIND CORPORATE
CONTRIBUTIONS

SEC. 401. CHARITABLE DONATIONS LIABILITY REFORM FOR IN-KIND
CORPORATE CONTRIBUTIONS.

(a) Definitions.--For purposes of this section:
(1) Aircraft.--The term ``aircraft'' has the meaning
provided that term in section 40102(6) of title 49, United
States Code.
(2) Business entity.--The term ``business entity'' means a
firm, corporation, association, partnership, consortium,
joint venture, or other form of enterprise.
(3) Equipment.--The term ``equipment'' includes mechanical
equipment, electronic equipment, and office equipment.
(4) Facility.--The term ``facility'' means any real
property, including any building, improvement, or
appurtenance.
(5) Gross negligence.--The term ``gross negligence'' means
voluntary and conscious conduct by a person with knowledge
(at the time of the conduct) that the conduct is likely to be
harmful to the health or well-being of another person.
(6) Intentional misconduct.--The term ``intentional
misconduct'' means conduct by a person with knowledge (at the
time of the conduct) that the conduct is harmful to the
health or well-being of another person.
(7) Motor vehicle.--The term ``motor vehicle'' has the
meaning provided that term in section 30102(6) of title 49,
United States Code.
(8) Nonprofit organization.--The term ``nonprofit
organization'' means--
(A) any organization described in section 501(c)(3) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and exempt from tax under
section 501(a) of such Code; or
(B) any not-for-profit organization organized and conducted
for public benefit and operated primarily for charitable,
civic, educational, religious, welfare, or health purposes.
(9) State.--The term ``State'' means each of the several
States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the Northern
Mariana Islands, any other territory or possession of the
United States, or any political subdivision of any such
State, territory, or possession.
(b) Liability.--
(1) Liability of business entities that donate equipment to
nonprofit organizations.--
(A) In general.--Subject to subsection (c), a business
entity shall not be subject to civil liability relating to
any injury or death that results from the use of equipment
donated by a business entity to a nonprofit organization.
(B) Application.--This paragraph shall apply with respect
to civil liability under Federal and State law.
(2) Liability of business entities providing use of
facilities to nonprofit organizations.--
(A) In general.--Subject to subsection (c), a business
entity shall not be subject to civil liability relating to
any injury or death occurring at a facility of the business
entity in connection with a use of such facility by a
nonprofit organization, if--
(i) the use occurs outside of the scope of business of the
business entity;
(ii) such injury or death occurs during a period that such
facility is used by the nonprofit organization; and
(iii) the business entity authorized the use of such
facility by the nonprofit organization.
(B) Application.--This paragraph shall apply--
(i) with respect to civil liability under Federal and State
law; and
(ii) regardless of whether a nonprofit organization pays
for the use of a facility.
(3) Liability of business entities providing use of a motor
vehicle or aircraft.--
(A) In general.--Subject to subsection (c), a business
entity shall not be subject to civil liability relating to
any injury or death occurring as a result of the operation of
aircraft or a motor vehicle of a business entity loaned to a
nonprofit organization for use outside of the scope of
business of the business entity, if--
(i) such injury or death occurs during a period that such
motor vehicle or aircraft is used by a nonprofit
organization; and
(ii) the business entity authorized the use by the
nonprofit organization of motor vehicle or aircraft that
resulted in the injury or death.
(B) Application.--This paragraph shall apply--
(i) with respect to civil liability under Federal and State
law; and
(ii) regardless of whether a nonprofit organization pays
for the use of the aircraft or motor vehicle.
(c) Exceptions.--Subsection (b) shall not apply to an
injury or death that results from an act or omission of a
business entity that constitutes gross negligence or
intentional misconduct.
(d) Superseding Provision.--
(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2) and subsection
(e), this title preempts the laws of any State to the extent
that such laws are inconsistent with this title, except that
this title shall not preempt any State law that provides
additional protection for a business entity for an injury or
death described in a paragraph of subsection (b) with respect
to which the conditions specified in such paragraph apply.
(2) Limitation.--Nothing in this title shall be construed
to supersede any Federal or State health or safety law.
(e) Election of State Regarding Nonapplicability.--A
provision of this title shall not apply to any civil action
in a State court against a business entity in which all
parties are citizens of the State if such State enacts a
statute--
(1) citing the authority of this section;
(2) declaring the election of such State that such
provision shall not apply to such civil action in the State;
and
(3) containing no other provisions.
(f) Effective Date.--This section shall apply to injuries
(and deaths resulting therefrom) occurring on or after the
date of the enactment of this Act.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. After 1 hour of debate on the bill, as
amended, it shall be in order to consider a further amendment printed
in House Report 107-144, if offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Rangel), or the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), or a designee,
which shall be considered read, and shall be debatable

[[Page H4244]]

for 60 minutes, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an
opponent.
The gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) and the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Rangel) each will control 30 minutes of debate on the bill.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas).
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 minutes of my time to the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), and ask unanimous consent
that he may control that time.
Prior to doing that, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Rangel) be recognized.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Rangel) is recognized.
There was no objection.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the first 15
minutes of my time be controlled by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Conyers), the ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary, and the
remainder of my time be controlled by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Lewis), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New York?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner).
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that I may be
allowed to yield parts of my time to others.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Wisconsin?
There was no objection.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 7. Quite simply, the
aim of this legislation is to encourage more community-based solutions
to social problems in America. When implemented, it will provide some
truly life-changing opportunities to many individuals struggling in our
communities across the country.
It says that faith-based organizations should no longer be
discriminated against when competing for Federal social service funds
because of a misconstrued interpretation of current law by some, and
that we welcome even the smallest faith-based organizations into the
war against desperation and hopelessness.
As a result, new doors will be opened to the neediest in our
communities to receive help and assistance that they seek. This is a
wonderful and compassionate goal that most, if not all, should be able
to embrace. In fact, H.R. 7 could very well improve our culture in ways
that we have not seen in decades.
The concept of Charitable Choice is not new. Federal welfare reform
in 1996 authorized collaboration between government and faith-based
organizations to provide services to the poor. Charitable Choice has
allowed religious organizations, rather than just secular or
secularized groups, to compete for public funding. Many faith-based
organizations have been providing services to their community, but with
government funding they are able to create new programs and expand
existing ones.
For example, the Cookman United Methodist Church in Philadelphia has
created a program of ``education, life-skills, job placement, job
development and computer literacy, and children and youth services''
with their Federal funding. By testing new solutions to the problem of
poverty, the Cookman Church has used Charitable Choice funds to expand
their program of needed services into a much larger and more meaningful
one for their community. They have done this under existing Charitable
Choice law in the 1996 Welfare Reform Act, which allows them to help
those in need without having to hire lawyers to create a separate
secularized organization and without having to rent expensive office
space outside their neighborhood church.
There are literally hundreds of other programs like that of the
Cookman United Methodist Church that have benefited thousands of
persons in need without raising constitutional concerns in their
implementation. These organizations are striving to make a difference
in communities all across America.
It is a tragedy that those who move to help others by the strength of
faith face added barriers to Federal social service funds based upon
misguided understandings of the Constitution's religion clauses. Often
it is those whose earthly compassion has the deep root of faith who
stand strongest against the whims of despair. Different rules should
not apply to them when they seek to cooperate with the Federal
Government in helping meet basic human needs.
Some of our colleagues have raised constitutional objections to this
legislation. I believe that those objections, while sincere, are
misguided. Charitable Choice neither inhibits free exercise of
religion, nor does it involve the government establishment of religion.
It simply allows all organizations, religious or non-religious, to be
considered equally by the Government for what they can do to help
alleviate our Nation's social ills.
Unfortunately, it has become all too common for faith-based
organizations to be subject to blanket exclusionary rules applied by
the government grant and contract distributors based upon the notion
that no Federal funds can go to pervasively sectarian institutions.
However, the Congressional Research Service concluded in its December
27, 2000, report to Congress on Charitable Choice: ``In its most recent
decisions, the Supreme Court appears to have abandoned the presumption
that some religious institutions are so pervasive sectarian that they
are constitutionally ineligible to participate in direct public aid
programs. The question of whether a recipient institution is
pervasively sectarian is no longer a constitutionally determinative
factor.''
The pervasively sectarian test under which the patronizing assumption
was made that religious people could be too religious to be trusted to
follow rules against the use of Federal funds for proselytizing
activity is, thankfully, dead. However, its ghost continues to linger
in many of the implementing regulations of the programs covered by H.R.
7, and, unfortunately, in the rhetoric of many of H.R. 7's opponents.
For those with constitutional concerns, I also ask them to consider
the changes to H.R. 7 that were adopted by the Committee on the
Judiciary and just amended in this bill with the self-executing rule.
These changes firm up the constitutionality of the bill and expand the
options of individuals to receive government services from the type of
organization they are most comfortable with.
To begin with, the bill now makes clear that when a beneficiary has
objection to the religious nature of a provider, an alternative
provider is required that is objectionable to the beneficiary on
religious grounds, but that the alternative provider need not be non-
religious. This same requirement appears in the Charitable Choice
provisions of the 1996 Welfare Reform Act. If, of course, a beneficiary
objects to being served by any faith-based organization, such a
beneficiary is granted a secular alternative.
Existing Charitable Choice law contains an explicit protection of a
beneficiary's right to refuse to actively participate in a religious
practice, thereby ensuring a beneficiary's right to avoid any unwanted
sectarian practices. Such a provision makes clear that participation,
if any, in a sectarian practice, is voluntary and non-compulsory.
Further, Justices O'Connor and Breyer require that no government
funds be diverted to religious indoctrination. Therefore, religious
organizations receiving direct funding will have to separate their
social service program from their sectarian practices. If any part of
the faith-based organization's activities involve religious
indoctrination, such activities must be set apart from the government-
funded program, and, hence, privately funded.
The bill as reported out of the Committee on the Judiciary now
contains a clear statement that if any sectarian worship instruction or
proselytization occurs, that shall be voluntary for individuals
receiving services and offered separate from the program funded.
Also the bill now includes a requirement that a certificate shall be
separately signed by the religious organization and filed with the
government agency that disperses the funds certifying that the
organization is aware of

[[Page H4245]]

and will take care to comply with this provision.

{time} 1230

The amendment also makes clear that volunteers cannot come into a
federally funded program and proselytize or otherwise engage in
sectarian activity.
The Committee on the Judiciary also changed the bill to include a
subsection to permit review of the performance of the program itself,
not just its fiscal aspects. This amendment is needed to prevent an
unconstitutional preference for faith-based organizations, as secular
programs are subject to both types of review.
One of the most important guarantees of institutional autonomy is a
faith-based organization's ability to select its own staff in the
manner that takes into account its faith. It was for that reason that
Congress wrote an exemption from the religious discrimination provision
of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for religious employers.
All other current charitable choice laws specifically provide that
faith-based organizations retain this limited exemption from Federal
employment nondiscrimination laws.
An amendment adopted by the Committee on the Judiciary replaced
existing language in H.R. 7 with the same language used in the 1996
Welfare Reform Act, which was signed into law by President Clinton,
with an additional clause making clear that contrary provisions in the
Federal programs covered by H.R. 7 have no force and effect. This
additional clause was not necessary in the 1996 Welfare Reform Act
because it codified charitable choice rules for a new program, whereas
H.R. 7 covers already existing programs that may have conflicting
provisions.
This amendment is offered to avoid any confusion. The language of the
1996 Welfare Reform Act did nothing to ``roll back'' existing civil
rights laws, and that same language is used in this amendment.
It is important for all to understand that this bill does not change
the antidiscrimination laws one bit, either with respect to employees
or beneficiaries. Faith-based organizations must comply with civil
rights laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race, color,
national origin, gender, age and disability.
Since 1964, faith-based organizations have been entitled to the Title
VII exemption to hire staff that share religious beliefs; and courts,
including the Supreme Court, have upheld this exemption. Do the critics
of those laws really want to revoke current public funding from the
thousands of child care centers, colleges and universities that receive
Federal funds in the form of Pell grants, veterans benefits, vocational
training, et cetera, because these institutions hire faculty and staff
that share religious beliefs?
Remember, one of the primary goals of this legislation is to try to
open opportunities for small entities that take part in Federal social
service programs. It is particularly important to maintain this
exemption for small faith-based entities, because they are the types of
community organizations we hope will be encouraged by this bill to seek
involvement in delivering social services. These small entities are not
going to go out and create new organizations and staff that provide
these services. So we do not want to force them to advertise, hire new
people and possibly be sued in Federal court for a job they would like
to be filled by people already on staff, namely, people who share their
religious beliefs.
One of the most revered liberal justices in the history of the
Supreme Court, William Brennan, recognized that preserving the Title
VII exemption where religious organizations engage in social services
is a necessary element of religious freedom.
In his opinion in the Amos case upholding the current Title VII
exemption, Justice Brennan recognized that many religious organizations
and associations engage in extensive social welfare and charitable
activities such as operating soup kitchens and day care centers or
providing aid to the poor and the homeless. Even where such activity
does not contain any sectarian instruction, worship or proselytizing,
he recognized that the religious organization's performance of such
functions was likely to be ``infused with a religious purpose.'' He
also recognized that churches and other entities ``often regard the
provision of social services as a means of fulfilling religious duty
and providing an example of the way of life a church seeks to foster.''
Charitable choice principles recognize that people in need should
have the benefit of the best social services available, whether the
providers of those services are faith-based or otherwise. That is the
goal: helping tens of thousands of Americans in need.
We are considering today whether the legions of faith-based
organizations in the inner cities, small towns and other communities of
America can compete for Federal funds to help pay the heating bills in
shelters for victims of domestic violence, to help them pay for
training materials teaching basic work skills, to help them feed the
hungry, and to provide other social services to help the most desperate
among us.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues, even those initially opposed to
H.R. 7, to join me today in voting for this bill and the expansion of
charitable choice.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I commend the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Sensenbrenner), the chairman of the committee, for his sterling
statement. Except for the conclusion, of course, it was very well
presented.
Now, to the heart of the matter. The Conservative Family Research
Council announced yesterday that they would abandon support for H.R. 7
if it were changed one iota to defer to existing State or local civil
rights laws. Therein lays the rub. Namely, to put it another way, more
colloquially, can a brother make as good a pot of soup as a Southern
Baptist? Can too much diversity spoil the soup? That is the problem
here, and it is why we are having so much trouble with faith-based
which, incidentally, already exists, I say to my colleagues. Is there
anyone not aware that we already have faith-based organizations
dispensing charity by the billions of dollars? So what is the problem
here?
Well, during our discussion in the Committee on the Judiciary, no one
caught this sense of the issue more sensitively than our distinguished
colleague from Florida (Mr. Scarborough), and I quote him at this point
from page 191: ``For instance,'' he says, ``delivering soup. Let's say,
for instance, in an area that is heavily served, let's say a synagogue,
in an urban part of the area, listen, they want to get their soup. They
do not want to hear somebody with views that are completely different
from their own views. And I understand. I understand what the bill
says, that they are not allowed to do that. But, again, if you compel
these organizations, whose culture many Americans believe allow faith-
based organizations to deliver services more effectively,'' and so on
and so forth.
So I thank our departing colleague for that very important
contribution to what we are about here.
Now, why do so many people feel uncomfortable about using this
legislation as a vehicle to override our civil rights laws, our Federal
civil rights laws, our State civil rights laws, our local civil rights
laws? Why?
Many of us are still recovering from the revelation that the
Salvation Army negotiated a secret deal with the White House to
override parts of civil rights laws, including those protecting
domestic partner benefits. Most do not think it is right to trade off
our civil rights laws to get legislative support from a private
organization.
Had the administration really wanted to do something to help
religion, they might have tried to include the proposed charitable tax
deductions in the $2 trillion tax deal. If they wanted to do something
to improve social services, they would increase funding for drug
treatment, housing and for seniors, instead of cutting these programs
by billions of dollars. If they wanted to help our kids in our inner
cities, of which I have heard so much today it is staggering, they
would help us try to rebuild the crumbling schools all around them.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Nadler), the ranking member of the subcommittee from which this
bill came.

[[Page H4246]]

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, this bill is a threat to religious liberty,
a threat to the very effective way the Federal, State and local
governments have long worked with religious charities, and a threat to
this Nation's long commitment to equal rights, nondiscrimination and
human dignity.
I would like to dispense with a few myths that have been propagated
during this debate.
First, contrary to what we may have heard, religious charities are
not the victims of discrimination; far from it. Religious charities now
administer billions of dollars in public funds every year. Catholic
Charities, the Federation of Protestant Welfare Agencies, the United
Jewish Communities and many other church groups have been providing
social services partially funded with taxpayer dollars for many, many
decades.
Myth two: Religious charities must be allowed to discriminate in
employment and services using public money in order to do their jobs
properly. Why? Why does a Jewish lunch program need to hire only Jews
to serve the soup? Why does a Baptist homeless shelter need to hire
only Baptists to provide the blankets? I thought that this was a
settled issue in our society, but apparently it is not.
Let me ask my colleagues, on the road to Jericho, did the good
Samaritan ask the wounded traveler whether he was of a certain faith or
whether he was gay or whether he was of the proper race? If the answer
is no, then why would we think it necessary for churches to do this
now, with public funds?
We are told that current law already allows such discrimination. Yes,
it does, but only with church funds. But this bill is different. This
bill allows that discrimination not just with church money but with
public money in purely secular activities or what we are told are
purely secular activities. That is very new and very, very wrong.
Myth three: This bill preserves State laws. Not true. The gentleman
from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) made clear in the markup in the
committee that it does not. The bill allows broad religious
discrimination and nullifies the laws of 12 States and more than 100
localities to the contrary. Do not be fooled by the argument that this
applies only to lesbian and gay rights, important though they are. This
applies to all local antidiscrimination laws, whether they protect
women or minorities or single mothers or whatever local communities may
have committed to take a stand on. That is an important difference from
past charitable choice legislation, which specifically said that State
and local laws would be preserved. This is different.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The Chair would remind Members
to abide by the time limitations.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Scott).
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 7. While
it has been described as a plan to help religious organizations to
receive and administer government funds, charitable choice in reality
is a fundamental assault on our civil rights laws.
In this debate, let us be clear. The major impact of H.R. 7 will be
to allow religious sponsors who want to receive Federal funds to
discriminate in hiring based on religion. Any program that can get
funded under H.R. 7 can get funding today, except those run by
organizations that insist on the right to discriminate in hiring.

{time} 1245

So when we hear about all the programs that can get funded, let us
tell the truth, all of them can be funded today if the sponsors are
willing to follow civil rights laws, just like all other Federal
contractors. Just do not discriminate in hiring.
So this bill is not about new programs which can get funded. There is
no new money in the program. Any program funded under H.R. 7 can be
funded now. This bill provides no new funding, just new discrimination.
Whatever excuse there is to discriminate based on religion in these
programs should apply to all Federal programs. In fact, it would apply
to all private contractors or all private employers.
Why should a manufacturer be required to hire people of different
faiths? The answer is it is the law. Because of our sorry history of
discrimination and bigotry in the past, we have had to pass laws to
establish protected classes.
So someone can choose their employees any way they want, except they
cannot discriminate in hiring based on the protective classes of race,
color, creed, national origin, or sex. This principle was established
in Federal defense contracts when President Roosevelt signed Executive
Order 8802 on June 25, 1941. Now, 60 years later, here we are allowing
sponsors of federally funded programs to discriminate in hiring.
There are a lot of other problems with this bill, but we ought to
defeat this bill strictly because of the fact that it allows new
discrimination in hiring.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, in consultation with the chairman of the
committee, I ask unanimous consent that each side be given 10
additional minutes.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Michigan?
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I
would point out to the gentleman from Michigan that while I personally
have no objection, the general debate time is controlled by the
Committee on Ways and Means. I would suggest that he request that of
the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means when he comes back to
the Chamber. I am afraid that I would be trodding on their turf, so I
would ask him to withdraw his unanimous consent request.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Michigan?
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I object, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection is heard.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes and 5 seconds to the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren).
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, if we take time to review the details of
this bill, we will see it is bad for America. The premise that
religious people cannot help solve America's social problems is simply
wrong. I spent 14 years in local government. We worked with Catholic
Charities and many others. We do not need this radical departure from
the Bill of Rights to work with Catholics, Protestants, Buddhists,
Hindus, Sikhs, or Jains to solve America's problems.
Consider the plain language of the first amendment: ``Congress shall
make no law respecting an establishment of religion.'' I think that is
clear. But this bill would take tax money and give it directly to
churches. How can that not run afoul of the constitutional prohibition
against the establishment of religion?
Our country was started by people seeking religious freedom to
worship, and this fundamental American value was put in the very first
amendment to our Constitution.
When government becomes involved in establishing or preferring
religions, trouble follows. Will the Sikhs or Hindus receive the day
care contract? Will the Muslims or Jews run the nursing home where your
mother will live? Pity the local government who must decide.
With government money comes interference and perhaps improper
conduct. Do these funds go to friends of the President? Does the
Salvation Army get a financial benefit for political work? Thomas
Jefferson is famous for the observation that ``. . . intermingling of
church and State corrupts both.''
Finally and incredibly, there are special interest provisions in this
bill that do not even relate to religion. Look at section 104.
Astonishingly, the bill creates a special class of victims without
rights, nonprofit and religious groups who rent vehicles from
businesses. An example: Corporation A leases a van with bald tires to
the Baptist Youth Choir. The van overturns. With section 104,
Corporation A cannot be held liable to help with the funeral and
medical expenses. But if the same van is rented for the same price to a
for-profit satanic rock group, corporation A can be held liable. Why
should religious and nonprofit groups be victimized with impunity?

[[Page H4247]]

This bill will result in outcomes not desired by the American people.
It will end up undercutting religion as well as religious freedom. It
will enrage Americans by using their tax dollars to subsidize religious
beliefs they disagree with. It undercuts our Constitution, provides not
one additional cent of tax money to help the poor, and will end up
stimulating religious conflict and racial and religious discrimination.
Please have the good sense to vote no.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent for each side to
have 10 additional minutes, having consulted with my leader on the
Committee on Ways and Means, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel).
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Michigan?
Mr. THOMAS. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Speaker, I yield to
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) in terms of the statement of
the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
Mr. Speaker, it seems as though, on this very controversial but
important subject matter, there are so many Members who would like to
share their views before we have time to vote on this, and in view of
the fact that the Committee on the Judiciary has had jurisdiction over
the substance of this and the time was split and they need additional
time, if there is any technicality because the Committee on Ways and
Means would follow them that interferes with them getting unanimous
consent, I would like to yield to them on this issue.
Mr. THOMAS. Continuing to reserve my right to object, Mr. Speaker, I
would tell the gentleman that actually we have 2 hours of debate on
this question. As the Speaker indicated in announcing the rule, there
is an hour of general debate and an hour on the substitute.
That means the Committee on the Judiciary, if the time is divided on
the substitute, the same as was divided on general debate, would have 1
hour. That is the normal debate time. The Committee on Ways and Means
would have 1 hour. The Committee on the Judiciary would have an hour.
The debate is not necessarily narrowly directed to the subject at
hand; i.e., if the gentleman from Michigan (Chairman Conyers) has some
of his members of the Committee on the Judiciary who wish to make
general statements about the underlying legislation, they certainly are
able to, and indeed, we often do that during the debate on the
substitute.
It seems to me that an extra 1 hour on this subject matter for a full
2 hours of discussion is more than ample.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I object.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection is heard.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), a distinguished member of the Committee.
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished
gentleman from Michigan for yielding time to me, and I thank the
leaders for this very important debate.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to reinforce the importance of this debate
and the importance of characterizing this debate for what it is: the
desire for those of us who believe in the first amendment and the Bill
of Rights to emphasize that this should not be a referendum on our
faith, for this country was founded on the ability to be able to
practice one's faith without intrusion.
But rather, I would hope that this particular debate will focus
around the intent and the understanding of James Madison, the father of
the first amendment, that indicated that he believed that the
commingling of church and State was something that should not exist,
and that he apprehended the meaning of the establishment clause to be
that ``Congress shall not establish a religion and enforce the legal
observation of it by law, nor compel men or women to worship God in any
manner contrary to their conscience.''
It means that if I am of a different belief and I want to fight
against child abuse, and a particular religious institution is running
a child abuse prevention charitable organization in my community, I
should be able to be hired. Under this bill, although it has good
intentions, it forces direct monies into religious institutions, not
requiring them to comply with any means of preventing discrimination.
Martin Luther King said ``Injustice anywhere is injustice
everywhere.'' Discrimination on the basis of religion somewhere is
discrimination everywhere.
What we want here is an understanding that we embrace faith, but we
do not embrace discrimination. Change this legislation, eliminate the
discriminatory aspects, eliminate the voucher program, eliminate the
direct funding of religion, and James Madison's voice and spirit will
live and the Bill of Rights will live, and we can all support this
legislation.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin).
(Ms. BALDWIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Speaker, this debate is about the fundamental relationship
between a democratic government and religious institutions.
The first amendment has two purposes. First, it is designed to
prevent the government from using its power to promote a particular
religion. Second, it is designed to protect religious institutions from
unwarranted intrusions of government.
I believe H.R. 7 endangers both of these purposes. This bill expands
the religious exemption under Title VII to clearly nonreligious
activities, and it preempts State and all other local nondiscrimination
laws. For the first time, Federal dollars, public funds, will be used
to discriminate; or put another way, Americans can be barred from
taxpayer-funded employment on the basis of their religion or other
factors.
Civil rights and religious freedom go hand-in-hand. Undermine one and
we undermine the other.
Mr. Speaker, it is a mistake for government and religion to become
entangled. I urge my colleagues to reaffirm our commitment to
separation of church and State by defeating H.R. 7.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 7.
Let me begin by saying that I very much value the traditional role of
religions institutions in providing social services. Our country has
been made stronger through the good works of people of faith in helping
those in need. Religious institutions have long fed the hungry, clothed
the poor, given shelter to the homeless, and helped heal the sick.
These contributions have been absolutely essential for millions of
Americans throughout the history of our great nation.
But this debate is not whether or not religious institutions should
do good works. We all agree that they do and they should. This debate
is about the fundamental relationship between a democratic government
and religious institutions.
The Bill of Rights to the United States Constitution sets forth the
fundamental principles upon which our democracy is based--freedom of
speech, freedom of expression, right to trial by jury, limitations on
searches an seizures, the right to bear arms. One of the most
fundamental protections in our Constitution is freedom of religion.
The First Amendment states: ``Congress shall make no law respecting
an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof.'' This Constitutional principle has two purposes. First, it is
designed to prevent the government from using its power to promote a
particular religion. Our Founding Fathers rightly saw that true freedom
of worship was impossible if the state advantaged one religion over
others.
The second purpose is to protect religious institutions from the
unwarranted intrusion of government. The independence of religious
institutions from the hand of government is fundamental to the free
exercise of religion.
I believe H.R. 7 endangers both of these purposes and therefore
undermines our nation's commitment to the free exercise of religion.
This bill will allow religious institutions to accept direct government
funding of social service programs. While it purports to ban
proselytizing using tax dollars, it still permits the mingling of
religion and government as never before seen in our country. It extends
the reach of government into the private religious sphere. And I
believe it is unconstitutional.
It is not in the best interest of our religious institutions to have
government agencies pick and choose which church or synagogue or mosque
should get taxpayer dollars. As my colleague Mr. Schiff of California
said in the Judiciary Committee, ``would it be appropriate for Members
of Congress to write letters in

[[Page H4248]]

support of one church's grant application or against another?'' Would
it? Is that a good idea? What future rules will we apply to these
funds? Will the Bishop or the Rabbi come by to lobby for funding? If a
church violates the rules or is suspected of fraud, do we really want
the government digging into their books?
Our Founding Fathers created the Establishment Clause as an answer to
this dilemma. Their answer was no. In a letter written in 1832, James
Madison wrote, ``it may not be easy, in every possible case, to trace
the line of separation between the rights of religion and the civil
authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions and doubts on
unessential points. The tendency of a usurpation on one side or the
other, or a corrupting coalition or alliance between them, will be best
guarded by an entire abstinence of the government from interference in
any way whatsoever?''
We have recently seen the impact of entangling government and
religion in the case of the White House and the Salvation Army. The
Salvation Army, a religious charity, has lobbied and been lobbied by
the White House to promote this legislation. According to newspaper
accounts, the Salvation Army was prepared to spend hundreds of
thousands of dollars to advance this bill in exchange for the right to
discriminate in hiring. The White House now says they've backed off.

But the very right to discriminate in hiring that the Salvation Army
wanted is contained in this bill! This bill expands the religious
exemption under Title VII to clearly non-religious activities and
preempts all other state and local non-discrimination laws. For the
first time, public funds will be used to discriminate in employment. Or
put another way, Americans can be barred from taxpayer funded
employment on the basis of their religion.
Under this bill, a Protestant church could refuse to hire a person
who is Jewish to work in their day care or a Muslim soup kitchen could
refuse to hire a Catholic to serve meals to the hungry. But not only
that, a church could refuse to hire a person who is divorced if divorce
is against that church's tenets and teachings, even though the position
is involved only in a secular activity.
Expanding a religious institution's ability to discriminate in
employment to include secular enterprises is just the start of the
discrimination in this bill. The bill also preempts all state and local
laws against discrimination. Thus, if a state protects its citizens
from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, real or
perceived gender, marital status, student status, or other bases the
moment federal funds are commingled, religious institutions are allowed
to discriminate. We hear a great deal about local control, but this
bill eviscerates these state and local non-discrimination laws.
That is why the Gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Frank, and I
proposed an amendment in the Rules Committee. It is very simple, just
one line. ``Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this section,
nothing in this section shall preempt or supersede State or local civil
rights laws.'' Unfortunately, the Rules Committee refused to make our
amendment in order, denying the House the opportunity to have an up or
down vote on this critical issue.
The House still has an opportunity to correct this major problem with
the bill. The Democratic Substitute maintains non-discrimination
protections in current Federal, State and local law. I urge all of my
colleagues to support the substitute.
It is very distressing that the proponents of this bill desire to
chip away at our civil rights and non-discrimination laws. And it is
even more distressing that they are using religion as a cover. Civil
rights and religious freedom go hand in hand. Undermine one and you
undermine the other. In the Federalist Papers Number 51, James Madison
noted this interrelationship: ``In a free government, the security for
civil rights must be the same as that for religious rights. It consists
in the one case in the multiplicity of interests, and in the other in
the multiplicity of sects.''
Mr. Speaker, it is a mistake for government and religion to become
entangled. I urge my colleagues to reaffirm our commitment to the
separation of church and state by defeating this misguided legislation.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield the balance of our
time to my distinguished leader, the gentlewoman from California (Ms.
Waters).
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters)
is recognized for 2 minutes and 10 seconds.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I think it is important for some of us to
say that we were raised in church, and that we are religious people. We
went to Sunday school every Sunday when I was a little girl coming up.
We went back to the 11 a.m. service with our parents, and then we went
back at 6 o'clock in the evening to BYPU for the young people.
I do not want anybody to think that because we are against this bill,
somehow we are not religious, or we do not believe in religion. We
certainly do. What we do not believe in is discrimination. We cannot,
as public policymakers who understand the Constitution and appreciate
it, and understand the struggle of those people who came to this
country fleeing religious oppression, sit here and allow something
called a faith-based program to reinstitute discrimination. It is
wrong, and we cannot stand for that.
Religious organizations in this country participate in this
government in many ways. For those people who say we have to have this
bill in order to have participation, they are wrong.
Let me just tell the Members, last year Lutheran Services, the
largest faith-based organization to receive government aid, received
about $2.7 billion, Jewish organizations received about $2 billion in
government aid, Catholic Charities received $1.4 billion, and the
Salvation Army received $400 million.
So what are we talking about? They have separate 501(c)3s that they
apply under because they separate from the collection plate the money
that comes from the government in order to carry out these programs,
and that is the way it should be. We should never allow commingling of
the government and taxpayers' dollars in the collection plate. It is
wrong, it violates separation of church and State, and we should stop
it on this floor right now, and not support the so-called faith-based
organization initiative.
I would say to my friends and colleagues here today, we have the
opportunity to uphold civil rights, to say we are against
discrimination, to say we are not going to allow taxpayer dollars to
turn people away who are applying for jobs, and most importantly, we
are going to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America. I
ask for a no vote on the faith-based organization initiative.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot), the chairman of the Subcommittee on
the Constitution.
(Mr. CHABOT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)

{time} 1300

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, as we debate this bill today, I would ask my
colleagues not to let partisanship cloud their judgment on this
proposal. The purpose of this bill is to help people. This is not some
great scheme to funnel tax dollars to religious organizations or to
force people to seek social services from religious providers. This
bill will provide new hope and new opportunities to thousands of
Americans. It will help the homeless, the hungry, and the downtrodden,
and it will help those in need.
Over the past several months, the House Subcommittee on the
Constitution held several hearings that looked at charitable choice
programs and the role that faith-based organizations can play in the
delivery of social services. We heard compelling testimony about the
work of faith-based organizations that have received Federal funding
under current law. It is the current law now.
And we discussed and debated the constitutional issues surrounding
this legislative proposal. And at the conclusion of these hearings, two
points were very clear. First, the charitable choice provisions of H.R.
7 are completely consistent with the Constitution. And second, faith-
based organizations play a vital role in providing social services to
the most desperate among us.
I would like to quote from a speech that was made a while back to the
Salvation Army: ``The men and women who work in faith-based
organizations are driven by their spiritual commitment. They have
sustained the drug addicted, the mentally ill, the homeless, they have
trained them, they have educated them, they have cared for them. Most
of all, they have done what government can never do: they have loved
them.''
Do my colleagues know who said that? Al Gore. Now I do not always
agree with Al Gore, but I certainly agree with him in that particular
instance.
This is legislation which is very important to the President. I want
to thank the chairman, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Sensenbrenner), for getting us to this point today. We

[[Page H4249]]

want to make sure that this withstands any constitutional challenge
that might be made against it. This is excellent legislation which will
literally help thousands and thousands of the most desperately needy
people in this country.
I want to thank the chairman for his leadership again on this. Let us
pass this legislation today. It is important to an awful lot of people.

Responses to False Democratic Claims in Their Dissenting Views in the
Committee Report

Claimed comparison of H.R. 7 with language of 1996 Welfare
Reform Act
Footnote 7 of the Dissenting Views states that H.R. 7 does
not contain language from the 1996 Welfare Reform Act that
indicated its provisions were not intended to supercede State
law, and therefore the absence of that provision from H.R. 7
means it somehow preempts State law. That is a
mischaracterization of the provision in the 1996 Welfare
Reform Act. The provision referred to in the 1996 Act was
simply a ``savings clause'' that recognized that some states
have provisions in their constitutions and state laws that
don't allow them to spend state funds on faith-based
organizations. The savings clause simply recognized that in
those states with such laws, they could continue to segregate
state funds as required by state law, but that they could
also use federal funds in accordance with the charitable
choice provisions of the 1996 Welfare Reform Act. Conference
Report 104-430, accompanying H.R. 4, 104th Congress, 1st
Session (December 20, 1995), at 361--the previously adopted
welfare reform bill with the identical subsection (k) as that
found in the Welfare Reform Act of 1996--provides the
following explanation for the subsection: ``Subsection (k)
states that nothing in this section shall be construed to
preempt State constitutions or statutes which restrict the
expenditure of State funds in or by religious organizations.
In some States, provisions of the State constitution or a
State statute prohibit the expenditure of public funds in or
by sectarian institutions. It is the intent of Congress,
however, to encourage States to involve religious
organizations in the delivery of welfare services to the
greatest extent possible. The conferees do not intend that
this language be construed to required that funds provided by
the Federal government referred to in subsection (a) be
segregated and expended under rules different than funds
provided by the State for the same purposes; however, States
may revise such laws, or segregate State and Federal funds,
as necessary to allow full participation in these programs by
religious organizations.'' H.R. 7 gives states the same
option. Subsection (j) provides that insofar as states use
federal funds, or mingle state and federal funds, and uses
them for covered programs, the federal rules in H.R. 7 apply.
If states separate out their state funds, then they can of
course use them without any federal conditions attaching.
Claim that millions of dollars already go to groups like
Catholic Charities, so there is no problem to fix
The Dissenting Views point out that millions of dollars go
to large organizations such as Catholic Charities every year,
but fails to mention these are large, separately incorporated
and secularized organizations, not churches. The purpose of
H.R. 7 is to allow small religious organizations to be able
to compete for social service funds by removing barriers to
entry and allowing them to serve as churches, and to provide
social services in their churches without having to rent out
separate, expensive office space, or having to hire lawyers
to create separate corporations.
Claim that H.R. 7 preempts general state and local
nondiscrimination in employment laws
The Dissenting Views states that under H.R. 7 a national
religious organization could choose to accept a single
federal grant and attempt to use that as a shield against
laws protecting gay and lesbian employment rights in all 50
states. This is wrong. Subsections (d) and (e) in H.R. 7 do
not constitute a general preemption clause, but a narrow
statutory right afforded faith-based organizations to help
them preserve their religious liberty when they are using
federal funds during the course of a federally funded program
and encourage their participation in the delivery of social
services for the poor and the needy. When a religious
organization is not using federal funds during the hours of a
federally funded program, which will be most of the time, the
protections of H.R. 7 do not apply, and all State and local
nondiscrimination in employment laws that are not tied to
government funding, including those that prohibit
discrimination based on sexual orientation, remain in effect.
For example, in 16 states, employers with a single employee
are covered by their state's civil rights law. Others set the
minimum number of employees between 4 and 10. Ohio's
employment discrimination law covers employers with 4 or more
employees; Oh.St. Sec. 4112.01(A)(2); Wisconsin's covers
employers with 1 or more employees; Wi.St. 111.32(6)(a);
Massachusetts' covers employers with 6 or more employees;
Ma.St. 151B Sec. 1(5); New York's covers employers with 4 or
more employees; N.Y.Exec. Sec. 292(5); Michigan's covers
employers with 1 or more employees; Mi.St. Sec. 37.2201(a);
California's covers employers with 5 or more employees;
Ca.Civil Sec. 51.5(a). Also, the provisions of H.R. 7 will
not apply whenever a State or local government chooses to
separate its federal funds from its non-federal funds.
Experience from existing charitable choice laws that contain
the very same provisions as H.R. 7--and which have been on
the books for five years--has shown that this narrow
statutory right will not need to be invoked very often, if
ever.
Claim that the House has never previously considered the
details of charitable choice provisions
Contrary to the assertion in the Dissenting Views, the
House has voted several times on amendments offered by Mr.
Scott to strip away charitable choice provisions that would
allow religious organizations to continue to be able to hire
based on religion while taking part on federal programs.
The Fathers Count Act of 1999 contained the charitable
choice provisions of the Welfare Reform Act of 1996. Mr.
Scott offered a motion to recommit the bill with instructions
to remove the charitable choice provision allowing religious
organizations receiving funds under the designated programs
to make employment decisions on religious grounds. This
motion was defeated 176-246, by a 70 vote margin including 34
Democrats. The bill was then adopted by the House by a vote
of 328-93, by a 235 vote margin. Constitution subcommittee
Ranking Member Nadler voted for the bill, as did four other
Democratic Members of the House Judiciary Committee. Those
other Members were Sheila Jackson-Lee, Boucher, Delahunt, and
Meehan.
The Child Support Distribution Act of 2000 also contained
the charitable choice provisions of the Welfare Reform Act of
1996. Mr. Scott's motion to recommit with instructions would
have removed the charitable choice provision allowing
participating religious organizations to make employment
decisions on religious grounds. The motion was defeated 175-
249, by a 74 vote margin including 30 Decmocrats. The bill
was then adopted by a vote of 405-18, by a 387 vote margin.
Constitution Subcommittee Ranking Member Nadler voted for the
bill, as did eight other Democratic Members of the House
Judiciary Committee. Those other Members were Conyers, Watt
Jackson-Lee, Lofgren, Berman, Boucher, Meehan, Delahunt,
Wexler, Baldwin, and Weiner.
Claims regarding statements made by President Clinton when he
signed previous charitable chioce laws
The Dissenting Views incorrectly state that prior
charitable choice laws were enacted without the support of
President Clinton, and they cite President Clinton's
statement when he signed the re-authorization measure for the
Community Services Block Grants Program (``CSBG'') into law
that its charitable choice provisions should not be used to
fund `` `pervasively sectarian' organizations, as tha term
has been defined by the courts.'' 134 Weekly Compilation of
Presidential Documents 2148 (Nov. 2, 1998) (Statement on
Signing the Community Opportunities, Accountability, and
Training and Educational Services Act of 1998). However, the
courts have since abandoned the ``pervasively sectarian''
test, and President Clinton's later statements on charitable
choice provisions in October and December 2000, do not rely
on the pervasively sectarian test, and those statements in
fact support H.R. 7. The Congressional Research Service
concluded in the December 27, 2000, Report to Congress on
Charitable Choice, that ``In its most recent decisions[,] the
[Supreme] Court appears to have abandoned the presumption
that some religious institutions, such as sectarian
elementary and secondary schools, are so pervasively
sectarian that they are constitutionally ineligible to
participate in direct public aid programs.'' CRS Report, at
29.
Indeed, on October 17, 2000, President Clinton stated his
constitutional concerns regarding the implementation of the
charitable choice provisions in Substsance Abuse and Mental
Health Services Administration (``SAMHSA'') programs as
follows: ``This bill includes a provision making clear that
religious organizations may qualify for SAMHSA's substance
abuse prevention and treatment grants on the same basis as
other nonprofit organizations. The Department of Justice
advises, however, that this provision would be
unconstitutional to the extent that it were construed to
permit governmental funding of organizations that do not or
cannot separate their religious activities from their
substance abuse treatment and prevention activities that are
supported by SAMHSA aid. Accordingly, I construe the act as
forbidding the funding of such organizations and as
permitting Federal, State, and local governments involved in
disbursing SAMHSA funds to take into account the structure
and operations of a religious organization in determining
whether such an organization is constitutionally and
statutorily eligible to receive funding.'' Weekly Compilation
of Presidential Documents (Oct. 23, 2000) (Statement on
Signing the Children's Health Act of 2000), p. 2504. He made
an identical statement regarding the charitable choice
provisions in the Community Renewal Tax Relief Act when he
signed that measure into law on December 15, 2000. See
White House Office of the Press Secretary, ``Statement of
the President Upon Signing H.R. 4577, the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, FY 2001'' (December 22, 2000), at 8.
These concerns are the same as those addressed by the
provision in subsection (j) of the

[[Page H4250]]

Charitable Choice Act of 2001, which provides that, ``No
funds provided through a grant or cooperative agreement to
a religious organization to provide assistance under any
[covered] program . . . shall be expended for sectarian
instruction, worship, or proselytization. If the religious
organization offers such an activity, it shall be
voluntary for the individuals receiving services and
offered separate from the program funded under subsection
(c)(4).'' The required separation would not be met where
the government-funded program entails worship, sectarian
instruction, or proselytizing. Under subsection (j), there
are to be no practices constituting ``religious
indoctrination'' performed by an employee while working in
a Government-funded program. The same is true for
volunteers.
Claim that current charitable choice laws have been barely
implemented
The Dissenting Views states that current charitable choice
laws have barely been implemented. This is untrue. Existing
charitable choice programs have had a significant impact on
social welfare. Dr. Amy Sherman of the Hudson Institute has
conducted the most extensive survey of existing charitable
choice programs. Dr. Sherman concluded that, currently, ``All
together, thousands of welfare recipients are benefiting from
services now offered through FBOs [faith-based organizations]
and congregations working in tandem with local and state
welfare agencies.'' Dr. Amy S. Sherman, ``The Growing Impact
of Charitable Choice: A Catalogue of New Collaborations
Between Government and Faith-Based Organizations in Nine
States'' (``Growing Impact''), The Center for Public Justice
Charitable Choice Tracking Project (March 2000) at 8. Dr.
Sherman also found that fears of aggressive evangelism by
publicly funded faith-based organizations have little basis
in fact. According to Dr. Sherman: ``[O]ut of the thousands
of beneficiaries engaged in programs offered by FBOs [faith-
based organizations] collaborating with government,
interviewees reported only two complaints by clients who felt
uncomfortable with the religious organization from which they
received help. In both cases--in accordance with Charitable
Choice guidelines--the client simply opted out of the faith-
based program and enrolled in a similar program operated by a
secular provider. In summary, in nearly all the examples of
collaboration studied, what Charitable Choice seeks to
accomplish is in fact being accomplished: the religious
integrity of the FBOs working with government is being
protected and the civil liberties of program beneficiaries
enrolled in faith-based programs are being respected. Id. at
11 (emphasis added). Religious groups in the nine states Dr.
Sherman surveyed also registered few complaints about their
government partners. According to Dr. Sherman, ``The vast
majority reported that the church-state question was a `non-
issue,' and that they enjoyed the trust of their government
partners and that they had been straightforward about their
religious identify.'' Id.
The success of existing charitable choice programs had led
the National Conference of State Legislatures (``NCSL'') to
support their expansion. According to Sheri Steisel, director
of NCSL's Human Services Committee, ``In many communities,
the only institutions that are in a position to provide
human services are faith-based organizations. Providing
grants to or entering into cooperative agreements with
faith-based and other community organizations to provide
government services is something that has proven effective
in the states over the past five years. As welfare reform
continues to evolve, it is important that government at
all levels continues to explore innovative ways to provide
services to its constituents. We are extremely pleased
that the President is joining the states in exploring
these new opportunities.'' News Release, ``Faith Based
Initiatives Nothing New to Nation's State Lawmakers''
(January 30, 2001). Some states have embraced charitable
choice to the tune of spending hundreds of thousands of
dollars or, in some cases, millions in contracts with
congregations and other organizations that would not
otherwise have been eligible. See Associated Press, Survey
Highlights Charitable Choice (March 19, 2001).
Claim regarding the number of ``charitable choice'' lawsuits
filed
The Dissenting Views states that there have been five
lawsuits filed challenging existing charitable choice laws.
That is not true. The Dissenting Views mention three lawsuits
that do not involve the terms of federal charitable choice
programs, and another has already been dismissed as moot:
American Jewish Congress v. Bernick, (San Francisco County
Superior Court, filed January 31, 2001) (challenging a
program announced in August 2000 by the California Department
of Employment Development to fund job training offered by
groups that had never before contracted with government;
charging that only religious organizations were eligible to
compete). The State of California filed an affidavit in the
case stating no TANF funds were used in the program.
Pedreira v. Kentucky Baptist Home for Children, Case No. --
(E.D. Ky., filed April 17, 2000) (charging that the dismissal
of an employee, who was employed to help the Kentucky Baptist
Home for Children distribute state funds for the provision of
child care, on the grounds that her sexual orientation was
contrary to the employer's religious tenets violates the
establishment of religion clause). No federal funds were used
in this case, so the lawsuit does not involve a federal
charitable choice program.
In Lara v. Tarrant County, 2001 WL 721076 (Tex.), the court
stated that ``This case involves a dispute over a religious-
education program in a Tarrant County jail facility. Our
inquiry focuses on the Chaplain's Education Unit, a separate
unit within the Tarrant County Corrections Center, where
inmates can volunteer for instruction in a curriculum
approved by the sheriff and director of chaplaincy at the
jail as consistent with the sheriff's and chaplain's views of
Christianity.''
American Jewish Congress and Texas Civil Rights Project v.
Bost, No. -- (Travis County, Texas, filed July 24, 2000) was
dismissed as moot on January 29, 2001.
Claim that H.R. 7 requirement that an alternative
unobjectionable on religious grounds is available is an
``unfunded mandate''
The Dissenting Views state that H.R. 7's requirement that
an alternative be available that is unobjectionable to a
beneficiary on religious grounds is an ``unfunded mandate.''
This is not true. As the Congressional Budget Office points
out in its statement on H.R. 7, ``All of [the charitable
choice] requirements are conditions of federal assistance,
and therefore, are not mandates under UMRA [the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act].''
Claim that children could be subject to ``peer pressure'' to
engage in proselytizing activity
The Dissenting Views worry about children being subject to
``peer pressure'' that leads them to take part in sectarian
activities outside a federal program.
H.R. 7 excludes from covered programs those that include
``activities carried out under Federal programs providing
education to children eligible to attend elementary schools
or secondary schools, as defined in section 14101 of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.
8801),'' except it does not exclude activities ``related to
the prevention and treatment of juvenile delinquency and the
improvement of the juvenile justice system, including
programs funded under the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5601 et seq.).'' Children
eligible to attend elementary schools or secondary schools is
defined in Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, 20
U.S.C. Sec. 8801(3), as follows: ``The term `child' means any
person within the age limits for which the State provides
free public education.''
Also, H.R. 7 makes clear that any sectarian instruction,
worship, or proselytizing activities must be conducted
separate and apart from the federally-funded program, and any
children taking part in any such activities would be doing so
under the normal doctrines of guardianship law.
Claim that H.R. 7 allows discrimination against beneficiaries
The Dissenting Views incorrectly states that H.R. 7 allows
discrimination against beneficiaries because its terms only
refer to a prohibition on discrimination against
beneficiaries on the basis of religion. First, courts will
interpret ``on the basis of religion'' in the same way they
do when interpreting the Title VII exemption, which is to
also include within ``religion'' an organization's beliefs
regarding lifestyle. Courts have held that the Sec. 702
exemption to Title VII applies not just when religious
organizations favor persons of their own denomination.
Rather, the cases permit them to staff on the basis of their
faith or doctrine. See Little v. Wuerl, 929 F.2d 944 (3d Cir.
1991) (Catholic school declines to renew contract of teacher
upon her second marriage); Hill v. Baptist Memorial Health
Care Corporation, 215 F.2d 618 (6th Cir. 2000) (dismissing
woman when she became associated with church supportive of
homosexual lifestyle and announced she was lesbian). H.R. 7's
provisions in subsection (h)(1) prevent religious
organizations taking part in covered programs from
discriminating against beneficiaries of grant programs on the
basis of a refusal to hold a religious belief. Therefore, a
religious organization could not discriminate against
homosexual beneficiaries of grant programs because they do
not adhere to a religious belief that homosexuality is a
sin.
Also, Title VII does not exempt a religious organization
from a discrimination claim based on sex, and Title VII
treats discrimination against a woman because of her
pregnancy as discrimination based on sex, and prohibits it.
The answer is the same whether the woman is married or
unmarried.
Further, H.R. 7 does not preempt State or local laws
protecting beneficiaries from discrimination, including State
or local laws that prohibit discrimination against
homosexuals in the receipt of social services.
Claim that beneficiaries don't have a right under H.R. 7 to
enforce discrimination claims in court
The Dissenting Views state that beneficiaries facing
discrimination do not have a right to enforce their rights in
court. This is patently untrue. Any beneficiary who is
discriminated against may sue, in federal court, a State or
locality under subsection (n) and get them to stop any
discrimination going on in a covered program that denies a
beneficiary access to a service on the basis of religion, a
religious belief, or a refusal to hold a religious belief. A
beneficiary who is protected by any other State or local law
protecting beneficiaries in the receipt of services can
enforce their rights in court under those laws as well.
Beneficiaries are also protected against discrimination based
on race under Title VI.

[[Page H4251]]

Claim that subsection (l) regarding indirect funding was
``hidden in the fine print''
The Dissenting Views claim that subsection (l) was hidden
``in the fine print'' of the manager's amendment and ``added
in the middle of the night.'' Well, subsection (l) was typed
on the page in the same font and font size as any other
provision in the amendment, and the amendment was distributed
the afternoon before the markup, at about 3 o'clock.
Subsection (l) was not buried in a footnote. Indeed, the
entire charitable choice sections of the amendment consisted
of a mere 13 pages, double spaced, in standard legislative
counsel format. Of course, we had been working on changes,
but we didn't have the final draft until that afternoon and
therefore couldn't distribute it to our Republican Members
until the day before the markup too.
Claims on indirect funding that are internally inconsistent
The Dissenting Views are internally inconsistent on the
significance of indirect funding. On the one hand, on page
305, they state that indirect funding of religious
organizations is objectionable because when a religious
organization engages in sectarian instruction, worship, or
proselytizing with indirect funds, it is still doing so
``with Federal funds.'' But on page 298, the Democrats
say it's all right for religious organizations to hire
staff based on religion when they receive Federal funds
indirectly. Apparently there is dissent even within the
Dissenting Views.
Claim that ``you can't have it both ways'' on non-
proselytization and hiring on a religious basis
The Dissenting Views state that the Majority ``cannot have
it both ways--either the Federal funds will be used for
religious purposes, in which case there may be a
justification for tolerating religious discrimination [in
hiring]; or the funds will be used in a non-sectarian manner,
in which case there is no reason to discriminate [in hiring]
on the basis of religion.'' This totally misses the point
that faith-based organizations perform secular social
services motivated by religious conviction. They want to
provide social services as a church. While the task of
serving the poor and the needy is ``secular'' from the
perspective of the government, from the viewpoint of the
faith-based organization and its workers it is a ministry of
mercy driven by faith and guided by faith. As the Reverend
Donna Jones of North Philadelphia stated in her testimony
before the House Subcommittee on the Constitution, she and
her fellow church members did not want to set up a separate
secular organization to perform good works because they were
motivated to perform those good works together as a church,
and they wanted to retain their identity as a church when
they provided the services.
Justice Brennan makes this same point in his concurring
opinion in the Amos case, which upheld the current Title VII
exemption for religious organizations seeking to preserve the
religious character of their organization. Justice Brennan
recognized that many religious organizations and associations
engage in extensive social welfare and charitable activities,
such as operating soup kitchens and day care centers or
providing aid to the poor and the homeless. Even where the
content of such activities is secular--in the sense that it
does not include religious teaching, proselytizing, prayer or
ritual--he recognized that the religious organization's
performance of such functions is likely to be ``infused with
a religious purpose.'' Amos, 483 U.S. at 342 (Brennan, J.,
concurring). He also recognized that churches and other
religious entities ``often regard the provision of such
services as a means of fulfilling religious duty and
providing an example of the way of life a church seeks to
foster.'' Id. at 344. Perhaps one of the greatest liberal
Justices, then, recognized that preserving the Title VII
exemption when religious organizations engage in social
services is a necessary element of religious freedom.
Mostly importantly, faith-based organization employees and
volunteers can do their good works out of religious motive.
While the task of helping the poor and needy is ``secular''
from the perspective of the Government, from the viewpoint of
the faith-based organization and its workers it is a ministry
of mercy driven by faith and guided by faith.
Claim that H.R. 7 allows a faith-based organization to
discriminate based on interracial dating or marriage
The Dissenting Views claim that H.R. 7 will permit
employment discrimination on the basis of interracial
marriage. The cited source, an NAACP memo, plays off Bob
Jones University v. United States, 461 U.S. 574 (1983). The
claim in false. Title VII prohibits racial discrimination in
employment by faith-based organizations. It is an act of
facial discrimination to fire a while person because he or
she marries a black person. There are no reported cases of
anyone ever being allowed to be discriminated against by an
organization due to interracial dating or marriage under
Title VII.
Finally, in no way does H.R. 7 overrule the Bob Jones case.
The case involved a challenge to a 1971 IRS Ruling which
denied tax exempt status, under 501(c)(3), to any school
which engaged in racial discrimination, and the Bob Jones
University prohibited interracial dating by its students. The
IRS Ruling has nothing to do with federal funding. H.R. 7
does not affect the Supreme Court's decision in any way. The
IRS Ruling #71-447 continues in full force and effect.
Claim that Justice O'Connor disapproves of direct funding of
religious organizations
In Justice O'Connor's view, monetary payments are just a
factor to consider, not controlling. Also, please note that
Justice O'Connor concurred in the opinion in Bowen v.
Kendrick, where she joined in approving direct cash grants to
religious organizations, even in the particularly
``sensitive'' area of teenage sexual behavior, as long as
there is no actual ``use of public funds to promote religious
doctrines.'' Bowen v. Kendrick, 487 U.S. 589, 623 (1988)
(O'Connor, J., concurring).

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
This particular bill is shared in its jurisdiction between the
Committee on the Judiciary and the Committee on Ways and Means. The
discussion that we have been hearing is over the second title of the
bill. There are three titles. The first title deals with charitable
contributions by individuals and businesses. The second title is that
which has been under discussion. The third title deals with individual
or independence accounts, which is a demonstration program that the
Committee on Ways and Means addressed.
I believe, and I hope it is true, that the debate about the
constitutionality of this bill, which I do not believe to be
meritorious, does not apply in any way to title I and title III
discussions. It is well-established in terms of the charitable
contribution aspect of the Tax Code. The committee examined these
issues through subcommittee hearings, analyzed other Members' pieces of
legislation and of course listened to groups who are involved in
charitable activities, and then suggested a number of proposed tax
changes that could create a more positive environment for giving.
The cost of the bill, over 10 years, as determined by the Joint
Committee on Taxation, is a little over $13 billion over a ten year
period. About half of that is directed toward creating a greater
opportunity for those income tax payers who do not itemize their income
taxes. These individuals are then recognized for additional tax
contributions to charitable organizations beyond that amount already
incorporated into the determination of the standard deduction.
It also addresses the fact that more and more seniors, through very
prudent decisions, have individual retirement accounts that they put
away for their senior years, and that some individuals, while in those
senior years, have decided that they would be able to make additional
charitable contributions. There now is a taxable consequence for
directing those charitable contributions, and we eliminate that for
seniors if they choose to use a portion of their individual retirement
account for charitable giving.
In addition to that, there are a number of industries who are
involved in the food services business who contribute excess food to
charity but who certainly would be induced to do so even more if there
was a modest recognition in the Tax Code for the contribution of those
foodstuffs. And we will hear more about that provision as we discuss
the rest of the provisions.
In addition to that, there are two rather arcane sections of the bill
in which, based upon the structure of a corporation, that corporation
either may be able to claim the full value of appreciable property or
it cannot. The committee decided, listening to testimony, that it did
not make any sense to differentiate between a so-called Subchapter S
corporation or a C corporation; that a C corporation could donate
property and get a deduction for the full appreciated asset and
Subchapter S corporations could not.
These are the kinds of changes that constitute title I. As I said,
over 10 years, there are about $13 billion. Some may say that these are
very modest. But if we examine especially the corporate provisions on
foodstuffs and the manner in which appreciable property could be
donated, I believe that we will have a significant impact, far more
than the $13 billion over the 10 years; and it could amount to as much
as several billion dollars the first year.
So it may be called modest, but it is a step in the right direction;
and I do hope Members, as they assess their vote on this bill, would
look at the consequences of voting no, especially in regard to title I
and to title III. These are sections of the bill that should be passed
into law. And from my reading

[[Page H4252]]

of the Constitution, section II should be as well.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume, and I want to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel),
the ranking member, my friend and colleague, for allowing me to control
this part of the debate on this bill.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 7 is wrong for America. Allowing religious
organizations to provide much-needed social services to disadvantaged
people or people in need sounds like an innocent way to solve many of
our problems. But the truth is that it allows these organizations to
use Federal dollars, the taxpayers' dollars, to discriminate in their
hiring. This is not right. It is not fair. It is not just.
I have spent more than 40 years of my life fighting against
discrimination. We have worked too long and too hard, and we cannot sit
back and watch the work of so many people who sacrificed so much be
undone by this bill. We have come too far in this country to go back
now. The House should not support a bill that allows the Government to
promote discrimination, or return to the days when religious
intolerance was permitted. It is not the right thing to do. It is not
the right way to go. It is not the way to use the Tax Code.
Furthermore, this bill is an assault on the separation of church and
State. This concept underlies our democracy. Yet H.R. 7 compels a
citizen, through his tax dollars, to fund religious organizations. Tax
dollars will go directly to churches, synagogues, and mosques. The wall
between church and State must be solid. It must be strong. It has
guided us for more than 200 years. It must not be breached for any
reason.
There is no doubt, Mr. Speaker, that there are many religious
organizations and institutions providing much-needed services to our
citizens. But as a government and as a Nation, we should not sanction
religious discrimination or violate the separation of church and State.
I urge my colleagues to vote against H.R. 7.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Crane), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
Prior to that, however, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Camp) be allowed to manage the remainder of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane) is
recognized for 2 minutes.
(Mr. CRANE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
We now have an excellent opportunity to advance sound tax policy and
sound fiscal policy and sound social policy by returning to our
Nation's historical emphasis on private activities and personal
involvement in the well-being of our communities. Because the
legislation we are considering contains a number of worthwhile
provisions that I believe will help encourage people to give to
charity, I rise today to express my support.
Mr. Speaker, I have long been an advocate in making changes in the
Tax Code to encourage charitable giving. For many years, I have
championed and sponsored some of the proposals contained in the
legislation we have before us today, including the charitable IRA
rollover and the deduction for nonitemizers. In fact, I do not believe
there is a Member in Congress who has fought longer and harder for
restoring a charitable deduction for nonitemizers than me. I have
introduced the nonitemizer deduction legislation in every Congress
since the 99th, and it is gratifying to finally see its inclusion in
this legislation.
I would like to thank the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Watts) for
including my provisions in H.R. 7, and the chairman, the gentleman from
California (Mr. Thomas), for including it in the mark. While I am
pleased that the nonitemizer deduction was included in H.R. 7, I am
disappointed that the limitations on the amount of the deduction were
set so low. I hope to be able to work with the chairman in the future
to raise the limit up to the standard deduction.
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Rangel), the Committee on Ways and Means ranking
member.
(Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. RANGEL. And now, my colleagues, we get to act two of this bill.
And as was indicated by the chairman of the committee, while the tax
provisions may not be unconstitutional, in my view they are
unrealistic.
The President has seen fit to provide some $84 billion to taxpayers
in order to encourage them to do the right thing, to make charitable
contributions. But there was no money to do that. So the leadership in
the Committee on Ways and Means reduced the $84 billion down to $13
billion. Well, we cannot do much with that if we want to give
incentives to those people who do not itemize. But in order to make
certain that this size 12 foot fits into a size 6 shoe, they had to put
a cap on the amount that a person could deduct.
Now, listen to this, because if you are a charity, you are in
trouble. The cap on the amount of money that a taxpayer who does not
itemize can give is $25. Of course, if it is a married couple, it
increases dramatically to $50. If an individual is in the 15 percent
bracket, they will be able to get a return up to $3.75. So much for a
realistic incentive.
What we are trying to do with the $13 billion is at least to pay for
it, and we believe that the highest income people in this country can
afford to pay for at least the $13 billion that hopefully will be given
to those people in our great society that are least able to take care
of themselves. It should not be that we should have to give incentives.
But if we have to do it, let us give those that can really work.
Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Portman), a distinguished member of the Committee on Ways and
Means.
Mr. PORTMAN. I thank my colleague and rise in strong support of this
bill because it will help Americans who are most in need.
Over the past decade, Mr. Speaker, our Nation has enjoyed great
prosperity, but it has not reached everybody. And the idea of this
legislation is to try to reach people who have been left behind and to
try to get at our very toughest social problems.
Some, including some I have heard earlier today, think the Government
is the answer; that the Government is going to solve these problems.
The Government can solve some of these problems; but we know from
experience that when it comes to helping those most in need, there is
no questioning the great success of community groups, of faith-based
groups, of our churches, our synagogues, our temples reaching out to
people. And not just helping them in their immediate need, but helping
people help themselves by transforming lives. That is what this is all
about.
Currently, government regulations often prohibit Federal assistance
to support these institutions.

{time} 1315

That is a fact. That is what we are trying to break down. We have
heard a lot of discussion today about how this raises concerns.
Opponents today have said it violates the separation of church and
State. Not true. This bill strictly follows the boundaries that have
been established over time by the Constitution and by numerous court
decisions. These funds will not be used for religious purposes. These
funds will be used to fund the good work that these groups are doing in
our communities.
We have heard opponents say this bill threatens the independence of
religious organizations. That is not true. First of all, it is entirely
voluntary. No religious organization must partner with government to
get these funds. Second, the legislation contains specific protections
to prohibit the Federal government from interfering with the internal
governance of the religious organizations.
We have heard opponents say this bill discriminates in employment.
Not

[[Page H4253]]

true. This legislation strictly protects the exception for religious
organizations that were first established in the Civil Rights Act of
1964. This exemption allows religious organizations to maintain their
character and mission by hiring staff that share their beliefs. That is
all. That exemption continues. Organizations still must comply with all
Federal laws regarding discrimination.
I would say Congress has passed four bills during my tenure here that
President Clinton signed that have similar charitable choice
provisions.
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 seconds to the gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. Scott) on intervention.
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to point out that any program that
can get funded under H.R. 7 can be funded today. There is no
discrimination against religious organizations. Many religious
organizations get money today.
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from Maryland (Mr. Cardin).
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, President Bush has said we should fund the
good work of the faithful but not the faith itself. I agree.
Unfortunately, somewhere along the line the administration's proposal
as reflected in the bill before us lost track of the goal of providing
additional funds for faith and community groups to help needy families.
Instead, the bill promotes government-funded religious discrimination,
turning the President's campaign proposal on its head.
President Bush and the authors of H.R. 7 have continually failed to
acknowledge that religious charities can and already do receive
government funding to address poverty and other social problems. For
example, Catholic Charities receives two-thirds of its budget from
Federal, State and local government. The armies of compassion are
already marching with the Federal government's thanks, blessing and
money.
The bill before us does not provide a single dime in new money for
these programs, no new resources for child care, social services,
substance abuse treatment, housing or any other pressing need that the
community and faith-based organizations are working to meet.
I asked the Committee on Rules to make an amendment in order that
would have backed up our bold talk with badly-need funds. My amendment
would have increased resources for the child care and the social
services block grant, two programs that are underfunded and have a long
and successful record of supporting faith-based organizations.
Unfortunately, the Committee on Rules rejected my amendment along with
a number of other amendments that would strengthen this bill.
Rather than providing real assistance to religious charities to serve
needy families, the President's initiative focuses on allowing groups
receiving government money to discriminate in their hiring practices.
In fact, the proposal goes so far as to preempt State and local laws on
prohibiting employment discrimination.
Proponents of the H.R. 7 have said they are simply continuing a
current exemption to the Civil Rights Act, as the gentleman from
Cincinnati (Mr. Portman) just said, for the hiring practices of
religious organizations.
This exemption is a common sense provision that ensures a synagogue
is not required to hire a Catholic as a rabbi and a Christian church is
not required to hire a Jew as a priest. However, the bill before us
today is talking about something very different, allowing
discrimination in secular jobs which are directly supported with
government dollars. Such discrimination is not only wrong, it is
unconstitutional.
In its decision on this specific issue, Dodge v. Salvation Army, a
U.S. District Court ruled, and I quote, ``The effect of government
substantially, if not exclusively, funding a position and then allowing
an organization to choose the person to fill or maintain that position
based on religious preference clearly has the effect of advancing
religion and is unconstitutional.''
Mr. Speaker, there is no disagreement in this Chamber about the
important role that religious charities play in addressing our Nation's
problems. However, many of us are concerned about the proposal that it
attempts to bypass constitutional protections while simultaneously
failing to provide the necessary resources to achieve its stated
purpose.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the substitute that
provides the protections and to reject the underlying bill.
Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from
Washington (Ms. Dunn).
Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, Americans in communities across the country
give their time, their talents and their money to help worthy causes.
We have always been a generous people. DeTocqueville noted this in the
mid-1800s when he spoke of the unique American tradition of
volunteerism. No matter the social or economic burdens, the average
American takes extraordinary actions to make a difference and to help
those in need, not because they must but because they care.
H.R. 7 is a reflection of President Bush's vision to tap into the
generosity of average Americans by expanding tax relief for charitable
donations and by encouraging all organizations to participate in caring
for those in need.
Currently, taxpayers who itemize their returns get to take a
charitable deduction. Unfortunately, the Tax Code leaves out the nearly
70 percent of taxpayers who do not itemize. H.R. 7 eliminates that
restriction. It puts a toe in the door. It rewards the taxpayer's
charitable choice and will lead to a corresponding boost in donations.
The bill also allows wealthy retired individuals to donate more money
from their IRA without a tax penalty. Older people with means who want
to help the community by donating to charity should be encouraged and
not punished by the Tax Code.
Lastly, we should continue developing public-private partnerships
between the government and charitable organizations.
Some critics claim that this is a dangerous blurring of politics and
religion. With great respect, I disagree. I believe that by supporting
this bill we honor our common commitment and belief in helping our
fellow human beings.
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may
consume to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).
(Mr. DAVIS of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise in favor of the Democratic
substitute.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Community Solutions Act,
Democratic Substitute, as there are thousands of communities and
millions of people in our country who have serious problems and are in
need of real solutions.
I rise in support of this legislation, not because I believe that it
is a panacea, I don't believe in one-stop cure-alls for the
overwhelming magnitude of social, emotional, spiritual and economic
ills which plague our society and are in need of every rational,
logical, and proven approach that we can muster.
And yes, Mr. Speaker, I support this legislation because I have
faith, faith in the ability of religious institutions to provide human
services without proselytizing. I have faith in these institutions to
organize themselves into corporate business entities to develop
programs, to keep records, and to manage their affairs in compliance
with legal requirements. I also have confidence in the ability of these
institutions to magnify the Golden Rule, ``Do unto others as you would
have them do unto you.''
I have listened intently to the issues raised by my colleagues who
have expressed serious concerns about this legislation and I commend
them for their diligence. I appreciate their concerns about charitable
choice, ranging from discrimination to infringement on individual
liberties.
However, charitable choice is already a part of three federal social
programs: (1) The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity
Reconciliation Act of 1996, (2) The Community Services Block Grant Act
of 1998, and is part of the 2000 Reauthorization of funding for the
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Each of
these programs possess the overarching goal of helping those in
poverty, or treating those suffering from chemical dependency, and the
programs seem to achieve their purpose by providing resources in the
most effective and efficient manner. The opponents of this legislation
have expressed concern about the possible erosion of rights and
protections of program participants and beneficiaries. (And rightly so,
nothing could be more important). Therefore, I am pleased that

[[Page H4254]]

after serious scrutiny and debate we have language which protects our
citizens and repudiates employment discrimination on the basis of race,
color, religion, national origin or sexual preference.
The overall purpose and impact of this legislation can be good. It
reinforces for us the fact that many people in poverty, suffer from
some form of drug dependency. Alcohol, narcotics, and in some
instances, even legalized prescription or over-the-counter-drugs. Many
of these individuals have been beaten down, have virtually given up,
and have lost the will to overcome their difficulties. It is in these
instances and situations, Mr. Speaker, that I believe the Community
Solutions Act can and will help the most.
It reminds us, Mr. Speaker, that poverty, deprivation and the
inability to cope with anxiety, frustration, homelessness, are still
rampant in our country. Let's look, if you will, at an exoffender,
unable to get a job, illiterate, semi-illiterate, disavowed by the
ambiguities and contradictions of a sometimes cold, misunderstanding,
uncaring or unwilling-to-help society. These situations create the need
for something different; new theories, old theories reinforced, new
approaches, new treatment modalities.
A preacher friend of mine was fond of saying that new occasions call
for new truths, new situations make ancient remedies uncouth. Well, I
can tell you Mr. Speaker, the drug problem in this country is so
overwhelming, so difficult to deal with, so pervasive . . . the Mental
health challenges require so much, the abused, neglected and abandoned
problems require psychiatrists, counselors, psychologists, well
developed pharmaceuticals and all of the social health, physical health
and professional treatment that we can muster, but I also believe that
we could use a little Balm of Gilead to have and hold, I do believe
that we could use a little Balm of Gilead to help heal our sin sick
souls.
Mr. Speaker, I am told that the cost of drug abuse to society is
estimated at $16 billion annually, in less time than it takes to debate
this bill, another 14 infants will be born into poverty in America,
another 10 will be born without health insurance, and one more child
will be neglected or abused. In fact, the number of persons in our
country below the poverty level in 1999 was 32.3 million.
This legislation recognizes the fact that we must commandeer and
enlist every weapon in our arsenal to fight the war against poverty,
crime, mental illness, drug use, and abuse as well as all of the
maladies that are associated with these debilitating conditions. H.R.
7, the Community Solutions Act of 2001, can lend a helping hand.
But it cannot be allowed to help expand discrimination; therefore, I
urge that we vote for the democratic substitute and the motion to
recommit.
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Washington (Mr. McDermott).
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, whenever we pass this legislation, we
have to ask ourselves, what is broke? What are we trying to fix?
The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) has very clearly said any
religious organization can accept money. In the present situation, this
bill is not needed. Catholic Charities gets 62 percent. That equates to
$1.4 billion a year from the Federal Government. The Salvation Army
gets $400 million a year. United Jewish Communities, their nursing
homes get 76 percent of their money from the Federal Government.
Lutheran Services gets 30 percent of their $6.9 billion from the
Federal Government. That is $2.6 billion.
Mr. Speaker, my colleagues tell me that faith-based organizations
need this bill to get this money. That is clearly not what we are doing
here. We are skirting around the court case we heard about. We want to
give the ability of religious organizations to break laws that are here
today and mix church and State.
The other thing that we are doing, and everybody forgets the past,
the other side of the aisle took money from the Community Development
Block Grant for social services 2 years ago and put it into the
transportation budget. Now these agencies are coming and saying, we do
not have enough money. So the other side of the aisle's answer is,
well, we will just ask people to contribute more. We will put this
really good incentive out there.
Mr. Speaker, everybody who has filed the short form in this country
now has the opportunity to give $25. If they keep records, and they
have to keep records where they gave that $25, they then will get $3.75
back. Now, I do not know how stupid the other side of the aisle thinks
75 percent of the American people are. If they care, they are already
giving $25. They will give $25 or $50, or whatever they have, but they
are not going to do it for $3.75 that they have to wait a year to get.
This is simply a nonsense bill.
Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. English).
Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, the real issue today is, will blind
ideology and partisan politics stand in the way of our investing in
successful faith-based programs, in communities and families, and in
individuals truly in need? The naysayers today are the same people who
told us that welfare reform would not work; and look at the results.
For years, faith-based charities have reached out, making it their
mission to serve our communities. They work to support those who are
struggling and have broken lives. These groups provide emergency food
and shelter, after school care, drug treatment, welfare-to-work
assistance, and many other services. They do it with little support
from the Federal Government, but they get the job done.
Because of all of that, what these groups do for our communities, I
urge my colleagues to step back from partisan politics, step back from
blind ideology and support the Community Solutions Act.
Mr. Speaker, this bill will stimulate an outpouring of private giving
to nonprofits, faith-based programs and community groups by expanding
tax deductions and other initiatives.
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Meek).
Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, this is an outrage. I got religion
in a lean-to many years ago, so there is very little my colleagues can
tell me about faith based. But they can say to me that they want to
discriminate, and I can hear that in whatever language they speak it
in.
Mr. Speaker, the other side of the aisle is giving a set-aside. That
is what my colleagues are doing. It is a set-aside with Federal funds
for religious organizations, and it is a subterfuge. It is a set-aside
on civil rights.
It is well-intended. There are some good people behind this bill, and
there were some good people behind slavery. We do not want that to
happen again. We have to watch this.
There is no one in this Congress that is more faith based than I am,
so I should have every reason to support H.R. 7. But, Mr. Speaker, I am
afraid of this bill. Some of the little churches in my community are
going to be misguided and misrepresented; and, before we know it, they
will be in Federal court because of some of my colleagues' foolishness
trying to spread out and do something.
Mr. Speaker, why are my colleagues doing this bill? There is only one
reason. It is a subterfuge.
Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Sam Johnson), a distinguished member of the Committee on Ways and
Means.
Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, this act will actually
increase charitable giving. I want to focus on the value of individuals
donating funds from their IRAs to charities once they reach the age of
70\1/2\. Permitting older Americans to roll over funds from a
retirement account without the government getting a piece of the action
is a major help for charities. When this bill becomes law, a $100 YMCA
contribution will be a $100 contribution, not $85 because the IRS is
not going to take their chunk out.
Mr. Speaker, charities do remarkable things for our country. They
change the lives and hearts of so many for the better. They feed the
hungry, clothe the homeless, and assist the needy. Now is the time to
help charities help those most in need. Let us help the charities keep
more of their well-deserved dollars. It is the right thing to do.
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Edwards).
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, the question before this House is not
whether faith is a powerful force; it is. The question is not whether
faith-based groups do good works; they do. The question is not even
whether government can assist faith-based groups in their social work;
the government does, and has so for years without this bill.

[[Page H4255]]

Mr. Speaker, rather, the vote on this bill boils down to two
fundamental questions: First, do we want citizens' tax dollars funding
directly our churches and houses of worship? Second, is it right to
discriminate in job hiring when using tax dollars?
By directly funding churches and houses of worship with tax dollars,
this bill obliterates the Bill of Rights' wall of separation between
church and State. As all of human history has proven, entanglement
between government and religion will lead to less religious freedom and
more religious strife. Government funding of our churches will
absolutely lead to government regulation of our churches, and it will
cause religious strife as thousands of churches compete for billions of
dollars annually.
Mr. Speaker, to my conservative colleagues I would say this: No one
should be more concerned than true political conservatives about the
idea of the long arm of the Federal Government and its regulations
extending into our sacred houses of worship.
I would challenge any Member of this House to show me one nation
anywhere in the world that funds its churches and has more religious
liberty, more religious vitality or tolerance than right here in the
United States.
Regarding the religious discrimination subsidized by this bill, I
would say this: No American citizen, not one, should ever have to pass
someone else's religious test in order to qualify for a federally
funded job. Sadly, under this bill, a church or group associated with
Bob Jones University could put out a sign that says, ``No Catholics
Need Apply Here'' for a federally funded job. That is wrong. This bill
is wrong for religion, it is wrong for our churches, and it is wrong
for our Nation.

{time} 1330

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Houghton), a distinguished member of the Committee on Ways
and Means.
Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Speaker, there are many parts of this bill. The
part I would like to concentrate on is something which the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Hall) and I have been working on for a long time. The
basis is this: there are 31 million Americans, according to a
Department of Agriculture report, who go to bed hungry every night; and
12 million of those are children. One of the things this bill does is
to encourage and gives a tax incentive to restaurants and hotels and
people like that who have excess food, throw it away, to give it to
these organizations, to help these people that are hungry.
That is all it is. It is a very simple part of this bill. I think it
is needed, and I think it is the right area.
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutsch).
Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, I would take second place to no one in this
Chamber in my faith and my belief in God. I would take second place to
no one in this Chamber in terms of my personal commitment to supporting
faith-based organizations. But I cannot support the bill as presently
drafted and specifically focusing on the discrimination aspect of the
bill.
No one in this Chamber would ask that a Jew serve as a Catholic
priest or a Muslim serve as a Christian minister. But what this bill
specifically does, and we should face it and we should talk about it
and think about the implication, is that the person serving the soup
literally with the ladle would be allowed to be only of a certain
faith, whatever that faith may be, with Federal funds. That is a very
scary concept, I think, for many Americans. I ask my colleagues to
sensitize themselves about that. We could talk around that issue. We
could talk any way that we want. If that money is coming from my
donation as a free will offering, and that institution chooses to do
that, they have the ability, but not with Federal funds, not with
taxpayer dollars.
Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan), a distinguished member of the Committee on Ways
and Means.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I think it is important as we
listen to this debate to hear what the opponents are saying. They are
not attacking this bill head-on. They are chewing around the edges.
They are trying to set up roadblocks. They are trying to put new
provisions in law with respect to the civil rights acts. What they are
trying to do is make this program unworkable.
We hear this comment repeated over and over: Catholic social
services, Lutheran social services is getting all this government
money. That is true. The large, high-financed, well-established
churches do get Federal funding. They can afford the attorneys, they
can afford the accountants, they can afford the largesse to afford
these complicated tax structures to get this money.
That is not what this bill is about. This bill is about the little
guy. This bill is about the people who have those small, faith-based
organizations in our inner cities, in our rural areas, who know the
names, who know the faces, of those who are in need.
The problem that we have had with this Federal Government, with the
welfare state, with our approach to poverty, is that we have treated
the superficial wounds that have plagued our population but we have not
treated the soul. We have not treated the heart of the problem. The
goal here is to let those small institutions of civil society
throughout America, those faith-based organizations, who know the name
of the person in need, who are there in the ghettos, in the streets, to
help them, to sight their problems and to help them and to get
assistance.
This bill is about discrimination. We are discriminating against
those groups from getting equal treatment of our laws to help these
people in need. It maintains every point of our current civil rights
laws today. There is no civil rights law that is degraded in this act
as we move forward. We are simply removing discrimination against these
groups.
I urge passage of this bill. I think this bill has the potential of
changing our culture more so than any other measure we may be
considering here in this Congress. I think those who are on the other
side are well-intended, but I think it is the right time that we pass
this legislation. I urge its passage.
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
Mr. FRANK. Mr. Speaker, if what the previous gentleman said was in
the bill, it would be much less controversial. It does change civil
rights laws. It preempts, as the chairman of the committee acknowledged
in the debate, all State and local laws that many of these
organizations do now have to abide by in their purely secular activity,
and it allows discrimination with Federal funds for purely secular
activities. It says, ``No, you can't discriminate based on race, but
you can based on religion.''
But, sadly, all too often in America, religion becomes a proxy for
race. When Orthodox Jews get this money in Brooklyn, no blacks will be
hired. When the Nation of Islam gets this money in Baltimore to deal
with public housing, no whites will be hired. In fact, religion is all
too often correlated with race. And when you say to religious groups,
provide a purely secular activity with Federal tax dollars but in
employing people to serve the soup or build the homes or clean up or
give drug treatment, hire only your own co-religionists, you are
empowering people de facto to engage in racial segregation. That is not
worthy of the purposes of this bill.
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I would just point out that no one is going
to make a $25 donation because they can get $3.75 back from their taxes
a year from now. If we want to help these organizations, we ought to
increase the appropriations that have been cut over the past few years.
And we are not going around the edges. The basic core part of the
bill does not help little churches. They still have to do a grant-
writing proposal. They still have to run a program pursuant to Federal
regulations. They still have to withstand an audit. But they cannot
discriminate now, and this bill will allow them to discriminate in
hiring. That is wrong. That is why the bill ought to be defeated.
Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Just briefly on the tax provisions in this bill, this bill is about
fairness. It

[[Page H4256]]

allows those 70 percent of taxpayers who do not itemize ability to give
charitable contributions regardless of their itemizing on their tax
returns. IRS data shows that if they do, they will increase their
charitable giving significantly.
It also allows for tax-free withdrawals from IRAs and Roth IRAs. It
also gives incentives for increased charitable contributions by
businesses and employers in terms of food from restaurants or computer
equipment from other businesses.
This will be a real benefit to our communities. I urge support and
passage of this bill.
Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in very strong
opposition to H.R. 7, the Charitable Choice Act of 2001.
This legislation sanctions government-funded discrimination. Passage
of this bill would allow religious organizations who receive government
funds to hire only those individuals who prescribe to the
organization's religious tenets. The bill would also override state and
local civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination based on race,
sex, national origin and sexual orientation.
This bill proposes a major change to the basic American principle of
separating church and state. Federal agencies would be given the
opportunity to take all of the funding for a program and convert it
into vouchers to religious organizations. Religious groups receiving
this money would be able to use it for any number of purposes,
including proselytizing.
Supporters of this bill claim that more individuals will be helped
because more organizations will have access to federal funds. This is
simply not the case. H.R. 7 does not provide one additional dollar in
federal funding for social programs. In fact, the President's budget
actually cuts funding for the very programs that are being touted in
this bill.
The tax provisions of this bill are a joke. On the campaign trail,
the President wanted to encourage greater charitable giving by
providing $91.7 billion in tax breaks for those who donate. H.R. 7
provides only $13.3 billion in tax incentives for charitable giving.
Why the discrepancy? In their haste to pass a massive tax cut, the
President and Republicans abandoned the charitable donation proposals.
I urge all members to vote against this harmful legislation.
Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 7. As
an active member of my local church, I strongly support the good work
performed by faith-based charities across this country. But there is a
right way and a wrong way to provide government support for those
efforts. Unfortunately, this bill represents the wrong way.
H.R. 7 will allow religious organizations to discriminate in hiring
on the basis of race, color, sex, national origin and sexual
orientation while using federal tax dollars collected from all
Americans. This would be a giant step backwards for civil rights. This
legislation also subverts First Amendment safeguards by allowing
individuals to use vouchers in faith-based programs. Finally, sending
federal tax dollars directly to our houses of worship is
unconstitutional, and will inevitably lead to government regulation of
religion.
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to support the Democratic Alternative to H.R.
7. The Democratic Substitute will prevent the charitable choice
provisions in H.R. 7 from preempting or superseding state or local
civil rights laws. The Substitute will also prohibit the use of
vouchers and other indirect aid by religious organizations. Mr.
Speaker, the Democratic Alternative represents the right way to
establish partnerships between faith-based organizations and
government. We must never use the American people's money to condone
discrimination.
Faith- and community-based organizations have always taken the lead
in combating the hardships facing families and communities, and I
strongly support the work they have done and will continue to do. But
H.R. 7 is the wrong way to show our support for these important
organizations. I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 7 and to support the
Rangel Substitute.
In addition, Mr. Speaker, I want to submit for the Record a list of
some of the distinguished organizations that have contacted me to
express opposition to H.R. 7. This list is large and broad-based and
demonstrates the divisive nature of this bill in its present form. I am
hopeful Congress will come together across party lines to pass a common
sense compromise to support faith-based charities.
Here is a partial list of organizations that oppose H.R. 7:

The Baptist Joint Committee
The United Methodist Church, General Board of Church and
Society
The Presbyterian Church, USA
American Baptist Churches, USA
The Episcopal Church, USA
The American Jewish Committee
The Anti-Defamation League
The American Association of School Administrators
Hadassah, The Women's Zionist Organization of America
The American Association of University Women
The American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO
(AFGE)
The American Federation of State, County and Municipal
Employees (AFSCME)
The American Federation of Teachers
The National Coalition for Public Education
The Jewish Council on Public Affairs
The National Association for the Advancement of Colored
People (NAACP)
The National Council of Jewish Women
The National Education Association (NEA)
The National Parent Teacher Association (PTA)
Service Employees International Union, AFL-CIO (SEIU)
The Interfaith Alliance
Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, the issue before the House of
Representatives today is not whether faith is a positive force or
whether churches and synagogues do good work. I think it's safe to
assume we all agree that religious organizations play a significant
role in providing needed social-welfare programs in every community
across the United States.
Religious groups have been doing charity work for years, and they
have been doing so without the necessity of the legislation before us
today. What is of issue, however, is whether Congress should sanction
government-funded discrimination and remove the wall between the church
and state.
By permitting religious groups to discriminate in hiring on the basis
of religion, the bill before us today violates the principle of equal
protection and endorses taxpayer-funded discrimination. Under the bill,
for instance, a religious group can refuse to hire a single mother, a
woman using birth control for family planning, or even a person of a
different race, if their ``status'' violates the doctrine of that
religion. I can support religious institutions using their private
funds to hire a rabbi or a priest to lead their congregations in
worship, but I do not condone allowing religious groups to discriminate
in hiring when receiving public funds. No American should have to pass
a religious test to qualify for a federally-funded job.
Equally disturbing, this legislation does not provide adequate
safeguards and essentially obliterates the wall separating church and
state, a core principle of our nation for over 200 years. H.R. 7
introduces a new feature into our social-welfare system that allows
federal agencies to convert more than $47 billion in federal funds into
vouchers to religious organizations. These vouchers could be used for
religious purposes, including the funding of sectarian worship,
instruction, and proselytization.
As a strong supporter of faith-based organizations, I cannot support
this flawed legislation. The Rangel/Conyers Substitute, which includes
anti-discrimination protections and safeguards between church and state
received my strong endorsement and vote. This Substitute removed from
the base bill the provision that permits indirect aid that could be
used for religious purposes and clearly stated that religious programs
could not engage in sectarian worship, instruction, or proselytization
at the same time and place as the government-funded program.
It is my hope the senate makes wiser choices during its consideration
of this legislation, and the bill's shortcomings are addressed during
conference committee. Hopefully, by that point, the measure will be
corrected so that I may lend it my support.
Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 7, the
community Solutions Act, well-intentioned legislation that would
undermine two of our nation's most fundamental constitutional
principles--equal protection and the separation of church and state.
Mr. Speaker, I agree that the federal government should encourage non-
profits including religious organizations to help in meeting our
nation's social welfare needs, but not at the expense of the
constitutional principals that have served this nation so well.
H.R. 7 would broaden the use of federal funds made available to
religious groups than is currently permitted and allow such groups to
make their religious tenets central in the provision of those services.
Specifically, the bill prohibits the federal government, or state and
local governments using covered federal funds, from denying religious
organizations in the awarding of grants on the basis of the
organizations' religious character. The bill expands previously enacted
``charitable choice'' laws to include eight new programs that relate

[[Page H4257]]

to: juvenile justice, crime, housing, job training, domestic violence,
hunger relief, senior services and education.
The bill also contains $13 billion in tax reductions over the next
decade designed to encourage charitable giving. Given the new budgetary
constraints after the passage of the President's $1.35 trillion tax cut
package, the Ways and Means Committee approved just 15% of charitable
giving tax incentives provided under the President's plan. H.R. 7 would
permit taxpayers who do not itemize their taxes to deduct up to $25 in
charitable contributions a year, rising to $100 in 2010. Under this
bill, non-itemizers in the 15 percent tax bracket would get anemic tax
benefit of $3.75 a year if they contributed the maximum, rising to $15
a year. I would also note that the bill does not provide one additional
dollar in federal funding for charitable-choice programs. In fact, the
President's budget, in fact, slashes funding for some of the very
programs promoted in the bill.
Mr. Speaker, I supported the ``charitable choice'' provisions of the
1996 Welfare Reform Act which allowed religious organizations to
qualify for federal funds for social service programs, without being
forced to eliminate or soften their religious content. Such previously-
enacted charitable choice laws strictly prohibited these faith-based
social-service providers from proselytizing in their federally-funded
programs. Today, we have before us legislation to give effect to the
President's ``faith-based initiative'' by allowing religious
organizations to proselytize or undertake other religious activity with
federal funds when such activities are funded indirectly through
vouchers.
This approach, while well-meaning, runs afoul of the First Amendment
requirement of separation of church and state and would open the door
to employment discrimination in federally-funded programs. Under H.R.
7, groups would be permitted to make hiring decisions based on
religion, without regard to state or local laws on the subject. Under
the bill, for instance, an organization could discriminate against
someone involved in an interracial relationship or second marriage, if
that status violated the doctrine of the religion. I can see no
legitimate justification for permitting providers of government-funded
secular services to discriminate in this manner. The content of a
person's heart and a desire to serve the community should be the only
requisites for undertaking good works. Taxpayers should not be required
to support discrimination.
The fact that some of the most vocal opponents of this bill are
members of the clergy must not be overlooked. The bill does not provide
adequate safeguards regarding the separation of church and state and
may pave the way for excessive entanglement between government and
religion. Churches and religious organizations that embrace this
program should consider that with taxpayer dollars comes a fiduciary
responsible in the form of oversight and what can be deemed intrusions
into the affairs of such churches and other faith-based groups. Just
this week, I heard from a constituent, a political science professor
from Rice University who is active in his church, who urged me to vote
against H.R. 7 and said it would ``strike a blow to religious autonomy
in America, allowing government auditors and other bureaucrats into the
inner sanctum of religious organizations--including, ironically, many
of the churches who favor the bill.'' I couldn't have said it better
myself.
Mr. Speaker, I also oppose the substitute, offered by Reps. Rangel
and Conyers, because I believe that the passage of new legislation is
not necessary. For decades, government-funded partnerships with
religiously-affiliated organizations such as Catholic Charities, Jewish
Community Federations, and Lutheran Social Services have helped to
combat poverty and have provided housing, education, and health care
services for those in need. These successful partnerships have provided
excellent service to communities largely unburdened by concerns over
bureaucratic entanglements between government and religion. In fact,
many smaller churches in my district provide a multitude of social
services to the community with federal grant money and tax deductible
contributions. The existing prohibition on proselytizing has not
curtailed their desire to serve and fulfill their missions.
Under the present system, any church or religious institution can
establish a 501(C)(3) and apply for federal funds. Under Sec. 501(c)(3)
of the Internal Revenue Code, ``charitable organizations'' set up by
organizations such as the Red Cross, Catholic Charities USA or small
churches and religious organizations greatly benefit from the ability
to receive tax-deductible charitable contributions and are generally
exempted from being taxed. Today, religiously-affiliated private
entities receive hundreds of millions of dollars for their social
service works. Mr. Speaker, we must all remember that religious
institutions are out there, every day, making a difference in the lives
of their communities and, with or without passage of this measure, will
continue to contribute to the social fabric of this nation.
Mr. Speaker, while I strongly believe that religious organizations
play an important role in providing needed social-welfare programs, I
cannot sanction this bill which would put the federal government in the
position of funding discrimination picking and choosing among the right
religions and breaking down the separation of church and state.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition of H.R. 7, the
Community Solutions Act. With 12 million children living in poverty, it
is clear that Congress needs to do more to lift them out of their
desperate situation. However, H.R. 7 does nothing to achieve this goal.
It provides only a minimal tax deduction to encourage people to
contribute to charitable organizations that provide social services to
the poor. The bill does not provide any new government funding for
faith-based organizations to carry out their missions to provide social
services and reduce poverty.
If the Republicans truly cared about lifting children and families
out of poverty, their budget would reflect significant increases in
funding for social service programs. Instead, the Bush budget increases
spending for the Administration for Children and Families by only
2.9%--far less than even inflation.
This bill is purported to be necessary to allow religious
organizations to receive federal funds to provide services for those in
need. In fact, many religious organizations qualify for such funds
today. The only requirement is that they separate their duties as
religious entities from their social service programs. For example,
Catholic Charities received $1.4 billion in 1999 in government
funding--totaling two-thirds of their annual budget.
Let's be real. This bill has nothing to do with increasing social
services funding.
The most significant achievement of H.R. 7 is to allow federally
funded faith-based organizations to circumvent state and local anti-
discrimination laws.
Last week, the Bush administration announced that they would not
pursue an administrative rule that would allow faith-based
organizations to pre-exempt state laws prohibiting discrimination based
on sexual orientation. Although some may believe that action resolved
the issue, it did not. H.R. 7 explicitly allows faith-based
organizations to pre-empt state law and state law and discriminate in
their hiring practices.
This provision is worse than the Administration's proposed regulation
because it allows faith-based organizations to not only discriminate
against someone based on their sexual orientation, but for many other
reasons such as being unmarried or pregnant to name a couple. However,
this is only the tip of the iceberg.
Religious organizations have an exemption under the Civil rights Act
that allows them to discriminate in the hiring of individuals that
perform their religious work. However, that exemption does not
currently allow them to discriminate in the hiring of individuals that
carry out their federally funded social service programs. H.R. 7
extends the Civil Rights exemption to allow faith-based organizations
to discriminate in the hiring of individuals that deliver their
federally funded social service programs.
Again, the only real change in this bill from current law is to allow
faith-based organizations to discriminate and to proselytize while
receiving government funds. This bill is strong on promoting
discrimination and weak on lifting families out of poverty.
By passing H.R. 7, the United States House of Representatives is
sending the message that Congress endorses government-sponsored
discrimination. I believe that this message desecrates the memory of
the men, women and children who lost and risked their lives to bring
equal rights to all who live in this country. Instead of undermining
the memory of these courageous civil rights advocates, Congress should
be using their effort as a source of inspiration to continue and move
forward the battle to ensure that all who live in this nation obtain
true equal rights.
It is time that our nations' leaders stood together to protect the
advancements made in civil rights and create a nation that cherishes
tolerance for all groups. To truly help the poor, Congress should
ensure that they have access to health care, child care and other
social services. None of these measures require undermining this
nation's civil rights laws.
Finally, I hope this bill is no indication that Bush Administration
wants to dismantle our existing social safety net and turn it over to
religious organizations and other private charities. A recent Ewing
Marion Kauffman Foundation study indicates that charities--even with
the benefits of the tax cuts in this bill--would not be able to replace
the federal government's commitment to providing social services.
According to their study, adding up the current assets of all the
foundations in America would only replace federal government funding
for social services for 74 days. The Bush Administration may want to
shift responsibility to religious organizations and private charities,
but they can't do the job alone.

[[Page H4258]]

Moreover, if Congress decides to allocate more government funds to
increase faith-based organizations role in providing social services,
we should make sure that we are getting our taxpayers' money worth. At
a recent Brookings Institute conference recently on child care, Mary
Bogle, a child care expert, cited several studies that reported that
child care provided by churches was among the lowest quality in the
country. These child care centers had higher staff-to-child ratios,
lower levels of trained and educated teachers and less educated
administrators than other non profit child care centers.
I for one do not want to be telling my constituents several years
down the road that Congress spent money on social services based on
whether they are religious rather than on their ability to provide
quality services.
Please join me in opposing H.R. 7 and lets work together to seriously
tackle the problem of poverty without legalizing government-sponsored
discrimination.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose H.R. 7, the Charitable
Choice Act of 2001. I support the work that many religious charities do
on behalf of those in the need in my community and across the nations.
Currently, any church or religious organization can establish a charity
and apply for federal funds. This legislation provides no additional
money for those organizations. It simply would allow religious
organizations that wish to discriminate to apply or federal funds. It
would allow the rollback of many of the basic civil rights protections
for all Americans currently enjoy. Allowing religious organization to
discriminate in hiring on the basis of religion, sexual preference, and
race is wrong.
Short-circuiting the current system also opens the door to federal
interference in religious activities, which has prompted the opposition
of many religious organizations and leaders. The litany of groups
opposing this bill is long and contains the names of some of the most
distinguished charitable and religious groups in the country.
Another unfortunate aspect is the failure to meaningfully assist the
charitable contributions of low income Americans unable to itemize on
income tax returns. As a result of other tax relief for people who need
help the least, we are unable to assist those who are unduly penalized.
Given the flaws in this legislation, I oppose it, and urge my
colleagues to do likewise.
Mr. WEXLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the Community
Solutions Act of 2001.
In a 1780 letter, Benjamin Franklin wrote, ``When religion is good, I
conceive that it will support itself; and, when it cannot support
itself, and G-d does not take care to support, so that its professors
are obliged to call for the help of the civil power, it is a sign, I
apprehend, of its being a bad one.''
Forty-three years later, James Madison wrote in a letter, ``Religion
is essentially distinct from civil government and exempt from its
cognizance . . . a connection between them is injurious to both.''
Franklin and Madison's observations are still poignant, and relevant
to today's debate on President Bush's social services plan. I join with
many Americans who have great concerns about the provisions of his plan
which punch holes in the firewall between places of worship and the
government.
A number of religious organizations already run very valuable social
service programs, and Americans appreciate the significant
contributions that these religious groups make to the well being of our
communities. However, this proposed faith-based legislation
unnecessarily entwines church and state in a financial relationship
under the mantra of improving social services.
The Founding Fathers understood that both church and state play
important roles in the lives of Americans, but neither may function
appropriately under our Constitution if they are heavily intertwined.
The separation of church and state actually protects each from the
other. Many Americans express concern over the potential for a
disproportionate level of influence of religious doctrine upon the
making of public policy. However, places of worship should also be
concerned about interference from government. It would be a travesty if
a financial relationship between the two became so significant that
religious decisions are affected by concerns over public funding.
Let us be straight-forward about the crux of this debate: The
question is not whether churches, synagogues or mosques should provide
social services. Of course they should. The question is whether
religious organizations should abide by federal civil rights laws if
they take federal money. The answer again is of course they should.
Proponents of the President's plan call for the removal of
``barriers'' which religious charities face when attempting to secure
public funding for their social service programs. These so-called
``barriers'' are America's civil rights laws, and we must not
compromise them. If a privately-funded place of worship directs its
employees to follow its religious dictates, then it is within its
rights to do so. However, if it uses public funds, then it should not
be allowed to discriminate against anyone.
While we should always look for better ways to provide social
services, I do not believe that the separation between church and state
need to be dismantled to do so. I ask that you vote against the bill.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, today I will vote against H.R. 7, the
Community Solutions Act, because I strongly support the constitutional
separation of church and state, and I believe this bill infringes on
that separation. The bill would threaten religious autonomy, as
religious organizations would be subject to government regulations in
exchange for federal funds. The truth is that the federal government
can already fund faith-based charities if they meet the following three
conditions: they establish a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt charitable
organization, they agree not to proselytize using tax dollars, and they
cannot discriminate in job hiring. H.R. 7 would remove these important
protections. I also believe this bill allows federal intrusion on state
and local jurisdiction, as faith-based groups would not have to adhere
to Minnesota's comprehensive state and local nondiscrimination laws.
I recognize the very important contributions of faith-based
organizations to our communities and families. Some successful faith-
based organizations in Minnesota such as Church Charities, Lutheran
Social Services, and Jewish Family and Children's Services have
developed a reputation for providing quality services without religious
discrimination. These organizations certainly complement many
governmental social services and I would not want to see their roles
diminished in the lives of so many Minnesotans. This bill has the
potential to interfere in the historic working relationships between
faith-based organizations, the government, and the people they so
generously serve.
Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Speaker, I must join my colleagues who have
spoken in opposition to H.R. 7.
Never can I or will I ever support a piece of legislation which would
allow and therefore support discrimination in any way shape or form.
I am proud to be a member of the Congressional Black Caucus which
does not oppose, but strongly supports, making funding available to
support our religious organization's work in the world, but voted
unanimously to oppose the egregious parts of the bill which allow the
provisions of the hard fought for civil rights laws to be sidestepped.
As an African-American and a Christian, I must also say that I am
insulted and deeply resent the way the administration has specifically
courted the Black Church with this initiative because H.R. 7 falsely
advertises the initiative as new, and also as funded, and it most
agregiously, allows discrimination.
Mr. Speaker, I am and have always been a strong supporter of the work
that religious groups such as Lutheran Social Services, Catholic Social
Services, the Inter-Faith Coalition, the Moravian conference, The
Seventh Day Adventist Church and others have been doing.
In addition to these concerns, I am also very troubled by the fact
that H.R. 7 contains a provision that allows any federal agency to
convert their entire services programs into a voucher in order to
circumvent protections against discrimination that are provided for
under federal law.
This most uncharitable bill goes beyond the question of violating the
principle of separation of Church and State, first by allowing
discrimination and then by purporting to provide funds for religious
and other organizations when it doesn't actually provide any new
dollars in the bill at all. Neither should they now, that the lack of
funding is uncovered, be allowed to raid the Medicare Trust Fund.
As an African-American and a Christian, I must also say that I am
insulted and deeply resent the way the administration has specifically
courted the Black Church with this initiative because of the
aforementioned aspects of H.R. 7 to which I have objected.
Mr. Speaker, I am and have always been a strong supporter of the work
that religious groups in my and other communities do. Federal support
of Faith based organizations is not new. In my district, groups such as
Lutheran Social Services, Catholic Social Services, the Inter-Faith
Coalition, the Moravian conference, The Seventh Day Adventist Church
and others have been doing a tremendous job serving the needy in Virgin
Islanders for many years now and will continue to do so with or without
this bill.
Where there efforts are hampered is through the recent tax cut which
will drastically cut funding from the programs that help those in our
communities who need an extra hand up--in education, in health care
services, in housing, in economic opportunity, and in programs that
would promote an improved quality of life.
And it just astounds me that while the Administration is pushing this
initiative ``as'' one

[[Page H4259]]

of its highest priorities, in the case of the CBC Minority AIDS
Initiative, the Department has decided that Faith Based Organizations
can no longer be targeted for funding.
I support the Democratic Substitute and urge my colleagues to do the
same. This better bill would prohibit employment discrimination and the
setting aside of state and local civil right laws and delete the
sweeping new language in the bill which would permit federal agencies
to convert more than $47 billion in current government programs into
private vouchers.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, faith-based organizations play a vital role
in our communities and work tirelessly towards effectively meeting the
needs of our communities. These organizations cover all religions and
range from family counseling, to community development, to homeless and
battered woman's shelters, to drug-treatment and rehabilitation
programs and to saving our ``at-risk'' children. In many cases, they
are the only organizations that have taken the initiative to provide a
much needed community service.
In principle, I support what H.R. 7, the Community Solutions Act
seeks to accomplish. However, during exhaustive conversations with my
constituents, and a variety of organizations, we must address the
following issues before the bill is viable and fair:
H.R. 7 gives the executive branch broad discretion to fundamentally
change the structure of a plethora of federal social service programs
totaling some 47 billion dollars through the use of vouchers.This
voucher program allows any Cabinet Secretary to convert any of the
covered programs currently funded through grants or direct funding to a
voucher program, without Congressional approval. The risk of these
voucher programs is that once a program becomes a voucher program, the
funds become indirect funds, which could require participants in
voucher funded programs to engage in worship or to conform to the
religious beliefs of the religious organizations providing the service.
H.R. 7, would permit a variety of organizations, including for-profit
entities, to receive program vouchers. Our concern is that this could
jeopardize the financial stability of non-profit agencies by replacing
the more reliable grant and contracts funding they currently receive
with unpredictable voucher funding.
Mr. speaker, Charitable Choice fails to protect the beneficiaries of
funded programs from proselytization, in that H.R. 7 fails to include
meaningful safeguards for the beneficiaries while they are participants
in publicly funded programs. H.R. 7, places the burden of objecting to
the religious nature of the program up to the client, after he or she
has sought assistance. Only after the injury suffered through unwanted
proselyting, that the government is required to provide an alternative
program. We should fund secular alternatives in advance, not when a
lawsuit is brought challenging the religious nature of the program.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 7, mandates that those faith based entities
utilizing federal funds are to be held to the federal civil rights
standard that allows religious organizations to discriminate against
those on the basis of religion. In many cases state law provides
additional civil rights protections regarding sexual orientation,
physical and mental disabilities, genetics, and a host of other
protections. To allow federal law to supersede state law on this
important issue, not only creates the potential for constitutional
states rights challenges, but does nothing to advance civil rights
protections in our nation.
While no one can dispute the great work and the important services
that faith-based organizations provide to our communities, the issues
that I set forth and those raised by my colleagues must be addressed
before this bill is fair, balanced and provides the necessary
safeguards for all.
Accordingly, I look forward to working with our Conferees in the
conference on this bill in order to more clearly address these issues.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, no one familiar with the history of the past
century can doubt that private charities, particularly those maintained
by persons motivated by their faith to perform charitable acts, are
more effective in addressing social needs than federal programs.
Therefore, the sponsors of HR 7, the Community Solutions Act, are
correct to believe that expanding the role of voluntary, religious-
based organizations will benefit society. However, this noble goal will
not be accomplished by providing federal taxpayer funds to these
organizations. Instead, federal funding will transform these
organizations into adjuncts of the federal government and reduce
voluntary giving on the part of the people. In so doing, HR 7 will
transform the majority of private charities into carbon copies of
failed federal welfare programs.
Providing federal funds to religious organizations gives the
organizations an incentive to make obedience to federal bureaucrats
their number-one priority. Religious entities may even change the
religious character of their programs in order to please their new
federal paymaster. Faith-based organizations may find federal funding
diminishes their private support as people who currently voluntarily
support religious organizations assume they ``gave at the (tax)
office'' and will thus reduce their levels of private giving. Thus,
religious organizations will become increasingly dependent on federal
funds for support. Since ``he who pays the piper calls the tune''
federal bureaucrats and Congress will then control the content of
``faith-based'' programs.
Those who dismiss these concerns should consider that HR 7 explicitly
forbids proselytizing in ``faith-based' programs receiving funds
directly from the federal government. Religious organizations will not
have to remove religious income from their premises in order to receive
federal funds. However, I fail to see the point in allowing a Catholic
soup kitchen to hang a crucifix on its wall or a Jewish day care center
to hang a Star of David on its door if federal law forbids believers
from explaining the meaning of those symbols to persons receiving
assistance. Furthermore, proselytizing is what is at the very heart of
the effectiveness of many of these programs!
H.R. 7 also imposes new paperwork and audit requirements on religious
organizations, thus diverting resources away from fulfilling the
charitable mission. Supporters of HR 7 point out that any organization
that finds the conditions imposed by the federal government too onerous
does not have to accept federal grants. It is true no charity has to
accept federal grants. It is true no charity has to accept federal
funds, but a significant number will accept federal funds in exchange
for federal restrictions on their programs, especially since the
restrictions will appear ``reasonable'' during the program's first few
years. Of course, history shows that Congress and the federal
bureaucracy cannot resist imposing new mandates on recipients of
federal money. For example, since the passage of the Higher Education
Act the federal government has gradually assumed control over almost
every aspect of campus life.
Just as bad money drives out good, government-funded charities will
overshadow government charities that remain independent of federal
funding. After all, a federally-funded charity has the government's
stamp of approval and also does not have to devote resources to
appealing to the consciences of parishioners for donations. Instead,
government-funded charities can rely on forced contributions from the
taxpayers. Those who dismiss this as unlikely to occur should remember
that there are only three institutions of higher education today that
do not accept federal funds and thus do not have to obey federal
regulations.

We have seen how federal funding corrupts charity in our time. Since
the Great Society, many organizations which once were devoted to
helping the poor have instead become lobbyists for ever-expanding
government, since a bigger welfare state means more power for their
organizations. Furthermore, many charitable organizations have devoted
resources to partisan politics as part of coalitions dedicated to
expanding federal control over the American people.
Federally-funded social welfare organizations are inevitably less
effective than their counterparts because federal funding changes the
incentives of participants in these organizations. Voluntary charities
promote self-reliance, while government welfare programs foster
dependency. In fact, it is in the self-interests of the bureaucrats and
politicians who control the welfare state to encourage dependency.
After all, when a private organization moves a person off welfare, the
organization has fulfilled its mission and proved its worth to donors.
In contrast, when people leave government welfare programs, they have
deprived federal bureaucrats of power and of a justification for a
larger amount of taxpayer funding.
Accepting federal funds will corrupt religious institutions in a
fundamental manner. Religious institutions provide charity services
because they are commanded to by their faith. However, when religious
organizations accept federal funding promoting the faith may take a
back seat to fulfilling the secular goals of politicians and
bureaucrats.
Some supporters of this measure have attempted to invoke the legacy
of the founding fathers in support of this legislation. Of course, the
founders recognized the importance of religion in a free society, but
not as an adjunct of the state. Instead, the founders hoped a religious
people would resist any attempts by the state to encroach on the proper
social authority of the church. The Founding Fathers would have been
horrified by any proposal to put churches on the federal dole, as this
threatens liberty by subordinating churches to the state.
Obviously, making religious institutions dependent on federal funds
(and subject to federal regulations) violates the spirit, if not the
letter, of the first amendment. Critics of this legislation are also
correct to point out that this bill violates the first amendment by
forcing taxpayers to subsidize religious organizations whose principles
they do not believe. However, many of these critics are inconsistent in

[[Page H4260]]

that they support using the taxing power to force religious citizens to
subsidize secular organizations.
The primary issue both sides of this debate are avoiding is the
constitutionality of the welfare state. Nowhere in the Constitution is
the federal government given the power to level excessive taxes on one
group of citizens for the benefit of another group of citizens. Many of
the founders would have been horrified to see modern politicians define
compassion as giving away other people's money stolen through
confiscatory taxation. After all, the words of the famous essay by
former Congressman Davy Crockett, that money is ``Not Yours to Give.''
Instead of expanding the unconstitutional welfare state, Congress
should focus on returning control over welfare to the American people.
As Marvin Olaksy, the ``godfather of compassionate conservatism,'' and
others have amply documented, before they were crowded out by federal
programs, private charities did an exemplary job at providing necessary
assistance to those in need. These charities not only met the material
needs of those in poverty but helped break many of the bad habits, such
as alcoholism, taught them ``marketable'' skills or otherwise engaged
them in productive activity, and helped them move up the economic
ladder.
Therefore, it is clear that instead of expanding the unconstitutional
welfare state, Congress should return control over charitable giving to
the American people by reducing the tax burden. This is why I strongly
support the tax cut provisions of H.R. 7, and would enthusiastically
support them if they were brought before the House as a stand alone
bill. I also proposed a substitute amendment which would have given
every taxpayer in America a $5,000 tax credit for contributions to
social services organizations which serve lower-income people. Allowing
people to use more of their own money promotes effective charity by
ensuring that charities remain true to their core mission. After all,
individual donors will likely limit their support to those groups with
a proven track record of helping the poor, whereas government agencies
may support organizations more effective at complying with federal
regulations or acquiring political influence than actually serving the
needy.
Many prominent defenders of the free society and advocates of
increasing the role of faith-based institutions in providing services
to the needy have also expressed skepticism regarding giving federal
money to religious organizations, including the Reverend Pat Robinson,
the Reverend Jerry Falwell, Star Parker, Founder and President of the
Coalition for Urban Renewal (CURE), Father Robert Sirico, President of
the Action Institute for Religious Liberty, Michael Tanner, Director of
Health and Welfare studies at the CATO Institute, and Lew Rockwell,
founder and president of the Ludwig Von Misses Institute. Even Marvin
Olaksy, the above-referenced ``godfather of compassionate
conservatism,'' has expressed skepticism regarding this proposal.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, because H.R. 7 extends the reach of the
immoral, unconstitutional welfare state and thus threatens the autonomy
and the effectiveness of the very faith-based charities it claims to
help, I urge my colleagues to reject it. Instead, I hope my colleagues
will join me in supporting a constitutional and compassionate agenda of
returning control over charity to the American people through large tax
cuts and tax credits.
Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in opposition to the
underlying bill and in support of the Conyers Substitute. First, and
foremost I must make known my profound belief in the healing ability of
faith. The Church has always played an important role in my life and in
many ways was a catalyst to my choice to pursue a political career.
However, this is not a debate about government versus religion.
Religious organizations play an important role in our society and no
matter what we do on the floor today they will continue to do so. I
assure you I will continue to support them.

Already have the ability to compete

There are many who have taken the floor and allege that Faith Based
organizations are discriminated against when competing for federal
funds. I question this statement. I have come to believe that under
current law, Faith Based organizations can in fact compete if they take
certain steps under the law. They must create a separate 501(C)(3)
organization to prevent the mixing of church and secular activities. In
my mind this insulates Faith Based organizations from the sometimes
intrusive hand of the government.

Discrimination

Again I state my support for the healing role of faith based
organizations. However, as an avid student of this country's history
and, for that matter, the world's history, I cannot ignore some of the
heinous things that have been done in the name of religion. In fact,
current history is full of the horrors attendant to state sponsored
religion. For decades, this country has struggled to bring peace to the
hot box that is the Middle East, where religion is the sub-text used
for the oppression of women, the oppression of other faiths and state
sponsored terrorism. While I realize that this country has many
protections against many of these horrors, and I do not mean to suggest
that the enactment of this bill will rise to the level of these
horrors, I do mean to suggest that more subtle forms of these problems
such as discrimination will result from this measure.
This bill would allow Faith Based organizations to discriminate as to
who they will hire. This is wrong. The faith of a helping hand is of no
consequence to the person in need. All of humanity has the potential to
accomplish charitable deeds and should not be told that there is no
role for their charity because of the faith they hold dear. I will not
stand idly by as the Civil Rights laws in place to prevent workplace
discrimination are flouted in the name of religion

No Additional Funding for the Program

Finally, this measure is indicative of the Republican efforts to
dismantle social programs. I say this because they have not provided a
red cent for the implementation of this initiative or the programs that
it involves. This bill will expand the pool of competitors already
competing for diminished funds due to a bloated tax-cut. For example
the Bush budget cuts local crime prevention funds by $1 billion. The
Bush budget also cuts the needs of public housing by $1 billion by
cutting $309 million from Public Housing Drug Elimination Grants, and
cutting the Public Housing Capital Fund by $700 million. Even Job
Training is cut by $500 million under the Administration's budget.
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I have long advocated making changes to the
tax code designed to encourage charitable giving. Indeed, I have
promoted some of the proposals contained in the legislation we have
before us today, including the charitable IRA rollover and the
deduction for non-itemizers, for many years. Because the legislation we
are considering, the Community Solutions Act, contains a number of
worthwhile provisions that I believe will help encourage people to give
to charity, I rise today to express my support.
However, while I believe this legislation is a step in the right
direction, H.R. 7 is but a first step. Frankly, we need to do more, and
in my remarks today I would like to highlight a number of items that I
believe need to receive further consideration by the Ways and Means
Committee and the Congress in the near future.
My first comments relate to the largest provision in this legislation
in terms of revenue impact--the charitable deduction for non-itemizers.
I do not believe there is a member in Congress who has fought longer or
harder for restoring the charitable deduction for non-itemizers than I.
The non-itemizer charitable deduction actually existed in the tax code
from 1981-1986. It was created in the 1981 Reagan tax bill, but the
language in the 1981 bill sunset the provision after 1986. In January
1985, at the start of the 99th Congress, I introduced legislation, H.R.
94, to make the non-itemizer deduction permanent. The year after the
provision expired in 1986, I introduced legislation, H.R. 113, to
restore the deduction. In every Congress since that time up to the
present, I have introduced legislation to restore this deduction. For
the record, I would like to insert the following table identifying the
Congress, date and bill number of the legislation that I have
introduced on this subject: 99th Congress--1/3/85--H.R. 94; 100th
Congress--1/6/87--H.R. 113; 101st Congress--1/4/89--H.R. 459; 102nd
Congress--1/3/91--H.R. 310; 103rd Congress--1/5/93--H.R. 152; 104th
Congress--4/7/95--H.R. 1493; 105th Congress--9/18/97--H.R. 2499; 106th
Congress--3/25/99--H.R. 1310; and 107th Congress--2/28/01--H.R. 777.
While I am gratified that Congressman Watts included that the non-
itemizer deduction in H.R. 7, I am disappointed that the limitations on
the amount of the deduction were set so low. Indeed, I am concerned
that the deduction limits have been set so low as to have a very
minimal impact toward the goal of increasing charitable giving.
Frankly, the deduction allowance ought to be set substantially higher.
I applaud President Bush for his proposal to allow the deduction up to
the amount of the standard deduction. However, despite my concerns with
the limitations contained in H.R. 7, I still believe that this
provision represents a positive first step--a step on which the Ways
and Means Committee can build a more substantial deduction. Moreover, I
hope that the other body takes up similar legislation this year and
that it considered the concerns I am raising today.

With regard to those individuals who do itemize their deductions, I
want to mention two proposals that were not contained in H.R. 7 but
hopefully will be considered at a later date. The first of these
proposals relates to Section 170 of the tax code. Under current law,
individuals who contribute appreciated property (such as stocks and
real estate) to charity are

[[Page H4261]]

subject to complex deduction limits. While donors can generally deduct
charitable contributions up to 50 percent of their income, deductions
for gifts of appreciated property are limited to 30 percent of income.
For gifts of appreciated property to charities that are private
foundations, deductions are limited to 20 percent of income. In my
view, these limits under present law discourage charitable giving from
the very people who are in the best position to make large gifts.
Someone who has done well in the stock market should be encouraged to
share the benefits. In order to fix this problem we should consider
allowing contributions of appreciated property to be deductible within
the same percentage limits as for other charitable gifts.
The proposal I have in mind would increase the percentage limitation
applicable to charitable contributions of capital gain property to
public charities by individuals from 30 percent to 50 percent of
income. thus, both cash and non-cash contributions to such entities
would be subject to a 50 percent deductibility limit. In addition, I
would propose increasing the percentage limitation for contributions of
capital gain property to private foundations from 20 percent to 30
percent of income. While these proposals were not included in H.R. 7, I
want to thank Ways and Means Chairman Thomas for publicly acknowledging
that these issues are worthy of consideration. As a follow-up to his
comments in the Ways and Means Committee, Chairman Thomas has written a
letter to the Staff Director of the Joint Committee on Taxation asking
for a revenue estimate and additional information with respect to this
proposal.
In addition, I would like to thank the Chairman for making a similar
request with regard to the other proposal I believe needs to be
addressed--removal of charitable contributions from the cutback of
itemized deductions commonly referred to as the ``Pease'' limitations.
Even though the cutback of itemized deductions is being phased out
under current law, its impact on charitable giving will remain in
effect for several years. It is my strong belief that extracting
charitable contributions from the Pease limitation will do much to
encourage further generosity from those in a position to give the most.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to express my
support for H.R. 7 and I hope that I will return to the floor one day
soon to address the other important issues I have raised in my remarks.
Mr. FORBES. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Community
Solutions Act, which will provide more opportunities for the strong
wills and good hearts of Americans everywhere to rally to the aid of
their neighbors.
All across America, there are people in need of a helping hand. Some
of them are just a little down on their luck and need temporary shelter
or a hot meal or the comfort of a confidant. Others are in more dire
straits. The government can provide some assistance to these
individuals and families, but it cannot do it all. And, frankly, it
should not. In every pocket of America, there are groups and
individuals--some of faith and some not--who are rallying to the aid of
their neighbors. We in Washington should be in the business of
encouraging this kind of community involvement and outreach.
In fact, the public places far more trust in faith-based institutions
and community organizations than in government to solve the social woes
of our nation. Earlier this year, the Pew Partnership for Civic Change
asked Americans to rank 15 organizations, including governments,
businesses, and community groups, for their role in solving social
problems in our communities. More than half named local churches,
synagogues, and religious institutions; nonprofit groups, like the
Salvation Army and Habitat for Humanity; and friends and neighbors--
putting them at the top of the list behind only the local police. In
contrast, the federal government was ranked 14th out of 15, with only
about 1 in 4 respondents naming it as a social problem-solver.
The bipartisan Community Solutions Act builds on the faith-based
initiative proposed earlier this year by the President to answer this
call. But, to call it a faith-based initiative is really a misnomer.
While faith-based groups clearly have a role to play in this plan, it
is really all about neighbors helping neighbors.
Mr. Speaker, the bill will increase charitable giving by allowing
non-itemizers to deduct their charitable contributions. It will also
expand individual development accounts to encourage low-income families
to save money for home ownership, college education, or other needs.
And, the Community Solutions Act will expand charitable choice
provisions already in law to give faith-based groups a greater
opportunity to provide assistance to those in need through programs
that Congress has created.
This bill embodies many good ideas, and it is long past the time when
we should be returning these principles to our civil society. I thank
the President for making this a priority for his Administration, and
thank Congressmen Watts and Hall introducing it in the House.
It is time for Congress to step aside and let the armies of
compassion do what they do best--help neighbors in need. I urge my
colleagues to support this bill and to oppose the substitute and the
motion to recommit.
Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, currently, under Title VII,
religious organizations can discriminate in hiring practices. If the
Charitable Choice Act (H.R. 7) is enacted, this discriminatory practice
will extend to programs on the Federal level. It is alarming that the
Charitable Choice Act (H.R. 7) would pre-empt state and local anti-
discrimination laws. This bill would open women to all kinds of
employment discrimination that is currently prohibited by Federal law.
Under H.R. 7, religious employers would be allowed to include
questions in hiring interviews on marital status and childcare
provisions. Women would also be subject to discrimination in the
delivery of services. For example, this bill offers no protection for
the unwed mother being denied benefits because of the tenets of the
religious organization responsible for delivering services. Women's
basic employment and civil rights should be a fundamental guarantee and
not conditioned on whether or not the entity hiring or providing
services has been offered special protections under the law.
Currently, under Title VII, there are cases where women lost their
job because they became pregnant but wasn't married and due to their
views on abortion. If the Charitable Choice Act is passed, then this
can include many more forms of discrimination.
This is no ordinary piece of legislation. It raises serious questions
about church-state relations in this country. These are grave issues.
Congress needs to proceed with caution.
Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, as a long-time supporter of local
solutions for local problems, I want to thank my colleagues,
Representative J.C. Watts and Representative Tony Hall, for their work
to bring H.R. 7, the Community Solutions Act, to the Floor. I am
pleased to be a cosponsor of this initiative, which recognizes the
important role that faith-based groups are performing in every
community in America. I commend President Bush for making this a
priority of his Administration.
Government has long provided public funding for social service
programs through its ``charitable choice'' provisions. This Act builds
on this success by expanding the services that may be provided by
faith-based groups. Most of us would agree that local citizens have a
far better understanding of local problems and have better solutions
for those problems than some ``one-size-fits-all'' Federal program.
We've spent billions of dollars fighting the war against drugs, for
example--and are still losing it because we are fighting it form the
top.
The bill's sponsors have worked to address the constitutional
concerns that have been raised, and they have provided some important
safeguards. As this bill moves forward, we need to continue our efforts
to fully examine the implications of this Act as it affects State laws.
The Community Solutions Act holds great promise in our efforts to
combat drugs, juvenile delinquency, teenage pregnancy, hunger, school
violence, illiteracy and other ills. It recognizes that faith-based
organizations often are succeeding where government-run programs are
failing. It makes sense to include these worthy programs in our efforts
to serve those in need in our communities.
I urge my colleagues to recognize the contributions and potential of
faith-based organizations to improve the quality of life for our
citizens by voting for H.R. 7 and giving this initiative a chance to
work.
Mr. BROWN of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong
support of President Bush's faith-based initiative, as reflected in
H.R. 7. Both the Judiciary Committee and the Ways and Means Committee
has worked hard to craft legislation we should all be able to support.
I would like to take a minute, though, to concentrate on the
charitable choice provision of this bill, because the tax provisions
should not keep anyone from voting for H.R. 7. According to Chairman
Nussle of the House Budget Committee, the $13.3 billion in estimated
revenue reduction does not threaten the Medicare trust fund. No, if
this bill fails, the failure will be due to the charitable choice
provision.
Many have expressed concerns about ``separation of church and state''
and about ``government funded discrimination'' in conjunction with
President Bush's faith-based initiative. However, when the Welfare
Reform Act was passed in 1996, the charitable choice provision allowed
faith-based groups to apply for federal money the same way that secular
groups do. The charitable choice provision is also included in the 1998
Community Services Block Grant Act and in the 2000 Public Health
Service Act. The charitable choice provision has a history of success.
Rather than promoting a radical restructuring of current law, H.R. 7
will simply ensure

[[Page H4262]]

that faith-based organizations can compete on more equal footing than
in the past. The government will not be encouraging any kind of
discrimination but, instead, will be able to partner with faith-based
organizations in a wider variety of social services, including juvenile
justice, crime prevention, housing assistance, job training, elder
care, hunger relief, domestic violence prevention, and others.
In summary, we should all support H.R. 7 because it provides a proven
method for the federal government to participate in the provision of
social services to Americans who still need help. This bill allows the
federal government to partner with faith-based and other community
service organizations that already have a history of success in
providing these social services. H.R. 7 puts faith-based organizations
on a level playing field in the competition for federal funds, without
jeopardizing their autonomy, and without undermining religious freedom
for either the service providers or for the service beneficiaries. I
urge all of my colleagues to vote for H.R. 7.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to this debate with
great attention all afternoon, and--at the risk of oversimplifying, I
would like to cut to the chase. What we are talking about is an army of
people out there motivated by spiritual impulses who want to do good,
who want to help solve poverty, disease, violence in the community,
homelessness, hunger, and some of them are clergy, some of them are
not. They are religiously motivated, and we have spent all afternoon
finding ways to keep them out. We have enough help. We don't need
them--there is too much God out there. We suffer from an excess of God,
for some crazy reason.
Discrimination--if the First Baptist Church wants to do something as
the First Baptist Church, take care of some homeless people, that fact
that they want to retain their identify and not become another local
United Fund operation, there is nothing wrong with that. There is
nothing wrong with saying if you want to join us, you have to be
Baptist.
There is discrimination, and there is invidious discrimination. I do
not think it is discrimination for Baptists to want to hire Baptists to
do something as the Baptist Church. I think that is fine. That is not
invidious discrimination. So far as I am concerned, we ought to figure
out ways to facilitate the exploitation, the benign exploitation of
these wonderful people who want to help us with our very human
problems, instead of finding ways to say on because, for fear, God
might sneak in under the door.
Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, as with many of the colleagues from both sides
of the aisle, I strongly support the community services provided by
religious organizations throughout the Nation. We are all proud of the
faith we hold and believe in the principles of selfless service
encouraged by religious organizations. As I have personally witnessed
in western Wisconsin, the effective and invaluable efforts put forth by
religious organizations to combat such traumas as drug-addiction, and
child and domestic abuse, are worthy of our continual appreciation and
praise.
I am, however, concerned that this legislation would undermine the
successes and integrity of such programs through the introduction of
more government. I am therefore unable to support this flawed
legislation which, while it may be well intentioned, seeks to provide
funds to religious organizations by violating our constitution and
without regard to State's rights.
The establishment of religion clause in the first amendment to the
constitution was drafted in the recognition that state activity must be
separate from church activity if people are to be free from Government
interference. The Founders did not intend this provision as anti-
religious, but instead realized this is the way to protect religion
while simultaneously protecting the people's rights to worship freely.
America was founded by people seeking freedom from religious
persecution by fleeing lands that contained religious strife and even
warfare. To infringe on the separation of church and state is to
infringe on the miracle and fundamental principles of American
democracy. It is this principle that not only allows our government to
operate by the will of the people, but also allows religious entities
to conduct themselves without Government regulation and intrusion. When
the line between church and state is an issue in policy, the highest
scrutiny must be applied to ensure that principle prevails. I do not
believe this legislation would pass such constitutional scrutiny.
The Founders also recognized the dangers of State sponsored
favoritism toward any religion. This bill will not only pit secular
agencies against religious organizations, it will pit religion against
religion for the competition of limited public funds.
Under current law, there are Federal tax incentives for individuals
to donate to charitable organizations, including the religious
organizations of their choice. In addition, religious groups have
always had the ability to apply and receive federal funding for the
purpose of providing welfare related programs and services after they
form 501(c)(3) organizations. Entities including Catholic Charities and
Lutheran Social Service have a long history of participation in
publicly funded social service programs.
The conditions associated with the provision of these services,
however, require the religious organizations to be secular in nature--
in accordance with the establishment of religion clause in the first
amendment to the Constitution, as well as adhere to federal, state or
local civil rights laws. H.R. 7 would remove these preconditions,
allowing for public funding to go toward discriminatory and
exclusionary practices that violate the intentions of hard fought civil
rights.
In addition to the constitutionality of the legislation, we must also
question how the provisions contained in the bill would be implemented
and enforced. Supporters of H.R. 7 claim the bill contains safeguards
that would prohibit public funding from going to proselytization and
other strictly religious activities. Even if these safeguards existed,
which they do not, how do we police these organizations to ensure
compliance? If we find violations do we then fine the churches or
prosecute Catholic priests, Methodist ministers or Lutheran pastors?
The road we are taking with this legislation leads to these serious
questions about regulations imposed on organizations that receive
Federal funds. The strings attached to entities receiving federal funds
are there to ensure applicable laws are obeyed and accountability
exists. It is precisely these types of provisions that will inhibit
religious organizations from maintaining their character, and it would
be negligent of us as public servants to waive these provisions. This
situation serves to illustrate why this bill should be opposed.
The substitute to this bill, offered by Mr. Rangel, guards against
the possibility of publicly funded discrimination by not overriding
State and local civil rights laws, as well as offsetting the costs
associated with this legislation. In addition to being unconditional,
H.R. 7 is indeed expensive. While it is not as expensive as the
President had originally envisioned, it will cost over $13 billion with
no offsets. With passage of the President's tax cut, there is simply no
money to pay for this bill without taking from the Medicare and Social
Security Trust funds. A problem that will not go away as we mark up the
rest of next year's budget.
With all the problems associated with this bill, I ask my colleagues
to vote against H.R. 7, and support the Rangel substitute.
Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 7, the
Community Solutions Act. While the goals of this bill are noble, there
are fundamental concerns with this legislation.
One of the central tenets of most faith based organizations, whether
they are Catholic, Protestant, Jewish or Muslim, is to reach out to
those in need.
I know that in churches in which I've been a member and churches in
my district have several programs to serve the needy, such as food
drives, senior nutrition programs, housing assistance, substance abuse
counseling, after school programs and many other needed community
services.
Therse are services that most churches perform because they are
consistent with that church's mission.
A component of H.R. 7, the Community Solutions Act would expand
Charitable Choice to allow faith based organizations to compete for
federal funding for many of these services. The religious groups today
compete and receive federal funding.
But they cannot only serve their particular faith or beliefs.
In fact, there are organizations such as the Baptist Joint Committee,
the United Methodist Church, the Presbyterian Church, and the United
Jewish Communities Federation all fear that this legislation would
interfere with their missions, rather than help them.
We know that the first amendment prevents Congress from establishing
a religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. This wall of
separation has been a fundamental principle since the founding of our
great nation.
As a Christian I believe it is my duty to serve and my service is a
reflection of my faith. Many Christians, Jewish and Muslims, do this
everyday if we are practicing our beliefs.
We do not need Federal tax dollars to practice and live our faith.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I stand with you today to raise my grave
concerns regarding H.R. 7.
Faith-based and community-based organizations have always been at the
forefront of combating the hardships facing families and communities.
As a federal legislator, I do not have a problem with government
finding ways to harness the power of faith-based organizations and
their vital services.
Although I support faith-based entities, I cannot endorse H.R. 7
because I believe that:

[[Page H4263]]

(1) taxpayer money should not be used to proselytize; (2) taxpayer
money should not be used to discriminate on the basis of race, gender,
religion, or sexual orientation; and (3) the independence and autonomy
of our religious institutions should not be threatened.
Unfortunately, H.R. 7 in its current form does not prevent the
problems I have outlined. Most significantly, while it may state that
government funds should not be used for worship or proselytization,
meaningful safeguards to prevent such action are not included in the
provisions. Further, religious institutions are currently exempted from
the ban on religious discrimination in employment provided under Title
VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. As such, because the bill does not
include a repeal of this exemption, these institutions can engage in
government-funded employment discrimination.
I am committed to our U.S. Constitution and civil rights statutes.
Unfortunately, H.R. 7 threatens these very principles and I believe it
is unnecessary and unconstitutional. It is important to note that under
current law, religious entities can seek government funding by
establishing 501(c)(3) affiliate organizations.
I look forward to working with faith-based entities in their good
works, but will also remain a strong advocate of civil rights,
religious tolerance and the independence of our religious institutions.
Join me in opposing H.R. 7 and supporting the Democratic substitute
that will address these serious issues.
Mr. DeMINT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 7,
the Community Solutions Act, which is also known as the Faith-Based
Initiative.
America has long been a country made up of generous people who want
to help a neighbor in need. Long before government programs came along
to act as an extra safety net, individuals worked together with their
churches and other community groups to ensure those in need were
housed, clothed, and fed.
While government programs were created to provide specific services
to needy populations, these programs have less incentive to go above
and beyond the call of duty.
For many people of faith who run social service programs, their faith
is what inspires them to go the extra mile for the poor, the
downtrodden, the hopeless.
Why, then, would the government exclude faith-based providers in its
attempt to tackle difficult social problems such as drug addiction,
gang violence, domestic violence, mental illness, and homelessness?
Faith-based organizations with effective programs to combat societal
ills should be able to compete equally with their non-faith based
counterparts for government grants.
And in some cases under current ``charitable choice'' laws, they can.
When Welfare Reform passed in 1996, charitable choice language was
included so faith-based groups providing welfare-to-work programs such
as job training and child care can compete equally.
I'm sure most of us know a church day care program which could care
for children with just as much love and ability and professionalism as
a non-faith based program.
The legislation before us today allows ``charitable choice'' to apply
to more government programs, such as juvenile delinquency, housing,
domestic violence, job training, and community development programs.
Let me make one thing clear: no faith-based group is compelled to
apply. Those who are not interested in government funding can carry on
with their ministry and keep doing the good work of serving our nation.
Those groups which have an effective program and would like to
compete for a grant may do so and keep their faith-based component
largely intact. They would have to abide by some common sense
requirements such as keeping the government funds in a separate
account, but the requirements should not interfere with the religious
nature of their program.
The religious organization sponsoring the program would remain
completely autonomous from federal, state, and local government
control.
The Faith-Based Initiative is a long-overdue, much-needed reform to
recognize the importance of the faith community in caring for the most
vulnerable of our nation.
I want to take a minute to highlight a couple of wonderful community
initiatives in my District which are inspirational to me. The Downtown
Rescue Mission in Spartanburg has a myriad of exciting initiatives to
provide housing, meals, health services, job training, and other help
to give a helping hand up and empower folks in the downtown area.
And in Greenville, since 1937--during the Great Depression--Miracle
Hill Ministries has provided leadership in our community by providing
food, clothing, shelter, and compassion to hurting and needy people, as
well as serving as a model for other homeless outreach efforts in South
Carolina.
I am proud of these folks and the good work that they do and hope
that the Faith-Based Initiative would be helpful to them. There are
countless other good people and good organizations--big and small--
which could benefit from this attempt to provide a level playing field
for the faith community.
This bill also contains some great provisions to encourage charitable
giving by individuals and corporations, as well as incentives for low-
income individuals to save money that can be used to buy a home, a
college education, or start a small business.
We want everyone in America to be able to live the American Dream.
The armies of compassion in our nation should be able to serve the
needy and provide them hope, so that they too--through hard work and
perseverance--can make the American Dream a reality.
Mr. GARY MILLER OF California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R.
7 the ``Community Solutions Act.''
Although a lot of speakers have focused their remarks on the
charitable choice provisions of this bill, I feel that Title III, the
Individual Development Account or IDAs offers a fundamental policy
shift which merits the attention of this House.
Many communities are facing an affordable housing crisis. Until now,
our solution to this problem has been to increase the number of
available Section 8 vouchers. However, this ``solution'' has only
widened the gap between those who dream of owning a home, and those who
are able to accumulate the financial resources needed to become a
first-time home buyer. Under the Section 8 voucher program, if you
demonstrate ambition and work hard to improve your situation, you are
no longer eligible for the voucher. But at the same time, you do not
have the down payment to own a home.
IDAs will begin to reverse this trend. By encouraging individuals to
save for a home through tax exemption IDAs and matching that
investment, we finally have policy which makes sense.
I urge my colleagues to support this bill and to turn the American
dream of owning a home into a reality.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). All time for debate on the bill
has expired.

Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute Offered by Mr. Rangel

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment in the nature of a
substitute.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment in
the nature of a substitute.
The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as
follows:

Amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in House
Report 107-144 offered by Mr. Rangel:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Community
Solutions Act of 2001''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents is as
follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.

TITLE I--CHARITABLE GIVING INCENTIVES PACKAGE

TITLE II--EXPANSION OF CHARITABLE CHOICE

Sec. 201. Provision of assistance under government programs by
religious and community organizations.

TITLE III--INDIVIDUAL DEVELOPMENT ACCOUNTS

[[Page H4264]]