[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 104 (Tuesday, July 24, 2001)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1403]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                    COMMUNITY SOLUTIONS ACT OF 2001

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                        HON. DONALD A. MANZULLO

                              of illinois

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, July 19, 2001

  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, with great reluctance, I will vote against 
the Community Solutions Act (H.R. 7), an otherwise outstanding piece of 
legislation. The bill allows additional not-for-profits the same 
ability to administer federal programs as the Salvation Army, Catholic 
Charities, and Lutheran Social Services have demonstrated for years; it 
allows appreciated IRA's to be cashed in and donated to charities 
without having to declare a gain in income; and much more. There is one 
very troubling provision, however.
  In an effort to encourage businesses and individuals to make 
facilities available to not-for-profits, including churches, section 
104 of the bill creates different legal standards of care owed by the 
landlord to the tenant. For example, if a shopping center made a 
community room available, for free or rental, and an attendee fell down 
the stairs, the charity could have greater liability for injuries than 
the landlord who has actual control of the stairs. If the church lacked 
the insurance or other resources, the attendee might be left without a 
complete remedy, or any remedy at all.
  Apart from the merits of these different liability standards for not-
for-profits, that whole issue belongs in the state legislatures, not 
the United States Congress. Congress has no constitutional authority to 
determine landlord-tenant liability. This is how good intentions result 
in bad law, and how federal government power continues to grow.
  I raised these important concerns, but they were not heeded. While 
there is an exemption or ``opt-out'' for states in section 104(e) of 
the bill, it is wholly inadequate. It requires states to enact a law 
claiming exemption from the federal standards, but even then it 
provides no exemption for federal cases (such as those based on 
diversity of citizenship) and no exemption for state cases where 
diversity of citizenship exists. In other words, even if a state enacts 
a law opting out of the federal liability standards, those federal 
standards still apply in numerous cases, including (1) all cases 
brought in federal court and (2) all cases brought in state court where 
any plaintiff or any defendant is from a different state. Such a 
diluted exemption does very little to address the important policy and 
constitutional concerns noted above.
  The bill does not need section 104 to carry out the President's 
worthy goal of expanding charitable choice. I sincerely hope the bill 
can be changed to reflect these serious concerns, and will work toward 
that end.

                          ____________________