[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 106 (Thursday, July 26, 2001)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1450-E1451]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               H.R. 7, THE CHARITABLE CHOICE ACT OF 2001

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. DIANA DeGETTE

                              of colorado

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, July 26, 2001

  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I voted against H.R. 7, the ``Charitable 
Choice Act of 2001'' because it is a fundamentally-flawed bill that 
would put in jeopardy one of the bedrock principles of the United 
States--the separation of church and state. Many religious 
organizations receive government funds to provide certain services 
under a carefully crafted and judicially-tested model and I believe 
these organizations have an important place in the social safety net. 
However, I have serious concerns about this ``Charitable Choice'' bill 
because it significantly deviates from the current system and permits 
religious organizations receiving federal funds to evade the Civil 
Rights Act and engage in employment discrimination based on religion. 
Also, it contains a major loophole that blurs the line between direct 
and indirect assistance to religious organizations and endangers 
important protections against governmental funding of religious 
organizations.
  Religious organizations have been permitted to receive federal funds 
for social services since 1996 when the welfare reform bill was enacted 
into law. With the passage of the welfare reform bill came strict 
guidelines that serve to ensure the separation of church and state and 
the preservation of anti-discrimination laws. The current charitable 
choice model provides certain constitutional protections to ensure that 
religious activities are not supported by tax dollars. One of these 
provisions requires religious organizations to keep federal funds in 
separate accounts that are open to audit by the government. I believe 
religious organizations should be able to receive funds through the 
process in current law that protects the character of religious 
institutions while preserving the civil liberties of the general 
public. However, H.R. 7 would greatly expand current law and would 
break down the constitutional protections of the current system.
  H.R. 7 would enable a religious organization to engage in 
discriminatory practices based on religion if an employee or potential 
employee does not practice the teachings and tenets of that religion. 
This creates a gaping hole in the civil liberties of many individuals 
including unwed and pregnant women, gays and lesbians, women who have 
had abortions, and divorced individuals. It could even reach people who 
use birth control or favor reproductive

[[Page E1451]]

rights. As if that was not enough, the bill intentionally supersedes 
any state or local antidiscrimination law. This means that a local law, 
passed by a community that believes employment discrimination based on 
religion is wrong could be effectively overturned if a religious 
organization receiving federal funds wants to fire an employee based 
solely on their beliefs. I find the willingness of this Congress to 
codify employment discrimination and destroy state and local 
antidiscrimination laws deplorable.
  Additionally, the ``Charitable Choice'' bill would permit taxpayer 
dollars to go toward religious worship and proselytizing. Under current 
law, a religious organization that receives federal funding cannot use 
those funds for proselytizing, religious worship, or religious 
instruction. However, H.R. 7 contains an ill-defined provision that 
would allow federal funds to be funneled through governmental agencies 
in the form of vouchers that could be applied toward services provided 
by a religious organization. These funds would be available to 
religious organizations even if they are used for religious 
instruction, proselytizing, or sectarian worship. Congress should not 
weaken protections in current law that ensure the separation of church 
and state.
  In conclusion, I believe H.R. 7 should have been defeated because it 
attacks some of the basic principles in America. I do not believe 
Congress should allow the wall dividing church and state to be chipped 
away. Congress should recognize the important contributions that 
religious organizations make in providing social services to needy 
people but should also maintain the essential protections for our 
democracy.

                          ____________________