[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 10]
[House]
[Pages 13834-13848]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



   COMMUNITY RENEWAL THROUGH COMMUNITY- AND FAITH-BASED ORGANIZATIONS

  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the 
resolution (H. Res. 207) expressing the sense of the House of 
Representatives with regard to community renewal through community- and 
faith-based organizations.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                              H. Res. 207

       Whereas, while the steady economic growth and low inflation 
     in the United States has yielded unprecedented prosperity, 
     many American citizens have not benefited from this 
     prosperity and continue to be socioeconomically 
     disadvantaged;
       Whereas millions of our fellow citizens who live in the 
     inner cities and rural communities continue to be plagued by 
     social breakdown, economic disadvantage, and educational 
     failure that fosters hopelessness and despair;
       Whereas our most intractable pathologies--crime, drug 
     addiction, teen pregnancy, homelessness, and youth violence--
     are each being addressed by small, and sometimes 
     unrecognized, community- or faith-based organizations, whose 
     expertise should not be ignored;
       Whereas these nonprofit organizations have local experts 
     who are moving individuals from dependency to self-
     sufficiency and restoring the lives of men, women, and 
     families across the country;
       Whereas many community- and faith-based organizations are 
     offering the American public a new vision of compassion, 
     designed to encourage volunteerism, strengthen the community, 
     and care for the poor and vulnerable;
       Whereas private sector investment in capital development--
     social and economic--in the most poverty stricken pockets 
     across the country is key to long-term renewal of urban 
     centers and distressed rural communities;
       Whereas economic growth attracts new businesses, provides 
     stability to neighborhoods, as well as provides jobs that 
     yield income to support families and nurture self-respect;
       Whereas over 100 bipartisan Members of Congress have 
     cosponsored H.R. 815, the American Community Renewal Act, 
     which targets the 100 poorest communities in the Nation for 
     pro-growth tax benefits, regulatory relief, brownfields 
     cleanup, and home-ownership opportunities that combine to 
     create jobs, hope, and a sense of community;
       Whereas the President and the Vice President, along with 
     congressional organizations such as the Renewal Alliance, 
     have recognized the importance of community renewal and have 
     recently promoted strategies designed to rebuild communities 
     to empower faith-based organizations on the front lines of 
     renewal in our country; and
       Whereas a concerted effort to empower community 
     institutions, encourage community renewal, and implement 
     educational reform will help those who reside in inner cities 
     and distressed rural communities to gain their share of 
     America's prosperity: Now, therefore, be it
       Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
       (1) extends gratitude to the private nonprofit 
     organizations and volunteers whose commitment to meet human 
     needs in areas of poverty is key to long-term renewal of 
     urban centers and distressed rural communities;
       (2) seeks to empower the strengths of America's 
     communities, local leaders, and mediating institutions such 
     as its families, schools, spiritual leaders, businesses and 
     nonprofit organizations;
       (3) should work to empower community- and faith-based 
     organizations to promote effective solutions to the social, 
     financial, and emotional needs of urban centers and rural 
     communities, and the long-term solutions to the problems 
     faced by our culture; and
       (4) should work with the Senate and the President to 
     support a compassionate grassroots approach to addressing the 
     family, economic, and cultural breakdown that plagues many of 
     our Nation's urban and rural communities.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Souder) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) each 
will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder).
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 207 which recognizes a 
significant role that neighborhood community-and faith-based 
organizations are playing in the renewal and empowerment of struggling 
families and communities around this country. Today we want to commend 
and extend our gratitude to the private nonprofit organizations and 
volunteers whose commitment to meeting human needs compassionately and 
effectively in areas of poverty is key to the long-term renewal of our 
urban centers and distressed world communities.
  It is the strength of mediating institutions such as families, 
churches, schools, nonprofit organizations, local leaders and 
businesses which empower individuals and communities. These are the 
unsung heroes in my district

[[Page 13835]]

and throughout the country that are making the difference in the lives 
of people.
  As a renewal alliance, our desire is to eliminate barriers which may 
hinder the effective community building work of these groups. We can 
assist legislatively by helping lessen the tax on regulatory burdens on 
our most distressed communities as H.R. 815, the American Community 
Renewal Act, does in a bipartisan manner with a hundred cosponsors, 
including 19 Democrats.
  We can also seek to empower charities and faith-based organizations 
around this country by providing a level playing field so that they can 
also compete for government funds when they are providing services 
which the government is contracting out. Just last week, the House of 
Representatives extended this principle of religious nondiscrimination 
in charitable choice to juvenile justice programs by an overwhelming 
bipartisan vote of 346 to 83.
  This principle has been in law since 1996 when we passed it in 
welfare reform and more recently in 1998, when we included it in the 
Community Services Block Grant Reauthorization. It may not be as 
glamorous or as newsworthy as our debates on guns and/or the Ten 
Commandments, but the fact is we have been moving ahead systematically 
over a number of years of expanding charitable choice.
  Another way that we can help these community builders is by 
encouraging charitable donations to these effective charities. I have 
my own legislation which encourages giving to charities in general, the 
Giving Incentive and Volunteer Encouragement Act which increases the 
charitable deduction 120 percent of individuals' contribution, allows 
non-itemizers to once again receive a deduction for charitable 
contributions, eliminates the cap on how much people can give and 
deduct, and extends the charitable contribution deadline to April 15.
  This House can also encourage State charity tax credits, as we did in 
the Community Services Block Grant where we gave flexibility--the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) in H.R. 1607, the Charity Empowerment 
Act, which I cosponsored, extends this discretion past what we did to 
other Federal block grants and expands the principle of charitable 
choice in a manner and addition consistent with what Vice President 
Gore.
  Not only has the leading Republican contender, Governor Bush, but now 
Vice President Gore, has started promoting charitable choice. States as 
varied as Texas, Maryland, Indiana are partnering with faith-based 
organizations in the effort to assist those groups most able to walk 
alongside those individuals in greatest need. Local communities and 
taxpayers are impressed with the results. Government can be a partner 
rather than a hindrance in a barrier to renewed communities.
  I urge the support for this resolution to commend and thank all those 
unsung heroes throughout this country who are working to restore hope 
to all segments of American society.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Scott) will control 20 minutes pursuant to the rule.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I support the notion that faith-based organizations 
should be able to receive Federal funds where constitutionally 
appropriate to provide services for individuals in need. We all 
recognize the contributions that these organizations have made. Some of 
them, in fact, do a better job than other nonprofits that are not 
religiously affiliated.
  But while I support the underlying premise of H. Res. 207, and 
recognizing the contributions that faith-based organizations have made, 
I take issue with the reference in the resolution, in H.R. 815, the 
American Community Renewal Act. This legislation presents considerable 
policy and constitutional issues relating to faith-based organizations.
  Mr. Speaker, under current law, religiously affiliated organizations 
such as Catholic Charities or Lutheran Services in America and the 
United Jewish Communities are generally permitted to provide social 
services with government funds so long as the program receiving the 
funds is not pervasively sectarian or religiously discriminatory.
  The American Community Renewal Act is a dramatic and extreme 
departure from current law as it seeks to fund pervasively sectarian 
organizations to administer substance abuse benefits on behalf of the 
government. Pervasively sectarian programs are those defined by the 
United States Supreme Court in which, and I quote, religion is so 
pervasive that a substantial portion of their function is subsumed in 
their religious mission.
  In various cases, the Supreme Court has listed several criteria to be 
used to help to determine if the program is pervasively sectarian such 
as is it located near a house of worship and abundance of religious 
symbols on the premises, religious discrimination in the institution's 
hiring practices, the presence of religious activities, or the 
purposeful articulation of religious mission.
  Specifically this resolution and this legislation that is commented 
by the resolution allows providers to require program participants to, 
1, actively participate in religious practice worship and instruction; 
and 2, to follow the rules of behavior devised by the organizations 
that are religious in content and origin.
  Thus, as proposed, the American Community Renewal Act would authorize 
the use of taxpayer funds to directly coerce government beneficiaries 
to practice certain religious beliefs, and it does so without 
adequately notifying participants that they have a right to seek 
nonreligious services. In addition, it would allow faith-based 
organizations to engage in employment discrimination based on religion, 
with public funds.
  Now title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act provides for a specific 
exemption for religious organizations from the prohibition against 
discrimination on the basis of religion and private employment. For 
example, a church in hiring the minister can require the minister to 
have to belong to that particular religion, but this exemption has 
never been applied to employees of Federal programs sponsored by a 
religiously affiliated organizations.
  As proposed, H.R. 815, in 815 those organizations who are receiving 
Federal funds may deny, for example, drug counselors' employment based 
on their religion. For example, this bill allows an exemption as 
follows: Quote, a religious organization that is a program participant 
may require that an employee rendering services adhere to, A, the 
religious beliefs and practices of that organization, and B, the rules 
of the organization regarding the use of alcohol. This means that a 
federally funded drug program sponsored by a religiously affiliated 
organization could for the first time since we had meaningful civil 
rights laws say that drug counselors of other religions need not apply.
  Beyond the considerable constitutional implications of this 
legislation there are also several serious policy concerns that should 
be mentioned. Of particular note is the concern that the legislation 
would override State licensing and certification of drug and alcohol 
treatment counselors.
  Additionally, there is an inclusion of an absolutely absurd 
congressional finding that, quote, formal educational qualifications 
for counselors and other program personnel in drug treatment programs 
may undermine the effectiveness or even may hinder or prevent the 
provision of needed drug treatment services. To suggest that formal 
educational qualifications for counselors and other personnel may be 
counterproductive is not anything that we have evidence to support.
  Mr. Speaker, there is a reason why we have laws separating church and 
State activities. We have a long line of Supreme Court cases showing 
how this could be done and how it is appropriate to be done.

                              {time}  1515

  This legislation, which references H.R. 815, is an extreme and 
dramatic

[[Page 13836]]

departure from that long line of cases, and for that reason the 
resolution ought to be opposed.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would like to point out for the record that we have already 
adopted, as I said earlier, this three times; and I understand there 
are some differences on the Democratic side, but the Vice President of 
the United States, on his home page, on Gore 2000, actually says that 
``where faith can play a unique and effective role such as drug 
treatment.'' He also said in his speech, ``I believe the lesson for our 
Nation is clear in those instances where the unique power of faith can 
help us meet the crushing social challenges that are otherwise 
impossible to meet, such as drug addiction.''
  So he is specifically referring to some of these programs where they 
have the drug addiction.
  In his longer speech, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), where 
he was referring to pervasively sectarian, that is directly contrary to 
the Vice President's speech where he said, ``I have seen the 
transformative power of faith-based approaches.'' He talks about: While 
I believe strongly in separation of church and state, but freedom of 
religion need not mean freedom from religion. There is a better way. He 
specifically talks about an organization where his wife practices. He 
says, my wife, Tipper, practices her faith and sees its power through 
her work with homeless people who come to Christ House.
  Now, if it is pervasively sectarian, in fact, it would undermine the 
very principle that both parties are backing
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Pitts).
  Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of House Resolution 
27.
  Members of this House have the distinct opportunity to join our 
efforts today and stand behind the idea of community renewal. A lot has 
been written and spoken lately about the idea of ``compassionate 
conservatism.'' Even Presidential candidates of both parties have 
enjoyed extolling the success of faith-based and private institutions.
  Well, all of us, from both sides of the aisle, have the opportunity 
to support legislation that compassionately looks out for the poor 
among us. Yet it does this by using the resources of government to spur 
the local economy and market incentives for the improvement on low-
income neighborhoods and communities.
  For the last year, the Renewal Alliance, a group of Senators and 
Members committed to assisting poor neighborhoods through civic and 
legislative solutions and nongovernmental solutions, has recognized 
private sector solutions to poverty and despair all across the country. 
We have found neighborhood organizations and communities that are 
efficiently solving the problems of poverty in ways that a government-
run program can only dream of. We must realize that although there is a 
role for government, we cannot allow it to shackle the very 
institutions which are providing hope to these communities.
  That is why the Renewal Alliance has developed the ``Real Life'' 
agenda, the legislation the gentleman referred to, to strengthen social 
entrepreneurs who are changing lives and stimulating economic 
development in our urban centers. They primarily do it in three ways: 
through community renewal, a charity tax credit; through economic 
incentives, for investment in poor communities; and through educational 
opportunities for low-income children.
  The Great Society program, which was initiated by the liberals, had 
its $30 billion experiment with government programs. Let us now turn 
our efforts towards empowering grass-roots leaders who are working to 
eliminate poverty. These leaders are united in a commitment to offering 
help and healing to those in need. They have been dedicated to meeting 
the physical and spiritual and emotional needs of individuals.
  I have made many stops to small, nonprofit, faith-based charities in 
my district, and throughout all of my visits, over and over, it is 
confirmed to me that those whose work springs from a heart dedicated to 
following a standard larger than themselves do not stop work at 5 
o'clock. They do not leave their work at work. They live it, and they 
breath it. They are committed to helping our society's weakest members 
and doing the true, time-intensive work of transforming lives and 
communities.
  Just as the character of a person is seen in the most precious 
objects of its love, it has also been said that the character of a 
nation is shown by how it treats its weakest members. Grass-roots, 
neighborhood, and community-based healers are found throughout this 
Nation, and such organizations within the communities have the ability 
to demonstrate success within a new paradigm, which is often, although 
not always, a faith component.
  We must look past the think tanks, past the lofty theories; we must 
look past the government programs and wasted dollars. We must embrace 
the common-sense community answers which already exist and are already 
changing lives in our midst. They do not have hefty budgets. They are 
places that are not quasi-government, they are charitable in nature, 
and the Renewal Alliance has made it its business to seek out these 
kinds of solutions and promote them.
  It is within these groups time and again that we have seen remarkable 
transformations taking place, not only in the lives of individuals, but 
in their families and in surrounding communities. For instance, Teen 
Challenge of Philadelphia, a faith-based drug and alcohol recovery 
program, has success rates of 70 to 80 percent compared to single-digit 
success rates of government programs. Yet it is continually hassled and 
charged to have the so-called correct staffing requirements which 
existed in a State-run drug treatment program which had single-digit 
success rates.
  Another type of program we must recognize is one like Dorothy 
Harrell's Abbotsford Tenant Management Association in Philadelphia. 
Dorothy, unfortunately, cannot hire the residents of her housing 
facility to perform maintenance tasks around the community because of a 
government labor law requiring highly-paid workers from outside to come 
in and do simple tasks. That is absurd.
  It is the goal of Renewal Alliance not only to bring these wrongs to 
light, but to promote these ``beacons of hope'' to a larger community.
  We know that with government programs, 70 percent of every dollar 
designated to serve the poor goes not to the poor, but to those who 
serve the poor, the poverty industry. Therefore, there is a proprietary 
interest in maintaining people in poverty. This is exactly what we need 
to work against, and it is why we brought this important issue to the 
forefront of debate today.
  We as an institution, as Members, must embrace the work of these 
groups. So today, I urge and challenge my colleagues to support the 
truly compassionate and, yes, conservative approach to renewing our 
low-income programs in this community. Support the American Community 
Renewal Act, a common-sense, next step to restore our cities to 
vibrancy. I urge support of this resolution so that we can take the 
next step towards commitment to communities in this Nation.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, could I inquire as to how much time we have 
remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Scott) has 14\1/2\ minutes remaining; the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Souder) has 10\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Edwards).
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, the issue before the House today is not 
whether faith-based organizations can be an effective tool in solving 
America's social problems. The real question is whether, in effect, an 
unconstitutional direct funding of churches, synagogues, mosques and 
other houses of

[[Page 13837]]

religion would empower faith-based organizations or shackle them with 
Federal regulations.
  I am going to put aside my prepared remarks and ask the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania if he would allow us to exchange a discussion and 
questions. Since this did not go through a committee hearing process, I 
think it would be very helpful if the gentleman would answer some 
questions about the intent of this legislation, if the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts) would allow me to have that exchange.
  Now, if I could ask the gentleman, under this bill, and H.R. 815 
which it supports, it says, the program can basically require a 
participant in a drug and alcohol abuse program to, quote, ``actively 
participate in religious practice, worship and instruction, and follow 
rules of behavior devised by the organizations that are religious in 
content and/or origin.''
  Now, if a Wiccan organization, Wiccan organization were to win a drug 
and alcohol abuse grant funding program for the Federal Government, can 
I ask, could a Christian participant in that Wiccan program be forced 
to participate in a religious ceremony honoring the sun or the moon?
  I would like to ask the author of the legislation, since only can we 
know by hearing from the author of the legislation, what the intent of 
this important legislation is that goes to the heart of the very idea 
and principle of the first amendment of the Constitution.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. EDWARDS. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana for an answer to 
that question.
  Would a Christian under the gentleman's legislation and H.R. 815 who 
is participating in a program run by the Wiccans be forced to 
participate in a Wiccan religious service?
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, the answer is no. Clearly, there will be 
matters of interpretation. In most of these laws, we have specifically 
that one cannot use specific religious indoctrination, but one does not 
have to change the character of the program.
  For example, religious people can teach it; a priest could be in a 
collar, you could have religious symbols in the room.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. EDWARDS. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman, if on page 75, 
line 23, the American Community Renewal Act says, ``A religious 
organization that is a program participant may require a program 
beneficiary who is elected to receive program services from the 
organization; one, can require them to actively participate in 
religious practice, worship and instruction; and two, to follow the 
rules of behavior devised by the organization that are religious in 
content or origin.''
  Is that in the bill?
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, that is in the bill. And reclaiming my 
time, the point I would make is, that direct language in the bill 
directly conflicts with the gentleman's answer to my question.
  Let me ask the gentleman another question about the intent of this 
legislation and H.R. 815, which he is supporting.
  Under this legislation, would a Christian organization that has won a 
grant program for alcohol and drug abuse programs be able to take 
Federal funds to hire and fire employees, and could it then refuse to 
hire an employee, a perfectly qualified employee, because that person 
is Jewish?
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. EDWARDS. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, the fundamental underlying answer to your 
question is nobody is required to go to this program, there is an opt-
out provision; and the answer is, yes, the integrity of the hiring 
organization, a Jewish organization can fire a Protestant if they 
chose.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I appreciate the 
gentleman admitting that under this legislation, we are going to 
endorse for the first time perhaps in this country's history federally-
funded job discrimination based on race, sex, religion, marital status.
  I think that would be as good of an argument as I could make against 
this legislation.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. EDWARDS. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, did I understand the gentleman to say that if 
one church ran a drug counseling program, that they could have a sign 
on their door that said Jewish drug counselors need not apply for a job 
under a federally-funded program?
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, the answer is absolutely. Absolutely.
  Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I think this point, these answers to 
these fundamental questions are an example of why it is a poor 
reflection upon this House that an issue as important as religious 
freedom is defended by the first 16 words of the Bill of Rights. The 
last two times this was debated it was debated at 12 a.m. and 1 a.m. 
respectively, and today it is debated during a suspension calendar. 
Maybe that is appropriate. We are suspending the religious freedoms 
guaranteed by the first amendment of the Bill of Rights under the 
suspension calendar today. This deserves more consideration, and this 
measure should be defeated.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I think it is fair to point out that in the Civil Rights Act there 
are also rights for those who want to practice their belief, and we 
should not say Christian counselors or Jewish counselors need not apply 
if they are going to practice their faith. There is no mandatory 
requirement to go into this program. The Vice President has supported 
this. This House has supported a similar provision in a welfare reform 
and social services block grant and now in juvenile justice.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Davis).
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, let me, first of all, thank the 
gentleman from Indiana for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this important resolution. I do so 
because despite the rosy vision of our economy, which some believe has 
brought prosperity to all Americans, the fact remains that millions of 
Americans are unemployed, are underemployed. Decent jobs and other 
economic opportunities are desperately needed in low-income, cash-
strapped communities.
  If the future looks bright for some, there are millions of others who 
obviously are not looking through that same lens. The fact of the 
matter is that in my congressional district, in the Seventh District of 
Illinois, there are 175,000 people who live at or below the poverty 
level.
  That is why, Mr. Speaker, I and 100 other Members of this body have 
joined in sponsoring the American Community Renewal Act, H.R. 815.
  Mr. Speaker, community economic development requires one to examine 
the reality of one's community, including the economic and social 
activities of its residents, small businesses and other organizations. 
Traditionally, government agencies often use tax incentives and 
regulations to attract large businesses. That is because many Members 
think big business brings prosperity. This thinking has resulted in 
destructive competition among States and local areas to attract and 
retain these businesses.

                              {time}  1530

  The fact of the matter is only so many large businesses and 
corporations exist to go around. Not every community can have one. 
However, every community has a family-owned and operated small 
business. Every community has a church that actively participates in 
the lives of its people. ACRA directs government support to these 
valued resources, holding onto the idea that community residents should 
be the first people to benefit.
  This is no absolute panacea, but I can tell the Members, in spite of 
all the conversations that we hear, there are communities all across 
America that

[[Page 13838]]

are dying on the vine because they cannot get the resources into those 
communities to the people who need them.
  While I strongly believe in the First Amendment, while I strongly 
believe in the separation of church and State, I am not convinced that 
by allowing programs to be operated by individuals who have Christian 
principles, who believe in certain values and are willing to espouse 
those, as it has already been indicated, Mr. Speaker, there is an opt-
out provision, and this program does not require or this legislation 
does not require anyone to come into any program. That would be 
established.
  However, it does allow programs that have proven to be effective 
where in addition to the professional modalities that are used people 
also inject faith into them.
  So with all due respect to my colleagues who see this differently, it 
is my hope, my desire, and my wish that we would support this 
resolution, that we would support the American Community Renewal Act, 
and give an additional tools to those communities that nobody else has 
found a way to save.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Lewis).
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend and 
colleague for yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my strong opposition to House 
Joint Resolution 207. While this resolution is nonbinding and sounds 
innocent enough, the truth is that this resolution represents an 
assault on the separation of church and State.
  The separation of church and State is a concept that underlies our 
constitutional democracy and dates back to the founding of our great 
Nation. On the walls of the Jefferson Memorial are inscribed these 
words: No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious 
worship or ministry or shall otherwise suffer on account of his 
religious opinion or belief.'' Yet, House Joint Resolution 207 endorses 
a law which would compel a citizen through his tax dollars to do just 
that.
  The American Community Renewal Act, which this resolution endorses, 
would change current law and allow the beneficiaries of church-based 
social services to be proselytized. In some cases this could mean that 
getting help requires getting saved. Let me repeat that again. In some 
cases, this could mean that getting help requires getting saved, 
getting saved.
  That is not right. It is not fair. It is not just. It is not the role 
of or government to subsidize the spread of God's word. That is the 
role of the church, the synagogue, the mosque, the temple.
  The American Community Renewal Act would also appear to sanction 
religious discrimination against employees. This bill would override 
State civil rights laws and allow religious-based employers providing 
social services to discriminate on the basis of a person's religious 
tenets or beliefs.
  There are many religious institutions providing good and worthwhile 
social services to people in need throughout our Nation. These groups 
and institutions are to be applauded. But as a government and as a 
Nation, we should not violate the separation of church and State. It 
has guided our country for more than 220 years. Our forefathers in 
their wisdom devised a system of government that protects the religious 
liberty of all Americans. This Congress should do nothing to undermine 
this great system of our great Constitution.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to defeat House Resolution 207.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, nothing in this legislation requires anybody to be saved 
or to participate in any program. In other words, there is an opt-out 
provision. I believe it will unleash the incredible influence and power 
of the African-American church in America. The Hispanic churches are 
actually very effective at the grass roots level.
  Mr. Speaker, I include the following material for the Record:

                   The American Community Renewal Act


 answers to objections raised to faith based drug treatment provisions 
            on the american community renewal act (h.r. 815)

       Objection 1: It's Unconstitutional--it violates the 
     separation of church and state:
       This is untrue. Currently, two voucher programs have been 
     successfully and legally implemented. First, the Child Care 
     Block grant was voucherized in 1993 so that parents could use 
     federal daycare dollars at the provider they choose--
     religious or secular. Second, the new welfare law allows 
     states to contract out their social services to both 
     religious or non-religious providers.
       ACRA's drug treatment provision is the same. It voucherizes 
     the Substance Abuse Block grant and other treatment block 
     grants and allows the addict to decide where to use the 
     voucher.
       The Court has ruled that as long as the voucher recipient 
     has a choice among providers both religious and non-religious 
     and the participant makes the decision, then the choice is 
     Constitutional.
       Consider it this way: If you oppose this provision of ACRA, 
     you oppose Pell Grants. With a Pell Grant, students use this 
     federal grant money to attend Notre Dame, Providence College, 
     or Yeshiva University without raising constitutional 
     concerns. The Substance Abuse Block grants are no different.
       Objection 2: There is no certification of counselors in the 
     bill:
       Why would you exclude a program that is the most 
     successful? Let's keep our priorities straight. What is more 
     important--curing addicts or enforcing certification 
     requirements?
       ACRA places its priorities on helping addicts--not on who 
     has what credentials. ACRA will not allow for a program to be 
     discriminated against if it has a high success rate--even if 
     there is no formal certification of its counselors.
       Bob Woodson of the National Center for Neighborhood 
     Enterprise works with some of the most successful faith-based 
     drug treatment programs around the country has testified 
     before the House Small Business Committee saying, ``The 
     silver bullet of the success of faith based substance abuse 
     programs is staff composed of men and women who have 
     themselves overcome addictions and can establish a basis of 
     trust and openness necessary for addicts to be freed from 
     their habits.''
       Objection 3: Advancing these faith-based programs is an 
     untested idea even according to a GOP commissioned GAO 
     report:
       Faith-based programs work. According to the National 
     Institute on Drug Abuse, faith-based programs have a 60-80% 
     cure rate. In sharp contrast, a RAND Corporation issued a 
     report showing conventional treatment programs have only a 6-
     13% success rate.
       In addition to being more successful, faith-based programs 
     are almost always cheaper. Teen Challenge in PA spends only 
     $25 to $35 a day compared with $600 a day for conventional, 
     therapeutic hospital-based care.
       Objection 4: ACRA forces religion on people:
       ACRA forces religion on no one. It only makes highly 
     successful programs accessible to more people.
       The language is very clear that the individual makes the 
     choice of where to get the treatment--not the state. Even if 
     they are not happy with their choice, addicts can leave the 
     program and use their voucher at another program at anytime.
       Objection 5: H.R. 815 allows for faith-based programs to 
     discriminate against hiring people with different religious 
     backgrounds:
       Doesn't it make sense that a church can have the ability to 
     pick their staff based on their religious beliefs? If that is 
     a part of their recipe for success, then they should be able 
     to hire those that believe.
       Essentially, this is no different than publicly run 
     programs discriminating against counselors because they don't 
     have a masters degree.
                                  ____


               [From the Brookings Review, Mar. 22, 1999]

                        ``No Aid to Religion?''

              (By Ronald J. Sider and Heidi Rolland Unruh)

       As government struggles to solve a confounding array of 
     poverty-related social problems--deficient education, un- and 
     underemployment, substance abuse, broken families, 
     substandard housing, violent crime, inadequate health care, 
     crumbling urban infrastructures--it has turned increasingly 
     to the private sector, including a wide range of faith-based 
     agencies. As described in Stephen Monsma's When Sacred and 
     Secular Mix, public funding for nonprofit organizations with 
     a religious affiliation is surprisingly high. Of the faith-
     based child service agencies Monsma surveyed, 63 percent 
     reported that more than 20 percent of their budget came from 
     public funds.
       Government's unusual openness to cooperation with the 
     private religious sector arises in part from public 
     disenchantment with its programs, but also from an 
     increasingly widespread view that the nation's acute social 
     problems have moral and spiritual roots. Acknowledging that 
     social problems arise both from unjust socioeconomic 
     structures and from misguided personal choices, scholars, 
     journalists, politicians, and community activists are calling 
     attention to the vital and unique role that religious 
     institutions play in social restoration.
       Though analysis of the outcomes of faith-based social 
     services is as yet incomplete, the available evidence 
     suggests that some of those services may be more effective 
     and

[[Page 13839]]

     cost-efficient than similar secular and government programs. 
     One oft-cited example is Teen Challenge, the world's largest 
     residential drug rehabilitation program, with a reported 
     rehabilitation rate of over 70 percent--a vastly higher 
     success rate than most other programs, at a substantially 
     lower cost. Multiple studies identify religion as a key 
     variable in escaping the inner city, recovering from alcohol 
     and drug addiction, keeping marriages together, and staying 
     out of prison.


                   the new cooperation and the courts

       Despite this potential, public-private cooperative efforts 
     involving religious agencies have been constrained by the 
     current climate of First Amendment interpretation. The ruling 
     interpretive principle on public funding of religious 
     nonprofits--following the metaphor of the wall of separation 
     between church and state, as set forth in Everson v. Board of 
     Education (1947)--is ``no aid to religion.'' While most court 
     cases have involved funding for religious elementary and 
     secondary schools, clear implications have been drawn for 
     other types of ``pervasively sectarian'' organizations. A 
     religiously affiliated institution may receive public funds--
     but only if it is not too religious.
       Application of the no-aid policy by the courts, however, 
     has been confusing. The Supreme Court has provided no single, 
     decisive definition of ``pervasively sectarian'' to determine 
     which institutions qualify for public funding, and judicial 
     tests have been applied inconsistently. Rulings attempting to 
     separate the sacred and secular aspects of religiously based 
     programs often appear arbitrary from a faith perspective, and 
     at worst border on impermissible entanglement. As a result of 
     this legal confusion, some agencies receiving public funds 
     pray openly with their clients, while other agencies have 
     been banned even from displaying religious symbols. Faith-
     based child welfare agencies have greater freedom in 
     incorporating religious components than religious schools 
     working with the same population. Only a few publicly funded 
     religious agencies have been challenged in the courts, but 
     such leniency may not continue. While the no-aid principle 
     holds official sway, faith-based agencies must live with the 
     tension that what the government gives with one hand, it can 
     take away (with legal damages to boot) with the other. The 
     lack of legal recourse leaves agencies vulnerable to 
     pressures from public officials and community leaders to 
     secularize their programs.
       The Supreme Court's restrictive rulings on aid to religious 
     agencies stand in tension with the government's movement 
     toward greater reliance on private sector social initiatives. 
     If the no-aid principle were applied consistently against all 
     religiously affiliated agencies now receiving public funding, 
     government administration of social services would face 
     significant setbacks. This ambiguous state of affairs for 
     public-private cooperation has created a climate of mistrust 
     and misunderstanding, in which faith-based agencies are 
     reluctant to expose themselves to risk of lawsuits, civic 
     authorities are confused about what is permissible, and 
     multiple pressures push religious organizations into hiding 
     or compromising their identity, while at the same time, many 
     public officials and legislators are willing to look the 
     other way when faith-based social service agencies include 
     substantial religious programming.
       Fortunately, an alternative principle of First Amendment 
     interpretation, which Monsma identifies as the ``equal 
     treatment'' strain, has recently been emerging in the Supreme 
     Court. This line of reasoning--as in Widmar v. Vincent (1981) 
     and Rosenberger v. Rector (1995)--holds that public access to 
     facilities or benefits cannot exclude religious groups. 
     Although the principle has not yet been applied to funding 
     for social service agencies, it could be a precedent for 
     defending cooperation between government and faith-based 
     agencies where the offer of funding is available to any 
     qualifying agency.
       The section of the 1996 welfare reform law known as 
     Charitable Choice paves the way for this cooperation by 
     prohibiting government from discriminating against nonprofit 
     applicants for certain types of social service funding 
     (whether by grant, contract, or voucher) on the basis of 
     their religious nature. Charitable Choice also shields faith-
     based agencies receiving federal funding from governmental 
     pressures to alter their religious character--among other 
     things, assuring their freedom to hire staff who share their 
     religious perspective. Charitable Choice prohibits religious 
     nonprofits from using government funds for ``inherently 
     religious'' activities--defined as ``sectarian workship, 
     instruction, or proselytization''--but allows them to raise 
     money from nongovernment sources to cover the costs of any 
     such activities they choose to integrate into their program. 
     Clearly, Charitable Choice departs from the dominant 
     ``pervasively sectarian'' standard for determining 
     eligibility for government funding, which has restricted the 
     funding of thoroughly religious organizations. It makes 
     religiosity irrelevant to the selection of agencies for 
     public-private cooperative ventures and emphasizes instead 
     the public goods to be achieved by cooperation. At the same 
     time, Charitable Choice protects clients' First Amendment 
     rights by ensuring that services are not conditional on 
     religious preference, that client participation in religious 
     activities is voluntary, and that an alternative nonreligious 
     service provider is available.


         The First Amendment and the Case for Charitable Choice

       Does Charitable Choice violate the First Amendment's non-
     establishment and free exercise clauses?
       We think no. As long as participants in faith-based 
     programs freely choose those programs over a ``secular'' 
     provider and may opt out of particular religious activities 
     within the program, no one is coerced to participate in 
     religious activity, and freedom of religion is preserved. As 
     long as government is equally open to funding programs rooted 
     in any religious perspective whether Islam, Christianity, 
     philosophic naturalism, or no explicit faith perspective--
     government is not establishing or providing preferential 
     benefits to any specific religion or to religion in general. 
     As long as religious institutions maintain autonomy over such 
     crucial areas as program content and staffing, the integrity 
     of their separate identity is maintained. As long as 
     government funds are exclusively designated for activities 
     that are not inherently religious, no taxpayer need fear that 
     taxes are paying for religious activity. While Charitable 
     Choice may increase interactions between government and 
     religious institutions, these interactions do not in 
     themselves violate religious liberty. Charitable Choice is 
     designed precisely to discourage such interactions from 
     leading to impermissible entanglement or establishment of 
     religion.
       Not only does Charitable Choice not violate proper church-
     state relations, it strengthens First Amendment protections. 
     In the current context of extensive government funding for a 
     wide array of social services, limiting government funds to 
     allegedly ``secular'' programs actually offers preferential 
     treatment to one specific religious worldview.
       In setting forth this argument, we distinguish four types 
     of social service providers. First are secular providers who 
     make no explicit reference to God or any ultimate values. 
     People of faith may work in such an agency--say, a job 
     training program that teaches job skills and work habits--but 
     staff use only current techniques from the social and medical 
     sciences without reference to religious faith. Expressing 
     explicit faith commitments of any sort is considered 
     inappropriate.
       Second are religiously affiliated providers (of any 
     religion) who incorporate little inherently religious 
     programming and rely primarily on the same medical and social 
     science methods as a secular agency. Such a program may be 
     provided by a faith community and a staff with strong 
     theological reasons for their involvement, and religious 
     symbols and a chaplain may be present. A religiously 
     affiliated job training program might be housed in a church, 
     and clients might be informed about the church's religious 
     programs and about the availability of a chaplain's services. 
     But the content of the training curriculum would be very 
     similar to that of a secular program.
       Third are exclusively faith-based providers whose programs 
     rely on inherently religiously activities, making little or 
     no use of techniques from the medical and social sciences. An 
     example would be a prayer support group and Bible study or 
     seminar that teaches biblican principles of work for job-
     seekers.
       Fourth are holistic faith-based providers who combine 
     techniques from the medical and social sciences with 
     inherently religious components such as prayer, worship, and 
     the study of sacred texts. A holistic job training program 
     might incorporate explicitly biblical principles into a 
     curriculum that teaches job skills and work habits, and 
     invite clients to pray with program staff.
       Everyone agrees that public funding of only the last two 
     types of providers would constitute government establishment 
     of religion. But if government (because of the ``no aid to 
     religion'' principle) funds only secular programs, is this a 
     properly neutral policy?
       Not really, for two reasons. First, given the widespread 
     public funding for private social services, if government 
     funds only secular programs, it puts all faith-based programs 
     at a disadvantage. Government would tax everyone--both 
     religious and secular--and then fund only allegedly secular 
     programs. Government-run or government-funded programs would 
     be competing in the same fields with faith-based programs 
     lacking access to such support.
       Second, secular programs are not religiously neutral. 
     Implicitly, purely ``secular'' programs convey the message 
     that nonreligious technical knowledge and skills are 
     sufficient to address social problems such as low job skills 
     and single parenthood. Implicitly, they teach the irrelevance 
     of a spiritual dimension to human life. Although secular 
     programs may not explicitly uphold the tenets of 
     philosophical naturalism and the belief that nothing exists 
     except the natural order, implicitly they support such a 
     worldview. Rather than being religiously neutral, ``secular'' 
     programs implicitly convey a set of naturalistic beliefs 
     about the nature of persons and ultimate reality that

[[Page 13840]]

     serve the same function as religion. Vast public funding of 
     only secular programs means massive government bias in favor 
     of one particular quasi-religious perspective--namely, 
     philosophical naturalism.
       Religiously affiliated agencies (type two), which have 
     received large amounts of funding in spite of the ``no aid to 
     religion'' principle, pose another problem. These agencies 
     often claim a clear religious identity--in the agency's 
     history or name, in the religious identity and motivations of 
     sponsors and some staff, in the provision of a chaplain, or 
     in visible religious symbols. By choice or in response to 
     external pressures, however, little in their program content 
     and methods distinguishes many of these agencies from their 
     fully secular counterparts. Prayer, spiritual counseling, 
     Bible studies, and invitations to join a faith community are 
     not featured; in fact, most such agencies would consider 
     inherently religious activities inappropriate to social 
     service programs.
       Millions of public dollars have gone to support the social 
     service programs of religiously affiliated agencies. There 
     are three possible ways to understand this apparent potential 
     conflict with the ``no aid to religion'' principle. Perhaps 
     these agencies are finally only nominally religious, and in 
     fact are essentially secular institutions, in which case 
     their religious sponsors should be raising questions. Or 
     perhaps they are more pervasively religious than they have 
     appeared to government funders, in which case the government 
     should have withheld funding.
       The third explanation may be that these agencies are 
     operating with a specific, widely accepted worldview that 
     holds that people may need God for their spiritual well-
     being, but that their social problems can be addressed 
     exclusively through medical and social science methods. 
     Spiritual nurture, in this worldview, is important in its 
     place, but has no direct bearing on achieving public goods 
     like drug rehabilitation or overcoming welfare dependency. 
     Such a worldview acknowledges the spiritual dimension of 
     persons and the existence of a transcendent realm outside of 
     nature. But it also teaches (whether explicitly or 
     implicitly) a particular understanding of God and persons, by 
     addressing people's social needs independently of their 
     spiritual nature. By allowing aid to flow only to the 
     religiously affiliated agencies holding this understanding, 
     government in effect has given preferential treatment to a 
     particular religious worldview.
       Holistic faith-based agencies (type four), on the other 
     hand, operate on the belief that no area of a person's life--
     whether psychological, physical, social, or economic--can be 
     adequately considered in isolation from the spiritual. 
     Agencies operating out of this worldview consider the 
     explicitly spiritual components of their programs--used in 
     conjunction with conventional, secular social service 
     methods--as fundamental to their ability to achieve the 
     secular social goals desired by government. Government has in 
     the past considered such agencies ineligible for public 
     funding, though they may provide the same services as their 
     religiously affiliated counterparts.
       Some claim that allowing public funds to be channeled 
     through a holistic religious program would threaten the First 
     Amendment, while funding religiously affiliated agencies does 
     not. But the pervasively sectarian standard has also 
     constituted a genuine, though more subtle, establishment of 
     religion, because it supports one type of religious worldview 
     while penalizing holistic beliefs. It should not be the place 
     of government to judge between religious worldviews--but this 
     is what the no-aid principle has required the courts to do. 
     Selective religious perspectives on the administration of 
     social services are deemed permissible for government to aid. 
     Those who believe that explicitly religious content does not 
     play a central role in addressing social problems are free to 
     act on this belief with government support; those who believe 
     that spiritual nurture is an integral aspect of social 
     transformation are not.
       The alternative is to pursue a policy that discriminates 
     neither against nor in favor of any religious perspective. 
     Charitable Choice enables the government to offer equal 
     access to benefits to any faith-based nonprofit, as long as 
     the money is not used for inherently religious activities and 
     the agency provides the social benefits desired by 
     government. Charitable Choice does not ask courts to decide 
     which agencies are too religious. It clearly indicates the 
     types of ``inherently religious'' activities that are off-
     limits for government funding. The government must continue 
     to make choices about which faith-based agencies will receive 
     funds, but eligibility for funding is to be based on an 
     agency's ability to provide specific public goods, rather 
     than on its religious character. Charitable Choice moves the 
     focus of church-state interactions away from the religious 
     beliefs and practices of social service agencies, and onto 
     the common goals of helping the poor and strengthening the 
     fabric of public life.


                           a model for change

       Our treasured heritage of religious freedom demands caution 
     as we contemplate new forms of church-state cooperation-but 
     caution does not preclude change, if the benefits promise to 
     outweigh the dangers. Indeed, change is required if the 
     pervasively sectarian standard is actually biased in favor of 
     some religious perspectives and against others.
       For church and state to cooperate successfully, both must 
     remain true to their roles and mission. Religious 
     organizations must refrain from accepting public funds if 
     that means compromising their beliefs and undermining their 
     effectiveness and integrity. Fortunately, Charitable Choice 
     allows faith-based agencies to maintain their religious 
     identity, while expanding the possibilities for constructive 
     cooperation between church and state in addressing the 
     nation's most serious social problems.
       Ronald Sider, author of Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger 
     (World Books, 1997), is president of Evangelicals for Social 
     Action, where Heidi Rolland Unruh is a policy analyst. This 
     article is drawn from ``An (Ana) baptist Theological 
     Perspective on Church-State Cooperation, ``in Welfare Reform 
     and Faith-Based Operations,'' eds. Derek Davis and Barry 
     Hankins (J.M. Dawson Institute of Church-State Studies, 
     1999).
                                  ____


    The Gore Agenda: Faith-Based Organizations and the Politics of 
                               Community

       ``I believe the lesson for our nation is clear: in those 
     instances where the unique power of faith can help us meet 
     the crushing social challenges that are otherwise impossible 
     to meet--such as drug addiction and gang violence--we should 
     explore carefully-tailored partnerships with our faith 
     community, so we can use approaches that are working 
     best.''--Al Gore, Atlanta, GA
       Al Gore knows that faith is critical to strong families. 
     That is why he has worked to promote the role of faith-based 
     organizations in helping to strengthen families. Through the 
     Coalition to Sustain Success, an organization formed at the 
     urging of the Vice President, he has worked to harness the 
     best efforts of faith-based, community-based, and non-profit 
     organizations to help former welfare recipients succeed in 
     the workplace. His experiences with the Coalition have shown 
     him that faith-based organizations are making a difference in 
     addressing other challenges that have defied attempted 
     solutions. Leaders of the new revolution of faith-based 
     organizations call it ``the politics of community.''
       Al Gore believes government can play a greater role in 
     sustaining the quiet revolution of faith and values--not by 
     dictating solutions from above, but by supporting the 
     effective new policies that are rising up from the grassroots 
     level. That is why he is proposing concrete actions to help 
     faith-based organizations do what they do best--offer new 
     hope for social progress.


                        extend charitable choice

       The 1966 welfare reform law contains a provision called 
     Charitable Choice that allows states to enlist faith-based 
     organizations to provide basic welfare services and help move 
     people from welfare to work--as long as there is a secular 
     alternative for anyone who wants one, and as long as no one 
     is required to participate in religious observances as a 
     condition for receiving services. Al Gore believes we should 
     extend this carefully-tailored approach to other vital 
     services where faith can play a unique and effective role--
     such as drug treatment, homelessness, and youth violence 
     prevention.


            scaling up the role of faith-based organizations

       Al Gore believes that the solutions faith-based 
     organizations are pioneering should be at the very heart of 
     our national strategy for building a better, more just 
     nation. By ``scaling up'' the efforts of faith-based 
     organizations and making them integral to strategic local, 
     state, and national planning, we can invigorate civil 
     society; empower faith-based and secular non-profits alike; 
     create a myriad of new multi-sector partnerships; and bring a 
     whole new leadership into the political process--that of the 
     community.


        encourage private support for faith-based organizations

       We need to make sure the efforts of faith- and value-based 
     organizations are recognized and supported across America. 
     Right now it is common for employees to have their charitable 
     contributions matched by their company, up to an annual 
     limit. Rarely are faith-based programs approved for such 
     matches. Al Gore calls upon the corporations of America to 
     encourage and match contributions to faith and value-based 
     organizations.
                                  ____


Text of Gore Remarks on the Role of Faith-based Organizations, May 24, 
                                  1999

       I want to talk today about a dramatic transformation in 
     America. It's one that you and your families are already a 
     part of.
       This transformation is a quiet one--and a good one. It is a 
     movement that is entirely about solutions. And it is sweeping 
     from home to home and neighbor to neighbor, right now in 
     America.
       In spite of the cultural soul sickness we've confronted 
     recently, there is a goodness in Americans that, when 
     mobilized, is more than a match for it. Americans are still 
     the most decent people on earth--and are actually growing in 
     service and in selflessness. America has the highest level of 
     religious belief and observance of any advanced nation. 
     Americans' volunteer work has doubled in

[[Page 13841]]

     twenty years, even as more women--the traditional mainstay of 
     volunteer groups--have moved into the workplace. Both adults 
     and teenagers are just as likely to go to church or synagogue 
     today as their counterparts were twenty years ago. And in 
     many ways, our public policies have shown the face of that 
     strong and growing commitment to decency: ever-fewer 
     Americans tolerate bigotry and discrimination, and our 
     journey as a society reflects that.
       This hunger for goodness manifests itself in a newly 
     vigorous grassroots movement tied to non-profit institutions, 
     many of them faith-based and values-based organizations. A 
     church's soup kitchen. A synagogue's program to help battered 
     women. A mosque's after-school computer center that keeps 
     teenagers away from gangs and drugs.
       It's commonplace to say that people are turned off to 
     politics. This transformation shows that in fact people are 
     not turned off to politics--to organized community action; 
     rather, they are turned off to too many of the ways they have 
     seen Washington work.
       What many people are struggling to find is the soul of 
     politics, to use Jim Wallis' words. They are living their 
     politics, by deciding to solve the problems they see, and by 
     going out into the streets of their communities and serving 
     those left out and left behind. People are engaged in the 
     deeply American act of not waiting for government to deal 
     with the problems on their own doorsteps. Instead, they are 
     casting a vote for their own wise hearts and strong hands to 
     take care of their own.
       I came here today to say this: the moment has come for 
     Washington to catch up to the rest of America. The moment has 
     come to use the people's government to better help them help 
     their neighbors.
       Ordinary Americans have decided to confront the fact that 
     our severest challenges are not just material, but spiritual. 
     Americans know that the fundamental change we need will 
     require not only new policies, but more importantly a change 
     of both our hearts and our minds. If children are not taught 
     right from wrong, they behave chaotically; if individuals 
     don't do what's right by their kids, no new government 
     programs will stanch that decay. Whether they are religious 
     or not, most Americans are hungry for a deeper connection 
     between politics and moral values; many would say ``spiritual 
     values.'' Without values and conscience, our political life 
     degenerates. And Americans profoundly--rightly--believe that 
     politics and morality are deeply interrelated. They want to 
     reconnect the American spirit to the body politic.
       For too long, national leaders have been trapped in a dead 
     end debate. Some on the right have said for too long that a 
     specific set of religious values should be imposed, 
     threatening the founders' precious separation of church and 
     state. In contrast, some on the left have said for too long 
     that religious values should play no role in addressing 
     public needs. These are false choices: hollow secularism or 
     right-wing religion. Both positions are rigid; they are not 
     where the new solutions lie. I believe strongly in the 
     separation of church and state. But freedom of religion need 
     not mean freedom from religion. There is a better way.
       My wife Tipper practices her faith and sees its power 
     through her work with homeless people who come to Christ 
     House, in Washington, DC. Many at Christ House are struggling 
     with substance abuse and mental health issues--but they often 
     suffer from a feeling of spiritual emptiness as well. So 
     Christ House does more than provide shelter and medical care. 
     It creates a loving, trusting atmosphere that helps address 
     the issues that led to homelessness in the first place. Its 
     founder tells the story of a reporter who spend a week there, 
     interviewing the patients. At the end of her time, she said: 
     ``What amazed me is that for all of the medical treatment, I 
     didn't hear anyone talking about putting on bandages, or 
     taking medication.'' Instead, the reporter said, they talk of 
     ``a much deeper type of healing.''
       I have seen the transformative power of faith-based 
     approaches through the national coalition I have led to help 
     people move from welfare to work--the Coalition to Sustain 
     Success.
       In San Antonio I met a woman named Herlinda. She had given 
     up on finding work, and had gone on welfare. She had so many 
     challenges to face. English was her second language. She 
     didn't think she had the skills to hold a job. And she had 
     begun to conclude that maybe she didn't deserve one. Then she 
     signed up for job training at the Christian Women's Job 
     Corps, which is part of our Coalition.
       There, she met a woman who mentored her through prayer and 
     Bible study, and she soon began to regain her self-
     confidence. Faith gave her a new feeling of self-worth, of 
     purpose--something no other program, no matter how 
     technically sophisticated, could give her. When I met her, 
     she told me that for the first time in years, she had applied 
     for a position at Wal-Mart. Then she looked me in the eye, 
     and said with pride, ``I know I'll get the job.''
       And she did. In fact, Herlinda was recently honored as 
     employee of the month in her workplace.
       In San Francisco, I met a woman named Vicki. Because of a 
     drug addiction, she had lost custody of her two children, 
     lost her job, and gone on welfare. She had tried without 
     success to beat her addiction. Then she joined a faith and 
     values-based program that was part of our Coalition, and 
     finally gained the inner strength to become clean. She 
     regained custody of her children. And she has kept a full-
     time job. When I asked what she could do for others in the 
     same bind, she said, ``unfortunately, nothing--unless they 
     want to change first.'' For Vicki, it was faith that finally 
     enabled her to pry open the vise grip of drug addiction.
       This better way is working spectacularly. From San Antonio 
     to San Francisco, from Goodwill in Orlando to the Boys and 
     Girls Club in Des Moines--I have seen the difference faith-
     based organizations make.
       Tipper and I also began to learn about this better way at 
     our annual ``Family Reunion'' policy conferences, where we 
     saw how the power of love can reconnect fathers with children 
     they had abandoned, and how that surrendering commitment to 
     the father-child bond has a transforming impact on men more 
     powerful than any program ever tried. I've also seen this 
     approach used to clean up the environment by many local 
     congregations working in their own communities, and working 
     on national and global issues under the umbrella of the 
     Religious Partnership for the Environment.
       Leaders of the new movement of faith-based organizations 
     pervasively sectarian call it ``the politics of community.'' 
     In this new politics, citizens take local action, based on 
     their churches, synagogues, and mosques, but reaching out to 
     all--to do what all great religions tell good people to do: 
     visit the prisoners, help the orphans, feed and clothe the 
     poor. The men and women who work in faith- and values-based 
     organizations are driven by their spiritual commitment; to 
     serve their God, they have sustained the drug-addicted, the 
     mentally ill, the homeless; they have trained them, educated 
     them, cared for them, healed them. Most of all, they have 
     done what government can never do; what it takes God's help, 
     sometimes, for all of us to manage; they have loved them--
     loved their neighbors, no matter how beaten down, how 
     hopeless, how despairing. And good programs and practices 
     seem to follow, born out of that compassionate care.
       Here in Atlanta at the Salvation Army's Adult 
     Rehabilitation Center, I see in you the powerful role of 
     faith in nurturing a change of consciousness. All of the men 
     here who are recovering from substance abuse start the day 
     with a morning devotion period. Many of them work right here 
     during the day refinishing and reupholstering furniture, 
     doing the work of the Salvation Army. Captain Guy Nickum, who 
     runs the Center, says: ``Our belief in God is in all of the 
     steps of recovery.'' That belief is giving new hope to many 
     of the recovering people who are with us today.
       That is why this transformation is different in many ways 
     from what has come before. Some past national political 
     leaders have asked us to rely on a fragile patchwork of well-
     intentioned volunteerism to feed the hungry and house the 
     homeless. That approach, optimistic though it was, was not 
     adequate for the problems too many Americans face. It left 
     too many American children behind to suffer. If all the 
     private foundations in America gave away all their 
     endowments, it would cover about one year of our current 
     national commitment to meeting social challenges. In 
     contrast, faith- and values-based organizations show a 
     strength that goes beyond ``volunteerism.'' These groups 
     nationwide have shown a muscular commitment to facing down 
     poverty, drug addiction, domestic violence and homelessness. 
     And whey they have worked out a partnership with government, 
     they have created programs and organizations that have woven 
     a resilient web of life support under the most helpless among 
     us.
       Reverend Eugene Rivers, as I read recently in an article, 
     has been widely celebrated for helping to take back the worst 
     neighborhoods of Boston through faith. He remembers a 
     hardened gangster telling him: ``I'm there when Johnny goes 
     out for a loaf of bread. I'm there, you're not. I win, you 
     lose. It's all about being there.'' but Reverend Rivers 
     resolved that he would be there, too. He was, and he faced 
     down the gangs.
       A second difference is that they give another kind of help 
     than the help given in government programs, no matter how 
     dedicated the employees. To the workers in these 
     organizations, that client is not a number, but a child of 
     God. Those on the front lines of our most intractable battles 
     are surprised to discover how concrete a difference that 
     makes. ``You couldn't function effectively without ministers 
     in Boston,'' says William J. Bratton, who was the city's 
     police commissioner, talking to a reporter about the clergy 
     who saved inner-city kids from gangs.
       Partly because of Reverend Rivers and his fellow faith 
     leaders, Boston went 18 months without losing a single child 
     to gun violence.
       These workers are motivated more by service than 
     institutional allegiance, so they try to get every penny to 
     go to alleviating suffering rather than upholding a program 
     for the sake of professional credentialism. Unlike 
     bureaucracies, which can sometimes be

[[Page 13842]]

     self-perpetuating, the churches want their helping programs 
     to work so well that they become obsolete. Traditional 
     ``helping'' often gives material aid to the poor or hungry--
     and that's all. FBO outreach gives food, shelter--but also 
     the one-to-one caring, respect and commitment that save lives 
     even more effectively than just a nourishing meal or a new 
     suit of clothes.

  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. 
Meek).
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I came to this floor to talk about 
the goodness that I saw in House Resolution 207. I did not realize that 
I would run into a constitutional argument, but I have, and I do not 
mind addressing it.
  Mr. Speaker, I feel that, barring constitutional prohibitions, House 
Resolution 207 is a very good resolution. I want to tell the Members 
why. I represent a district where people are in need. They are in need 
of housing. They are in need of faith. They are in need of the 
resolution. They are in need of reparations for long lost things, so 
many things.
  I saw the good in this resolution. Many times a booming stock market 
does not boom in some of the inner city neighborhoods that I represent. 
The constituents which I represent, we have pockets of poverty. Faith-
based organizations have come to the rescue. To the residents of these 
communities and these churches, it has been clear that without the help 
that they are receiving, many people would be homeless.
  Sometimes they are the only organization, Mr. Speaker, that will 
provide hope to the communities. Not only have they been paragons of 
faith and hope for the spiritual need of their members, but they have 
provided economic opportunity within the limits of their financial 
resources. I feel that they have aggressively and should continue to 
aggressively venture into businesses, for-profit businesses, and to 
provide services.
  For these reasons, faith-based organizations in my opinion deserve 
our close attention to be sure that we are able to deliver something to 
these communities.
  I stand here as a woman of faith and say that there is a lot to be 
gained from faith-based organizations helping. They have demonstrated a 
sincere commitment. They are able to get the message to the people. So 
barring the constitutional limitations which I have heard here today, 
we need to support the faith-based organizations movement.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker I ask unanimous consent that the time of 
debate be extended by 10 minutes, 5 minutes per side.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, first, I think it is important in terms of the 
requirement, the coercion of religious activity, I think it is 
important that I repeat what is on page 75 of the bill: ``A religious 
organization that is a program participant may require a program 
beneficiary to actively participate in religious practice, worship, and 
instruction, and to follow the rules of behavior devised by the 
organization that are religious in content and origin.''
  Mr. Speaker, let us see what some religious groups have to say about 
this particular piece of legislation. I have a letter from the Working 
Group for Religious Freedom and Social Services which says ``We, the 
undersigned religious education, health, civil rights, and civil 
liberties organizations, are writing to urge you to oppose House 
Resolution 207 which endorses the substance abuse treatment section of 
H.R. 815, the American Community Renewal Act, because it would violate 
the religious liberty rights of Federal taxpayers and social service 
beneficiaries.''
  Mr. Speaker, it goes on to say that the bill will allow religious 
providers to engage in religious discrimination against employees who 
are paid through and work on taxpayer-funded substance abuse treatment 
programs. Although religious institutions are permitted to hire co-
religionists in the context of private religious activity, ACRA 
overrides State civil rights laws and amounts to Federally-funded 
employment discrimination by requiring employees paid with public funds 
to adhere to the religious tenets and teachings of the organization.
  In addition, the act undercuts States' rights by preempting State 
constitutional and statutory provisions, including civil rights laws. 
Furthermore, ACRA erroneously states that counselor training undermines 
effective substance abuse treatment, and the bill requires States that 
establish such training requirements to give equivalent credit for 
religious education such as Bible study to course work in drug 
treatment.
  This letter is endorsed by 31 organizations, including the American 
Baptist Churches, American Civil Liberties Union, the American 
Counseling Association, American Federation of State, County, and 
Municipal Employees, the American Jewish Committee, the American Jewish 
Congress, and a whole host of other religious organizations.
  Mr. Speaker, I include this letter for the Record.
  The letter referred to is as follows:
         The Working Group for Religious Freedom in Social 
           Services,
                                    Washington, DC, June 21, 1999.
       Dear Representative: We, the undersigned religious, 
     education, health, civil rights, and civil liberties 
     organizations are writing to urge you to oppose H.J. Res. 207 
     which endorses the Substance Abuse Treatment section of H.R. 
     815, the ``American Community Renewal Act'' (ACRA) because it 
     would violate the religious liberty rights of federal 
     taxpayers and social service beneficiaries. The bill would 
     amend the federal Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services 
     Administration statute so that ``pervasively sectarian'' 
     religious institutions, such as churches and other houses of 
     worship, could receive public funds to provide services on 
     behalf of the government.
       Although many religiously-affiliated nonprofit 
     organizations currently provide government-funded substance 
     abuse treatment, the ``American Community Renewal Act'' would 
     change current law to permit churches and other religious 
     organizations that include evangelism in their programs, to 
     receive contracts and vouchers for programs in which 
     government social service beneficiaries may be proselytized.
       In addition to violating the Establishment Clause of the 
     First Amendment, ACRA is an affront to the religious liberty 
     rights of substance abuse and mental health beneficiaries. 
     Although a beneficiary technically has the right to object to 
     a religious provider, ACRA does not provide notice to the 
     beneficiary of his or her right to object. This is 
     particularly disturbing in the context of substance abuse 
     treatment. It is difficult enough for those addicted to 
     substances to seek help. Furthermore, in most instances, even 
     if a beneficiary takes the initiative to seek an alternative 
     provider, the bill makes the religious institution 
     responsible for finding the alternative.
       The bill would also allow religious providers to engage in 
     religious discrimination against employees who are paid 
     through, and work on, taxpayer-funded substance abuse 
     treatment programs. Although religious institutions are 
     permitted to hire co-religionists in the context of private 
     religious activity, ACRA overrides state civil rights laws 
     and amounts to federlly-funded employment discrimination by 
     requiring employees paid with public funds to adhere to the 
     religious tenets and teachings of the organization.
       Additionally, the ``American Community Renewal Act'' 
     undercusts state rights by preempting state constitutional 
     and statutory provisions (including civil rights laws). 
     Furthermore, ACRA erroneously states that counselor training 
     undermines effective substance abuse treatment, and the bill 
     requires States that estalbish such training requirements to 
     give equivalent credit for religious education, such as Bible 
     study, to course work in drug treatment. This federal 
     legislation overtly preempts state constitutions and statutes 
     that protect religious liberty, civil rights, and training of 
     treatment providers.
       Of course, with government dollars comes government 
     oversight. Such entanglement between government and religion 
     violates the Establishment Clause, and demonstrates why the 
     current law's distinction between ``pervasively sectarian'' 
     and ``religiously-affiliated'' institutions better protects 
     religious freedom. ACRA would obliterate this protection and 
     open the door to other programs that provide taxpayer funds 
     to religious institutions, such as school tuition vouchers.

[[Page 13843]]

       For these reasons we strongly urge you to oppose H.J. Res. 
     207 which endorses the substance abuse section of H.R. 815, 
     the ``american Community Renewal Act.''
           Sincerely,
         American Baptist Churches; American Civil Liberties 
           Union; American Counseling Association; American 
           Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees; 
           American Jewish Committee; American Jewish Congress; 
           Americans United for Separation of Church and State; 
           Anti-Defamation League; Baptist Joint Committee on 
           Public Affairs; Catholics for a Free Choice; Central 
           Conference of American Rabbis; CHILD Inc.; Friends 
           Committee on National Legislation (Quaker); General 
           Board of Church and Society, United Methodist Church; 
           General Conference of Seventh Day Adventists; Hadassah; 
           Jewish Council for Public Affairs; Legal Action Center; 
           Na'amat USA; National Association of Alcoholism & Drug 
           Abuse Counselors; National Association of State Alcohol 
           and Drug Abuse Directors; National Council of Jewish 
           Women; National Jewish Democratic Council; People for 
           the American Way; Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), 
           Washington Office; The Rabbinical Assembly; Union of 
           American Hebrew Congregations; Unitarian Universalist 
           Association; United Church of Christ, Office for Church 
           in Society; Women's American Ort; Workmen's Circle.

  Mr. Speaker, I also have a letter from a number of drug counseling 
institutions which says, ``The undersigned organizations oppose House 
Resolution 207 and the portions of the American Community Renewal Act 
which will hurt provision of professionally competent alcohol and drug 
treatment services.
  ``Unfortunately, the Community Renewal Act will undermine treatment 
effectiveness. The Act will override State licensure and certification 
of alcohol and drug counselors, crushing State guarantees of safety in 
alcoholism and drug addiction treatment.
  ``The Act actually states that alcohol and drug treatment counseling 
is not a professional field and that formal education for counselors is 
detrimental to the practice of effective counseling. This is simply 
inaccurate. Alcoholism and drug addiction is a disease. Consequently, 
alcohol and drug counseling has long required specialized knowledge and 
training compelling the use of professional practitioners. Education 
equals effective alcoholism and drug addiction treatment.
  ``Even more troubling, the Act will require States which require 
formal education to deliver services to `give credit for religious 
education and training equivalent to credit given for secular course 
work in drug treatment. . . .'
  ``Alcohol and drug treatment is a medical service requiring medical 
knowledge. Treatment professionals specialize in diagnosis and 
treatment of psychoactive disorders and other substance abuse/use 
dependency. These counselors and other professionals possess a 
constellation of knowledge that is unique to the alcoholism and drug 
abuse counseling profession, and distinguishes ADCs from other related 
professions and specialties. Religious education and training is not 
equivalent to training given to the medical specialty of alcohol and 
drug treatment.''
  Mr. Speaker, this letter is endorsed by the American Counseling 
Association, the National Association of Alcohol and Drug Abuse 
Counselors, the National Association of State Alcohol and Drug Abuse 
Directors, the National Association of Student Assistance 
Professionals, the National Coalition of State Alcohol and Drug 
Treatment and Prevention Associations, the Partnership for Recovery, 
which includes the Betty Ford Center, the Valley Hope Medical 
Association, and a whole host of other organizations.
  Mr. Speaker, I also place this letter in the Record.
  The letter referred to is as follows:

                                                    June 21, 1999.
     Members,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Members of Congress: The undersigned organizations 
     oppose H. Res. 207 and the portions of the American Community 
     Renewal Act which will hurt the provision of professionally 
     competent alcohol and drug treatment services.
       Unfortunately, the Community Renewal Act will undermine 
     treatment effectiveness. The Act will override state 
     licensure and certification of alcohol and drug counselors, 
     crushing state guarantees of safety in alcoholism and drug 
     addiction treatment.
       The Act actually states that alcohol and drug treatment 
     counseling is not a professional field and that formal 
     education for counselors is detrimental to the practice of 
     effective counseling. This is simply inaccurate. Alcoholism 
     and drug addiction is a disease. Consequently, alcohol and 
     drug counseling has long required specialized knowledge and 
     training compelling the use of professional practitioners. 
     Education equals effective alcoholism and drug addiction 
     treatment.
       Even more troubling, the Act will require States which 
     require formal education to deliver treatment services to 
     ``give credit for religious education and training equivalent 
     to credit given for secular course work in drug treatment . . 
     .'' Alcohol and drug treatment is a medical service requiring 
     medical knowledge. Treatment professionals specialize in the 
     diagnosis, assessment and treatment of psychoactive disorders 
     and other substance abuse/use/dependency. These counselors 
     and other professionals possess a constellation of knowledge 
     that is unique to the alcoholism and drug abuse counseling 
     profession, and distinguishes ADCs from other related 
     professions and specialties. Religious education and training 
     is not equivalent to training given for the medical 
     speciality of alcohol and drug treatment.
       The Act also mandates States to waive their formal 
     educational requirements under certain circumstances or face 
     lawsuits. Finally the legislation attempts to remedy a 
     problem that does not exist. Religious organizations are 
     already entitled to receive federal funding by complying with 
     the rules for charitable organizations.
       All of our organizations seek to include spirituality in 
     the lives of individuals. Spirituality is an important 
     component of treatment, and mechanisms already exist to bring 
     this aspect of recovery to patients without changing current 
     law.
       However, by stating that establishing formal education 
     requirements may hinder treatment and by attempting to equate 
     religious education with knowledge about alcoholism and drug 
     dependence, the Community Renewal Act undermines treatment 
     efforts and removes scarce funding from effective treatment 
     programs. Unfortunately, this legislation ensures that the 
     millions of people suffering from addiction, their families, 
     employers and communities will be harmed by incompetent 
     treatment.
       The Community Renewal Act will hurt the provision of 
     professionally competent alcohol and drug treatment services. 
     For this reason, we urge you to vote against H. Res. 207.
           Sincerely,
         The American Counseling Association; The American 
           Methadone Treatment Association; The American Society 
           of Addiction Medicine; The Association of Halfway House 
           Alcoholism Programs of North America; College on 
           Problems of Drug Dependence; Legal Action Center; The 
           National Association of Addiction Treatment Providers; 
           The National Association of Alcoholism and Drug Abuse 
           Counselors; The National Association of State Alcohol 
           and Drug Abuse Directors; The National Association of 
           Student Assistance Professionals; The National 
           Coalition of State Alcohol and Drug Treatment and 
           Prevention Associations; The National Council for 
           Community Behavioral Healthcare; The National Council 
           on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence; National TASC; The 
           Partnership for Recovery; The Betty Ford Center; The 
           Caron Foundation; Hazelden, Inc.; The Valley Hope 
           Medical Association; The Research Society on 
           Alcoholism; Therapeutic Communities of America.
                                  ____


 Charitable Choice Will Hurt the Provision of Professionally Competent 
                  Alcohol and Drug Treatment Services

       NAADAC Opposes the Appropriation of Federal Funding to 
     Sectarian Treatment Providers Because Such Funding Will 
     Undermine Licensure Laws and Certification Requirements in 
     the States.
       History: Since 1995, Senator John Ashcroft (R-MO) has been 
     offering ``charitable choice'' amendments and legislation 
     which would require federal agencies to allow sectarian 
     (religious) organizations to receive federal funding to 
     provide community services, including alcohol and drug 
     counseling. Senator Ashcroft has, in past years, placed a 
     hold on reauthorization of the Substance Abuse and Mental 
     Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) in order to force a 
     vote in the Senate to apply charitable provisions to SAMHSA. 
     In 1996 Representatives J.C. Watts (R-OK) and James Talent 
     (R-MO) introduced the ``American Community Renewal Act'' an 
     ``enhanced'' charitable choice legislation to require that 
     SAMHSA permit a ``faith-based'' substance abuse treatment 
     centers to receive federal funding. NAADAC considers this to 
     be an enhanced charitable choice provision since it 
     specifically exempts sectarian organizations from complying 
     with federal employment law. In November 1997, Senators 
     Spencer Abraham (R-MI), Tim Hutchinson (R-AR) and Dan Coats 
     (R-IN) introduced

[[Page 13844]]

     ``The Effective Substance Abuse Treatment Act,'' which 
     parallels the substance abuse portion of the Community 
     Renewal Act. On January 21, 1999, Senator Abraham re-
     introduced his bill, re-titled `'The Faith-Based Drug 
     Treatment Enhancement Act''.


                      charitable choice analysis]

       NAADAC strongly supports the requirement of individual 
     certification and licensure for alcohol and drug counselors. 
     Such regulations establish an organized system which ensures 
     that the delivery of this vital health care service is 
     provided by trained and experienced professionals who have 
     met rigorous educational and training requirements. Licensure 
     laws protect consumers from unethical and ineffective 
     practices. Under charitable choice, sectarian institutions 
     could claim exemption from state regulations, (even where 
     legislation explicitly attempts to subject religious 
     providers to state regulations) because the First Amendment 
     of the U.S. Constitution prevents excessive government 
     entanglement with religious institutions. Sectarian providers 
     would not be required to hire certified or licensed competent 
     professionals. Charitable choice would create a system in 
     which non-sectarian providers must meet state requirements 
     while sectarian providers would be freed from meeting state 
     licensure and other employment standards. Such a dual system 
     is untenable. Religious organizations are already entitled to 
     receive federal funding by complying with the rules for 
     charitable organizations.
       Charitable choice undermines state requirements. The 
     millions of people suffering from addiction, their families, 
     employers and communities may be left unprotected from 
     incompetent treatment.


                          legislative analysis

       Issues/Legislation: S. 289--``The Effective Substance Abuse 
     Treatment Act''--Senator Spencer Abraham (R-MI), Co-
     Sponsors--Senators Paul Coverdell (R-GA), Tim Hutchinson (R-
     AR), Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL), Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and 
     Sen. Rod Grams (R-MN)
       Areas of Concern: This legislation will override state 
     alcoholism and drug licensure and certification laws, 
     undermining state guarantees of safety in alcoholism and drug 
     addiction treatment. This bill states that alcohol and drug 
     treatment counseling is not a professional field and that 
     formal education for counselors is detrimental to the 
     practice of effective counseling. In fact, education enhances 
     the provision of alcoholism and drug addiction treatment. 
     Finally the legislation remedies a problem that does not 
     exist. Religious organizations are already entitled to 
     receive federal funding by complying with the rules for 
     charitable organizations.
       Provisions of Concern: The language at issue is contained 
     in Title IV of the Community Renewal Act, and Section 2 of 
     the Effective Substance Abuse Treatment Act. Both would amend 
     Title V, Sec. 585 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 
     290aa et seq.) The proposed provisions state that:
       1. ``. . . formal education for counselors . . . may 
     undermine the effectiveness of [treatment] programs.'' This 
     statement is incorrect. As treatment has grown more complex, 
     the need for continuing education and formal education has 
     also grown. Those most aware of new treatment technologies 
     and capabilities are better able to provide appropriate 
     treatment for all patients.
       2. ``. . . educational requirements . . . may hinder or 
     prevent the provision of needed drug treatment services.'' 
     Establishing standards and requirements for the 
     administration of treatment ensures that treatment delivered 
     to patients is effective. It does not deny access to those 
     services. As with the treatment of all other diseases, 
     holding treatment professionals accountable protects the 
     safety of the public.
       3. States which require formal education to deliver 
     treatment services ``shall give credit for religious 
     education and training equivalent to credit given for secular 
     course work in drug treatment . . .'' Alcohol and drug 
     counselors (ADCs) constitute the one group of professionals 
     who specialize in the diagnosis, assessment and treatment of 
     psychoactive disorders and other substance abuse/use/
     dependency. These counselors possess a constellation of 
     knowledge that is unique to the alcoholism and drug abuse 
     counseling profession, and distinguishes ADCs from other 
     related professions and specialties. Religious education and 
     training is not equivalent to this knowledge.
       4. States must waive their education qualifications for 
     treatment personnel if, ``(iv) the State . . . has failed to 
     demonstrate empirically that the educational qualifications 
     in question are necessary to the operation of a successful 
     program.'' This legislation undermines a State's ability to 
     protect the public by licensing and certifying qualified 
     treatment providers. It imposes a mandate from the Federal 
     government requiring the States to fund religious programs or 
     face the costs of defending requirements which the State and 
     local governments believe are necessary for protection of the 
     public. States will be required to conduct research without 
     being provided the means to accomplish it. States are 
     unlikely to have the resources to spend on a demanding 
     empirical defense of their rule and consequently may relax 
     treatment standards to allow unfit organizations to deliver 
     treatment with federal funding.
       5. Under this legislation programs and state agencies are 
     not required to notify individuals who are placed in 
     religious programs, that they have the right to receive 
     alternative services. Additionally, there is no requirement 
     that alternative services be accessible. Individuals who 
     enter treatment programs are frequently in a medically or 
     mentally vulnerable situation. Despite this, S. 289 currently 
     states that religious treatment providers may require active 
     participation in religious practice worship and instruction. 
     (Note: Unlike previous versions of the community renewal act, 
     S. 289 no longer contains the specific requirement allowing 
     sectarian providers to compel compliance with religious 
     worship). Forced or coerced religious activity is 
     inappropriate and may be unethical under counseling 
     guidelines.
       Conclusions: Spirituality is an important component of 
     treatment, and mechanisms already exist to being this aspect 
     of recovery to patients. Indeed, religious organizations are 
     free to receive federal funds by creating a non-profit, 
     ``religiously affiliated'' agency to provide services in 
     compliance with state certification and licensure laws. 
     However, by stating that establishing formal education 
     requirements may hinder treatment and by attempting to equate 
     degrees in theology with knowledge about alcoholism and drug 
     dependence, charitable choice undermines treatment efforts 
     and removes scarce funding from effective treatment programs.
       The alcohol and drug treatment profession is currently 
     engaged in efforts in almost every state to create and 
     reinforce standards of practice for alcohol and drug 
     treatment, just like the standards (licenses) states 
     currently have for doctors and other health care providers. 
     Such regulations establish an organized system which ensures 
     that the delivery of this vital health care service is 
     provided by trained and experienced professionals who have 
     met rigorous educational and training requirements prior to 
     serving in the sensitive position of Alcohol and Drug 
     Counselors. Under this new legislation, ``pervasively 
     sectarian'' institutions such as houses of worship, would be 
     permitted to provide government services while claiming 
     exemption from state regulations. This legislation would not 
     allow the government to oversee the hiring practices of 
     religious institutions even if complaints were made against 
     the institution. Charitable choice would overrule the 
     judgment of the states and would allow treatment to be 
     provided without respect to minimal standards, undermining 
     public safety in the provision of this necessary service. 
     This legislation hurts the field of alcohol and drug 
     addiction treatment along with the millions of people 
     suffering from addiction, their families, employers and the 
     communities in which they live.

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to point out for those who may be viewing this in 
their offices and elsewhere that this is not really a close vote 
situation. We had 346 Members for this earlier on juvenile justice last 
week; the Vice President supports this concept, particularly on drug 
treatment, as do most Republicans. We have already had several 
Democrats supporting this.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my distinguished friend and 
colleague, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers).


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair reminds all Members that they are 
to address their remarks to the Chair.
  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in favor of this resolution, just as I 
supported charitable choice when it was a matter of discussion some 
years ago.
  Mr. Speaker, when my wife and I moved to Grand Rapids, Michigan, in 
1966, we decided that we wanted to join a church that would make a 
difference, a church that would make a difference in the community. In 
particular, we joined the Eastern Avenue Christian Reform Church, a 
member of a small but strong and wonderful denomination.

                              {time}  1545

  We have made a difference through that church, and that church has 
been a strong voice in the community. It is the type of faith-based 
effort that this country needs.
  Through this small church, small but very active, we managed to start 
a food program which has fed many, many people through a cooperative 
effort. We were instrumental in starting a community center which has 
sprung off

[[Page 13845]]

and become a multimillion dollar operation providing tremendous service 
to the community.
  We were also instrumental in helping start a housing program which is 
now developed into an independent organization which has rehabilitated 
close to 100 houses at this point for low-income individuals, and they 
now are enjoying home ownership.
  This, incidentally, happened before Habitat For Humanity was founded. 
Let me describe just a little bit the food program that we have 
established which operates in the church basement every Saturday 
morning.
  Members of the church and other volunteers go to suppliers throughout 
the community. We acquire, through donation, produce, bread, many other 
vital essentials; and we bring them to our church basement.
  We run a small supermarket there every Saturday morning. Individuals 
coming through can buy supplies that they need for their daily 
existence for roughly 10 cents on the dollar. A poverty stricken family 
can come in and for $10 buy a couple of weeks worth of groceries and 
other essentials.
  It has worked very well. It has served young and old, able and 
disabled, Hispanic and Vietnamese, black and white. It has served 
everyone. It has been a real boon to the community. Many of the 
volunteers have come from the community themselves, and many of them 
have worked for many, many years on this effort.
  These are examples of activities carried on by faith-based 
organizations, and they have proven to be far more effective per dollar 
expended than any government program I have ever seen.
  I think it is simple common sense that the Federal Government 
encourage these faith-based organizations and, in fact, make use of 
them in trying to solve the problems of our Nation, particularly those 
dealing with poverty.
  Two cautions I want to offer. First of all, we have to make sure that 
the churches do not proselytize, in other words, do not violate the 
separation of church and State in that sense, even though they are 
working in the name of God to serve the people around them.
  Secondly, the government should take care not to try to govern the 
faith-based organizations.
  I strongly support this resolution, and I hope many churches across 
this country will follow this example.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Edwards).
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, it is the unanswered questions about this 
legislation that bother me the greatest. But I must say that I consider 
it an affront to the integrity of this House that we would debate such 
a fundamental constitutional issue, regardless of which side my 
colleagues are on on this resolution, fundamentally important 
constitutional issues such as church and State separation, the 
establishment clause of the first amendment, in fact the first 16 words 
of the Bill of Rights, under a Suspension Calendar with no committee 
consideration.
  I think Mr. Jefferson and Mr. Madison would be ashamed of the process 
that we are going through today. But let us talk about what unanswered 
questions we have in this debate, in this little time for debate.
  The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) has answered our questions by 
saying, yes, under this legislation, let me be clear, yes, under this 
legislation Federal funds will be allowed to hire and fire people based 
on race discrimination, religious discrimination, sex discrimination.
  Mr. SOUDER. Point of personal privilege.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). Does the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Edwards) yield to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder)?


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry. Why is it not a point 
of personal privilege when a statement is made about racism which I did 
not make. The question was on religion.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Statements in debate do not give rise to a 
question of personal privilege. Is the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Souder) raising a point of order?
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I will withdraw my inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) may 
proceed.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, under this legislation, if 
one simply reads it, which most Members of this House have not yet 
done, a religious organization could say, based on their religious 
creed, they would not hire someone based on the fact that that person 
is a woman. A Christian may not hire someone because he is Jewish. A 
Jewish group may not hire someone because they are Christian. In some 
religious faiths, they may not hire someone because of the color of 
their skin.
  This bill directly endorses job discrimination, and worse yet job 
discrimination using Federal taxpayers dollars. For that reason and 
that reason alone, this House should reject this legislation and H.R. 
815 which it supports.
  But that is the answered question. Let us look at the unanswered 
questions. According to this bill, if a participant in a program is 
Jewish, working in a Baptist Church that has won the government 
program, could that Jewish program be forced to say the Lord's Prayer? 
If the program is an Islamic mosque, would a Christian be forced to 
follow the rules of Islamic law, including women in America following 
the rules of Islamic law? If a Buddhist group is running a program, 
would Jewish and Christian citizens in the program be forced to pray to 
Buddha?
  If a Baptist group is running a program, would the Catholic be forced 
to say the Protestant version of the Lord's Prayer? If reciting New 
Testament proceedings is basically a process that a church goes through 
that has won these Federal funds for this program, can they force an 
Islamic or a Muslim or a Jewish person to read from the New Testament?
  Well, how about this. What about a Wiccam group? It says we are not 
going to discriminate based on the religion. The courts have said the 
Wiccams are religious group identified in this country. What if the 
Wiccam group has a religious service where they honor the sun and the 
moon and circle as they do with candles? And they actively participate 
in that process in my district in Central Texas. Can they force a 
Christian alcoholic to participate in the Wiccam religious services? If 
my colleagues say yes, that is religious discrimination.
  What if the Santeria, a religion than practiced, and a religion as 
defined by the Supreme Court of the United States, what if the Santeria 
win a Federal grant to administer alcohol programs? Since my colleagues 
say they cannot discriminate based on religion, does that mean that the 
Santerias can force a Presbyterian to participate in the decapitation 
of a chicken's head, because that is part of the prayer ritual the 
Santeria religion?
  The fact is, there are too many unanswered questions in this 
legislation that go to the heart, the reason why our Founding Fathers 
chose the first 16 words of our Bill of Rights, to be committed to 
protecting religion against government intervention, that we should 
reject this legislation.
  According to these proponents, we would think that the first 16 words 
of the Bill of Rights are a shackle on religious freedom. That is 
absolutely wrong. Mr. Jefferson, Mr. Madison, others involved in 
drafting that legislation did not write the establishment clause to 
shackle religion in America. They did it to shackle government from 
intervening into the religious freedom of individuals. Political 
conservatives should be terrified by this legislation.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) already knows, 
Title 7 of the 1964 Civil Rights Act allows a religious organization to 
discriminate in employment on the basis of religion. This amendment 
simply clarifies that in spite of all the statements on the floor.

[[Page 13846]]

  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina 
(Mr. DeMint).
  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution and to 
point out that we just heard a very good example of what I call faith 
phobia. This faith phobia has taken over the country, that anyone with 
values and beliefs is a problem.
  I support this resolution, not just to recognize what nonprofit 
community organizations, faith-based organizations are doing, but to 
point out that they are doing our work all across America better than 
we are.
  There is an organization in my district called Mobile Meals. Every 
day, people from throughout the community rise at about 4:00 in the 
morning and feed about 1,700 people every day. They do it for one 
reason, to share the love of God with people in the community. They 
spend less than a million dollars a year. It compares with the 
federally funded group that does the same thing that spends over $6 
million a year.
  If we look around my community and I am sure my colleagues' 
community, the people that are feeding the hungry, that are clothing 
the poor, that are freeing those enslaved to drugs, that are building 
homes for the homeless, and providing a place for people to live who 
need it all across the community, these are faith-based organizations 
working side by side with community organizations.
  If, as a government, we are going to say that, because there is some 
faith involved, that we cannot use these organizations to help 
Americans, then we are going way down the wrong road. We need to 
recognize that we have been making a mistake. We have not been 
separating the State from religion. We have been separating religion 
from America. It is time that we stop that at the Federal level and 
recognize that, if we want to help Americans, let us let faith-based 
organizations work side by side with community and local governments to 
really help America.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Edwards).
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to make two points. First is 
in response to the last speaker. I think the fact that the Baptist 
Joint Committee on Public Affairs strongly opposes this legislation 
today really undermines the gentleman's argument or suggestion that 
people of faith should be for this Federal funding and faith-based 
organizations.
  Secondly, I would like to correct the statement made by the gentleman 
from Indiana (Mr. Souder) when he failed to point out that the Supreme 
Court in 1989 ruled that, when an organization such as this case, the 
Salvation Army was using Federal funds to hire people, they could not 
fire someone based on religion.
  In this particular case, the Salvation Army could not fire a Wiccam 
because of his religious belief. So the gentleman is really in a 
quandary. Either one can endorse religious-based discrimination using 
Federal funds, or is one going to say to the Baptist Church of Waco, 
Texas that they must hire Wiccams. Perhaps they must hire Satanic 
worshipers. Perhaps they must hire people of religious faith that are 
inconsistent with their own.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I inquire of the Chair how much time each 
side has remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) has 
2\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) has 2 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant), our third Democrat to speak on 
behalf of this in a rare bipartisan effort to try to reach out to those 
who are hurting.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, I think the Founders are rolling over in 
their graves. I do not believe any Founder intended to envision an 
America without school prayer or without support for faith-based 
programming. The Founders intended to ensure there would not be State-
sponsored legislation creating one religion in America.
  I believe all this technical mumbo jumbo has served to eliminate God 
from America. I want to be associated with those Members who will, in 
fact, look at the technicalities and include God. A Nation without God 
is a Nation that has invited the devil. Congress, open your eyes, 
because they have rolled out the carpet in America for the devil with a 
bunch of technical mumbo jumbo that is no more the intent of Founders 
than pornography.
  I stand for this legislation, period. I think it is time, Mr. 
Speaker, to look at our cities, look at our schools. They could fund 
all the programs they want, but they are not going to be successful 
with a technical mumbo jumbo argument that God is the reason why they 
cannot do it because the Founders said so.
  That does not work with Jim Traficant at all. I believe the 
technicality has been stretched much too far.
  I want to associate myself with the remarks of the gentlewoman from 
Florida (Mrs. Meek) and with those who support this legislation. I 
believe they are right, and I urge the Congress, with a little bit of 
technical oomph, to vote aye on the legislation.

                              {time}  1600

  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Lewis).
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I am a member of an African 
American church. I grew up in an African American church, a Baptist 
church. I attended seminary, and am a licensed and ordained Baptist 
minister. But I believe in the separation of church and state.
  If the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) wants to consider and call 
the Bill of Rights mumbo jumbo, that is all right, he has that right, 
but for me and my house, I am going to stand with the Founding Fathers, 
not with the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, some prior speaker said this was a good resolution 
except for the unconstitutional parts, and I tend to agree with that.
  I think there is a lot this resolution has to offer except for the 
parts that we have referred to. I think we just need to, so we know 
what the Founding Fathers might have envisioned, read what is in the 
bill that this resolution endorses.
  First, on discrimination: It provides that a religious organization 
that is a program participant may require an employee rendering 
services to adhere to the religious beliefs and practices of such 
organization, and any rules of the organization regarding the use of 
alcohol and drugs.
  Now, the gentleman from Indiana has acknowledged that discrimination 
may occur. In fact, he wants to extend the title 7 exemption to 
churches which are allowed to discriminate on a religious basis when 
they hire people who are ministers and things like that. But this would 
extend it to federally-sponsored drug programs. And it would be a new 
day in America when a federally-sponsored drug program can hang out a 
sign that says, people of certain religions need not apply for a job 
because of their religions.
  Let us go along to whether we can have coerced religion. Page 75, 
line 23, a religious organization may require a program beneficiary to 
actively participate in religious practice, worship and instruction, 
and follow the rules of behavior devised by the organizations that are 
religious in content and origin.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). The time of the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Scott) has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Scott was allowed to proceed for 30 
additional seconds.)
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, there is also a part in here that has 
congressional findings. It says, Congress finds that establishing 
formal educational qualifications for counselors and other personnel in 
drug treatment programs may undermine the effectiveness of such 
programs, and such formal educational requirements for counselors may 
hinder or prevent provision of drug treatment services.
  Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether people want discrimination or 
whether they want coerced religion, but religious groups oppose this, 
professional

[[Page 13847]]

drug counselors oppose this, civil rights groups oppose it, and we 
should all oppose this resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair has extended 30 seconds to each 
side.


                             General Leave

  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks 
on House Resolution 207, the legislation under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Indiana?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts).
  Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, we have heard some red herring arguments this 
afternoon about whether something violates separation of church and 
state. I might remind the Members that we are not voting on the 
American Community Renewal Act, which has been cited and debated and is 
merely cited in the resolution. We are voting on a Sense of the House 
Resolution that targets aid and money to poor communities across this 
Nation.
  Regarding the issue of separation of church and state, if Members 
oppose that American Community Renewal Act on that basis, then they 
should oppose Pell grants. With a Pell grant students use Federal grant 
money to go to seminaries, to go to Notre Dame, Yeshiva University 
without raising constitutional concerns. The Substance Abuse Act grant 
that this cites is no different.
  Currently, there are two voucher programs we have successfully, 
legally implemented, the child care block grant in 1993, so that 
parents could use Federal day care dollars at the provider they choose, 
religious or secular; second, the new welfare law allows States to 
contract out their social services to both religious and nonreligious 
providers.
  The drug treatment provision is the same. It voucherizes substance 
abuse block grants and allows the addict to decide. They can opt out. I 
urge Members to support the resolution.
  Mr. WATTS of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, the family unit is the core 
institution that instills in future generations the common values that 
we share as a society. Raising a child is a daunting task even in the 
most stable environments, but for families in distressed areas it is 
even more difficult.
  We all know those pastors and community leaders in these 
neighborhoods--who have counseled that teenage mother--or prayed with 
the chronically unemployed--or lifted the spirits of those who sleep 
wherever they can lie their head. We do not have to list grave 
statistics about our inner cities or rural areas, because these are the 
people who are on the front-lines everyday.
  That is why I support this resolution and the involvement of faith-
based organizations in community development. In our urban and rural 
communities, the concerns of high unemployment, drug addiction and 
unsuitable housing have seemingly gone unnoticed during America's 
``economic boom.'' These problems can no longer be ignored--now is the 
time for our government to give faith-based organizations the 
opportunity to help resurrect America's neighborhoods.
  For years our government has spent billions of dollars on Federal 
programs to help America's poor, and for the most part these offerings 
have not met with great success. It is painfully obvious that a new 
model is needed in revitalizing America's urban and rural communities. 
In February Jim Talent, Danny Davis, and I introduced the American 
Community Renewal Act. This legislation is designed to help communities 
and local leaders succeed where big government programs have failed. 
The American Community Renewal Act will help neighborhoods by--creating 
jobs--reducing burdensome regulation--increasing home-ownership--
encouraging savings, and strengthening the institutions in these 
neighborhoods that have already begun making a difference.
  However, community renewal must go beyond merely the scope of 
economics. We must provide support to the institutions that have 
historically held our country together--community, faith and family. 
With the eligibility of faith-based institutions to Community Renewal 
programs, we hope to achieve not only economic renewal but spiritual 
and moral renewal as well.
  The essence of this resolution is not about ideology--it's about 
helping America's less fortunate. It's about providing a faith-based 
organization with the opportunity to reach out its hand, to pull that 
person out of the depths of drug or alcohol abuse. It is about that 
small businessperson providing a job to his or her neighbor. It's about 
putting a decent roof over somebody's head. But first and foremost, 
this resolution is about supporting the pillars of our country--
community, faith, and family.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my concerns regarding H. 
Res. 207 and its underlying legislation, H.R. 815, The American 
Community Renewal Act of 1999.
  No one disputes the role that community and faith-based organizations 
play in sustaining and strengthening our communities and neighborhoods, 
our cities and towns. Throughout my career, I have shared the deep 
interest which motivates this resolution in harnessing the energy and 
creativity of community and faith-based organizations in developing 
solutions to our nation's persistent poverty and other serious social 
problems.
  Instead, my concerns center on language in H.R. 815 which denigrates 
the importance of professional education and training to effective 
alcohol and drug treatment. H.R. 815 purports to improve the 
availability of substance abuse treatment and counseling services. 
Instead, its provisions undercut the proven importance and competence 
of qualified service providers.
  Let me specify the problematic sections of H.R. 815. In congressional 
findings, the bill states that ``formal educational qualifications for 
counselors and other personnel in drug treatment programs may undermine 
the effectiveness of such programs'' and ``may hinder or prevent the 
provision of needed drug treatment services.''
  Mr. Speaker, this is simply untrue. Professional education is a 
foundation of effective substance abuse treatment and prevention. It is 
a critical basis for our country's longstanding efforts to treat and 
prevent substance abuse. Our current national drug control strategy is 
premised on the fundamental importance of medical and specialized 
training for substance abuse service providers.
  Mr. Speaker, the accompanying provisions of H.R. 815 would undercut 
the States in certifying and licensing substance abuse service 
providers. They would require the States to accept religious education 
and training as wholly equivalent to drug treatment. Again, this runs 
headlong against our nation's efforts to work in partnership with the 
States, professional and community organizations in combating substance 
abuse. Indeed, religious organizations already play an important part 
in these efforts through federally funded and state-funded substance 
abuse programs.
  I am deeply concerned that language of this kind is being 
contemplated to this time by the Congress. As a member of the Commerce 
Committee, I am involved in work which will lead to reauthorization of 
the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA). 
These problematic provisions of H.R. 815 fly in the face of the vital 
accomplishments and continuing work of our Federal agencies on 
substance abuse treatment and prevention, including SAMHSA and the 
National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), the National Institute of 
Mental Health (NIMH) and the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and 
Alcoholism (NIAAA) at the National Institutes of Health.
  At this time, I wish to include for the Record a letter in opposition 
to H. Res. 207 which I received from a wide range of national patient 
and provider organizations, including the National Association of State 
Alcohol and Drug Abuse Directors, the Partnership for Recovery and the 
American Society of Addiction Medicine.

                                                    June 21, 1999.
     Members,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Member of Congress: The undersigned organizations 
     oppose H. Res. 207 and the portions of the American Community 
     Renewal Act which will hurt the provision of professionally 
     competent alcohol and drug treatment services.
       Unfortunately, the Community Renewal Act will undermine 
     treatment effectiveness. The Act will override state 
     licensure and certification of alcohol and drug counselors, 
     crushing state guarantees of safety in alcoholism and drug 
     addiction treatment.
       The Act actually states that alcohol and drug treatment 
     counseling is not a professional field and that formal 
     education for counselors is detrimental to the practice of 
     effective counseling. This is simply inaccurate. Alcoholism 
     and drug addiction is a disease. Consequently, alcohol and 
     drug counseling has long required specialized knowledge and 
     training compelling the use of professional practitioners. 
     Education equals effective alcoholism and drug addition 
     treatment.
       Even more troubling, the Act will require States which 
     require formal education to deliver treatment services to 
     ``give credit for

[[Page 13848]]

     religious education and training equivalent to credit given 
     for secular course work in drug treatment . . .'' Alcohol and 
     drug treatment is a medical service requiring medical 
     knowledge. Treatment professionals specialize in the 
     diagnosis, assessment and treatment of psychoactive disorders 
     and other substance abuse/use/dependency. These counselors 
     and other professionals possess a constellation of knowledge 
     that is unique to the alcoholism and drug abuse counseling 
     profession, and distinguishes ADCs from other related 
     professions and specialties. Religious education and training 
     is not equivalent to training given for the medical specialty 
     of alcohol and drug treatment.
       The Act also mandates States to waive their formal 
     educational requirements under certain circumstances or face 
     lawsuits. Finally the legislation attempts to remedy a 
     problem that does not exist. Religious organizations are 
     already entitled to receive federal funding by complying with 
     the rules for charitable organizations.
       All of our organizations seek to include spirituality in 
     the lives of individuals. Spirituality is an important 
     component of treatment, and mechanisms already exist to bring 
     this aspect of recovery to patients without changing current 
     law.
       By stating that establishing formal education requirements 
     may hinder treatment and by attempting to equate religious 
     education with knowledge about alcoholism and drug 
     dependence, the Community Renewal Act undermines treatment 
     efforts and removes scarce funding from effective treatment 
     programs. Unfortunately, this legislation ensures that the 
     millions of people suffering from addiction, their families, 
     employers and communities will be harmed by incompetent 
     treatment.
       The Community Renewal Act will hurt the provision of 
     professionally competent alcohol and drug treatment services. 
     For this reason, we urge you to vote against H. Res. 207.
           Sincerely,
       American Counseling Association; American Methadone 
     Treatment Association; American Society of Addiction 
     Medicine; Association of Halfway House Alcoholism Programs of 
     North America; College on Problems of Drug Dependence; Legal 
     Action Center; National Association of Addiction Treatment 
     Providers; National Association of Alcoholism and Drug Abuse 
     Counselors; National Association of State Alcohol and Drug 
     Abuse Directors; National Association of Student Assistance 
     Professionals; National Coalition of State Alcohol and Drug 
     Treatment and Prevention Associations; National Council for 
     Community Behavioral Healthcare; National Council on 
     Alcoholism and Drug Dependence; National TASC; Partnership 
     for Recovery; The Betty Ford Center; Caron Foundation; 
     Hazelden Foundation; Valley Hope Association; Research 
     Society on Alcoholism; Therapeutic Communities of America.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) that the House suspend the rules 
and agree to the resolution, House Resolution 207.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor 
thereof) the rules were suspended and the resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________