[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 1]
[House]
[Pages 1337-1354]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




       FEDERAL DISASTER ASSISTANCE NONPROFIT FAIRNESS ACT OF 2013

  Mr. BARLETTA. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 592) to amend the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and 
Emergency Assistance Act to clarify that houses of worship are eligible 
for certain disaster relief and emergency assistance on terms equal to 
other eligible private nonprofit facilities, and for other purposes.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                                H.R. 592

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Federal Disaster Assistance 
     Nonprofit Fairness Act of 2013''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds the following:
       (1) Hurricane Sandy inflicted catastrophic damage in the 
     Northeastern United States.
       (2) Houses of worship across the Northeast's many faiths 
     and denominations were among the private nonprofit facilities 
     that sustained damage.
       (3) Churches, synagogues, mosques, temples, and other 
     houses of worship throughout communities in New York, New 
     Jersey, Connecticut, and elsewhere play an essential role in 
     the daily lives of the communities.
       (4) The Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) public 
     assistance program provides financial grants for the repair 
     of various types of private nonprofit facilities.
       (5) Among the types of nonprofits to which FEMA provides 
     such grants are those in which citizens gather and engage in 
     a variety of educational, enrichment, and social activities. 
     These activities are essential to community building and 
     occur in houses of worship.
       (6) Under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and 
     Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.), FEMA's 
     disaster relief program is a general government program under 
     which assistance is provided in the wake of a natural 
     disaster using criteria that are neutral with regard to 
     religion.
       (7) Congress has previously enacted legislation providing 
     financial assistance to religious nonprofit institutions, 
     including houses of worship, on terms equal to other eligible 
     nonprofit institutions.
       (8) Such legislation is consistent with recent precedents 
     of the Supreme Court of the United States and legal opinions 
     issued by the Office of Legal Counsel of the Department of 
     Justice.

     SEC. 3. INCLUSION OF HOUSES OF WORSHIP AS PRIVATE NONPROFIT 
                   FACILITIES ELIGIBLE FOR DISASTER RELIEF.

       (a) Definition of Private Nonprofit Facility.--Section 
     102(10)(B) of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and 
     Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5122(10)(B)) is amended 
     to read as follows:
       ``(B) Additional facilities.--In addition to the facilities 
     described in subparagraph (A), the term `private nonprofit 
     facility' includes any private nonprofit facility that 
     provides essential services of a governmental nature to the 
     general public (including museums, zoos, performing arts 
     facilities, community arts centers, community centers, 
     including houses of worship exempt from taxation under 
     section 501(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, 
     libraries, homeless shelters, senior citizen centers, 
     rehabilitation facilities, shelter workshops, and facilities 
     that provide health and safety services of a governmental 
     nature), as defined by the President.''.
       (b) Repair, Restoration, and Replacement of Damaged 
     Facilities.--Section 406(a)(3) of the Robert T. Stafford 
     Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 
     5172(a)(3)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(C) Houses of worship.--A church, synagogue, mosque, 
     temple, or other house of worship, and a private nonprofit 
     facility operated by a religious organization, shall be 
     eligible for contributions under paragraph (1)(B), without 
     regard to the religious character of the facility or the 
     primary religious use of the facility.''.
       (c) Applicability.--This section and the amendments made by 
     this section shall apply to the provision of assistance in 
     response to a major disaster or emergency declared on or 
     after October 28, 2012.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Barletta) and the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. 
Rahall) each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.


                             General Leave

  Mr. BARLETTA. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks 
and include extraneous material on H.R. 592.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.

[[Page 1338]]


  Mr. BARLETTA. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  First, I want to acknowledge the work of the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Smith) for his leadership on this bipartisan legislation.
  Currently, the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency 
Assistance Act, also known as the Stafford Act, provides for assistance 
to nonprofit organizations to rebuild damaged facilities following a 
declared disaster.
  Like other nonprofit organizations, religious-based organizations 
have seen significant damage to their facilities from disasters. Just 
last year, for example, we saw facilities owned by both religious and 
nonreligious organizations alike damaged or destroyed by Hurricane 
Sandy.
  The administration is interpreting current law to allow some 
religious nonprofits to receive reconstruction assistance, while others 
do not. For example, parochial schools and religious hospitals receive 
funds, while a soup kitchen or a shelter may not, depending on how 
often it is used for purely religious purposes.
  H.R. 592 clarifies that facilities owned by religious-based 
organizations qualify for certain types of disaster assistance.
  Again, let me thank the gentleman from New Jersey for his efforts on 
behalf of his constituents to rebuild the storm-ravaged areas of his 
State.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RAHALL. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I rise in support of H.R. 592, the Federal Disaster Assistance 
Nonprofit Fairness Act of 2013. This bill designates houses of worship 
as eligible private nonprofit organizations to receive Federal 
Emergency Management Agency funds to repair or rebuild after a disaster 
strikes.
  When most people think of disaster damage, they think of the physical 
damage that is often shown on television, that is, of downed trees, 
flooded streets and homes, snow piled high, et cetera.
  But for disaster survivors, the impact is often also emotionally 
traumatic. In some cases, survivors have lost loved ones or all of 
their worldly possessions. In these trying times, survivors often look 
to houses of worship for spiritual instruction, guidance, and 
counseling. The services provided by houses of worship are critical to 
survivors' full healing and recovery after a disaster.
  During and after disasters, houses of worship are there at a time 
when the emotional toll inflicted by a disaster is at its worst. While 
some may have concerns about providing any type of Federal assistance 
to houses of worship, some types of Federal assistance should be, and 
are, provided on a neutral basis.
  Funding provided to a broad class of entities for secular purposes 
such as government-funded and -sponsored police and firefighting 
assistance and protection and recovery from terrorist activities are 
such examples.
  Likewise, disaster assistance has been provided to religious 
institutions in the past. In 1995, after the Oklahoma City bombing, 
Congress approved funds for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban 
Development that specifically allowed for the repair and reconstruction 
of houses of worship damaged by the bombing.
  In addition, under FEMA's current policy, funds are provided to 
repair or rebuild religiously affiliated private nonprofit 
organizations such as schools, nursing homes, food shelters, and 
daycare centers.
  Assisting with recovery from a disaster does not promote or establish 
religion. There is no intrinsically religious purpose in providing 
disaster assistance. This provision simply recognizes that houses of 
worship are one aspect of community recovery.
  This bill helps ensure that our communities fully recover physically, 
emotionally, and mentally after a disaster. I urge my colleagues to 
join in supporting this bill.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BARLETTA. Madam Speaker, I wish to yield 7 minutes to the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), who is the sponsor of this bill.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I thank my good friend, the chair, for 
yielding. I thank him for his support and for Mr. Rahall. And I want to 
thank Grace Meng for her cosponsorship and leadership on this important 
bill, and all the cosponsors, and to Eric Cantor and the leadership for 
scheduling it for a vote today. This is extremely important and very 
timely.
  Madam Speaker, Superstorm Sandy inflicted unprecedented damage on 
communities in the Northeast, including my district in New Jersey. 
Congress and the President have responded by providing $60 billion in 
emergency and recovery aid.
  Today's debate and vote, however, isn't at all about whether or how 
much funding Congress appropriates to mitigate the impact of Sandy. 
We've had that vote.
  Rather, it's about those who are being unfairly left out and left 
behind. It's about those who help feed, comfort, clothe, and shelter 
tens of thousands of victims now being told they are ineligible for a 
FEMA grant.
  It's unconscionable that foundational pillars of our communities 
damaged by Sandy--synagogues, churches, mosques, temples and other 
houses of worship--have been categorically denied access to these 
otherwise generally available relief funds.
  Current FEMA policy is patently unfair, unjustified, and 
discriminatory and may even suggest hostility to religion. FEMA has a 
policy in place to aid nonprofit facilities damaged in the storm, but 
the agency has excluded houses of worship from their support. That is 
wrong, and it's time Congress ensures fundamental fairness for these 
essential private nonprofits.
  The bipartisan Federal Disaster Assistance Nonprofit Fairness Act 
will ensure that houses of worship are eligible for Federal funds 
administered by FEMA.
  Madam Speaker, it's worth noting here that FEMA's discriminatory 
policy of exclusion is not prescribed by any law. Nothing in the 
Stafford Act or any other law, including the Hurricane Sandy Disaster 
Relief Appropriations Act, precludes funds to repair and to replace and 
to restore houses of worship.
  Indeed, the congressional precedent favors enacting H.R. 592, as 
there are several pertinent examples of public funding being allocated 
to houses of worship. For example, FEMA grants were explicitly 
authorized by Congress back in 1995 and provided to the churches 
damaged by the Oklahoma City terrorist attack, as my friend from West 
Virginia pointed out.

                              {time}  1230

  The Homeland Security Department and UASI provides funding to houses 
of worship for security upgrades. The Interior Department provides 
funding for grants for historically significant properties, including 
active churches and active synagogues. And the SBA provides low 
interest loans--no hint at all by anyone that there's an Establishment 
Clause issue.
  It's important to note that a controlling Justice Department Office 
of Legal Counsel memorandum explains in detail the legal principles 
that make H.R. 592 constitutional. In a 2002 written opinion, the 
Office of Legal Counsel concluded it was constitutional for Congress to 
provide disaster relief and reconstruction funds to a religious Jewish 
school, along with all sorts of other organizations, following a 
devastating earthquake. The same principles apply to protect religious 
organizations following a devastating hurricane.
  As the Office of Legal Counsel memo concluded:

       Provisions of disaster assistance to religious 
     organizations cannot be materially distinguished from aid 
     programs that are constitutional under longstanding Supreme 
     Court precedent, establishing that religious institutions are 
     fully entitled to receive generally available government 
     benefits and services, such as fire and police protection.

  The Supreme Court handed down its first modern Establishment Clause 
decision in the Everson v. Board of Education decision, which involved 
a program in my own home State of New Jersey. In that case, the Court 
held that religious institutions are entitled

[[Page 1339]]

to receive ``general government services'' made available on the basis 
of neutral criteria. The Court held that the Establishment Clause does 
not bar, in that case, students attending religious schools from 
receiving generally available school busing services provided by the 
government.
  As Nathan Diament, Executive Director of Public Policy for the Union 
of Orthodox Jewish Organizations of America, notes in his excellent 
legal analysis, which I will include in the Record:

       Federal disaster relief is analogous to aid that qualifies 
     as general government services approved by the Court in 
     Everson.

  Madam Speaker, the bill before us today simply makes clear and 
clarifies that Federal disaster relief includes religious entities, 
along with every other sort of entity.
  As the Court later stated in Widmar v. Vincent:

       The provision of benefits to so broad a spectrum of groups 
     is an important index of secular, that is, constitutional 
     effect.

  As it stated more recently in Texas Monthly v. Bullock:

       Insofar as a subsidy is conferred upon a wide array of 
     nonsectarian groups as well as religious organizations in 
     pursuit of some legitimate secular end, the fact that 
     religious groups benefit incidentally does not deprive the 
     subsidy of the secular purpose and primary effect mandated by 
     the Establishment Clause.

  Significantly, Madam Speaker, when three churches in Detroit received 
taxpayer-funded grants to repair and spruce up their buildings prior to 
the 2006 Super Bowl, American Atheists sued the City of Detroit and 
lost.
  In a sweeping decision authored by Judge Sutton, the U.S. Court of 
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, unanimously held that the direct 
assistance to the churches did not violate the Establishment Clause. 
Judge Sutton said, and I quote, in pertinent part:

       Detroit sought to fix up its downtown, not to establish a 
     religion. And as will generally be the case when a 
     governmental program allocates generally available benefits 
     on a neutral basis and without a hidden agenda, this program 
     does not have the impermissible effect of advancing religion 
     in general or any one faith in particular. By endorsing all 
     qualifying applicants, the program has endorsed none of them, 
     and accordingly it has not run afoul of the Federal or State 
     religious clauses . . . In the Establishment Clause context, 
     that means evenhanded neutral laws generally, though not 
     invariably, will be upheld. So long as the government benefit 
     is neutral and generally applicable on its face, it 
     presumptively will satisfy the Establishment Clause.

  H.R. 592 exhibits no government preference for or against religion, 
or any particular religion, since it merely permits houses of worship 
to receive the same type of generally available assistance.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. BARLETTA. I yield the gentleman an additional minute.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Again, this legislation permits houses of 
worship to receive the same type of generally available assistance in 
picking up the pieces after stunning devastation that many other 
similarly situated nonprofits receive. Thus, the bill not only passes 
the test of constitutionality, it passes the test of basic decency.
  Indeed, to do otherwise would be to single out churches for adverse 
treatment, which is in itself constitutionally suspect.
  The Supreme Court held, Madam Speaker, in Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City 
of Hialeah, that ``at a minimum, the protections of the Free Exercise 
Clause pertain if the law at issue discriminates against some or all 
religious beliefs.''
  And in Employment Division v. Smith, the Court held that under the 
Free Exercise Clause, the State may not ``impose special disabilities 
on the basis of religious views or religious status.''
  To continue to single houses of worship out for discrimination does 
not express government neutrality; it expresses government hostility. 
And there's no place for government hostility toward religion under our 
Constitution.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. RAHALL. Madam Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from West Virginia has 17\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. RAHALL. Thank you.
  I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I reluctantly rise in opposition to this 
bill. The purpose of this bill is laudable. Unfortunately, there are 
real constitutional problems.
  This bill would provide direct cash grants to rebuild houses of 
worship. Direct government funding of churches, synagogues, and mosques 
has always been held to be unconstitutional, and the decisions of the 
Supreme Court establishing that principle remain good law to this day. 
While some recent decisions have raised questions of these prior 
decisions' validity, they remain binding precedent. Most legal 
authorities would hold this bill to be unconstitutional, although some 
would disagree.
  At the very least, given the serious constitutional questions raised 
by this legislation, I am deeply troubled that it has received no 
committee consideration and is being rushed to the floor just a few 
days after being introduced under a procedure that allows only 40 
minutes of debate and no amendments. One would think that we were 
naming a post office rather than passing legislation with significant 
constitutional implications that could alter the relationship between 
government and religion.
  While I have serious reservations about this bill and the way it is 
being considered, I want to commend the sponsors, the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Smith) and my colleagues from New York, Ms. Meng and 
Mr. King, who have been outstanding champions of the people hard hit by 
Hurricane Sandy.
  So what is the concern?
  Let's start with the basics. This bill would direct Federal taxpayer 
dollars to the reconstruction of houses of worship. The idea that 
taxpayer money can be used to build a religious sanctuary or an altar 
has consistently been held unconstitutional.
  This is entirely different from government working with religious 
institutions to deliver social services. FEMA money, under the law this 
bill would amend, is already available to those institutions.
  FEMA Disaster Assistance Policy 9521.1 states:

       Just because a community center is operated by a religious 
     institution does not automatically make it ineligible. In 
     addition to worship services, many religious institutions 
     conduct a variety of activities that benefit the community. 
     Many of these activities are similar or identical to those 
     performed by secular institutions and local governments.

  The law now permits funding to religious institutions that provide 
those services to the general public, on an equal basis with secular 
institutions doing the same work. Although the title of this bill 
suggests otherwise, there is no unequal treatment of religious 
institutions.
  So what we are really talking about is whether we should be in the 
business of using taxpayer money to build and rebuild houses of worship 
and rebuild sanctuaries and altars that are not available for use to 
the general public.
  I think, at the very least, we need to exercise caution. I know that 
people have been circulating letters making extravagant claims about 
the current state of the law, but what is clear is that the Supreme 
Court has never overruled its prior decisions specifically prohibiting 
this kind of use of public money.

                              {time}  1240

  In Tilton v. Richardson, the Court held that a 20-year ban on using 
publicly financed college facilities for religious or other purposes 
was not sufficient. The Court made the ban permanent, saying:

       If, at the end of 20 years, the building is, for example, 
     converted into a chapel or otherwise used to promote 
     religious interests, the original Federal grant will in part 
     have the effect of advancing religion.

  And that, of course, is not permissible.
  Similarly, in Committee for Public Education v. Nyquist, the Court 
struck down a State program of ``maintenance and repair grants'' for 
the upkeep of religious elementary and secondary schools. The Court 
said:


[[Page 1340]]

       If the State may not erect buildings in which religious 
     activities are to take place, it may not maintain such 
     buildings or renovate them when they fall into disrepair.

  Some proponents have pointed to the Court's ruling in Mitchell v. 
Helms. The question in that case was whether publicly financed 
educational materials could be lent to religious schools. The 
controlling opinion, written by Justice O'Connor, made it clear that it 
was not sufficient that the publicly furnished materials be provided on 
a nondiscriminatory basis; they must never be diverted to religious 
activities. That is clearly not the case here.
  The majority has made a big issue of respecting the Constitution. We 
read the Constitution at the beginning of each Congress, and we are 
required to provide a statement of constitutional authority when we 
introduce a bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. RAHALL. I yield the gentleman an additional minute.
  Mr. NADLER. But all of that means very little if, when faced with a 
genuinely significant constitutional question, the House gives it the 
bum's rush. This bill should be subject to hearings in the Judiciary 
Committee, with input from constitutional scholars, and due 
consideration of these significant constitutional issues, before we 
take such a radical step.
  At the very least, for those who support this bill, I would think 
that they would want to get it right, to ensure that it is not done in 
a way that would make it susceptible to successful legal challenge. I 
urge my colleagues to put the brakes on this legislation until we can 
review it with the care it deserves.
  Because I believe this bill to be unconstitutional, and because the 
constitutional issues have not been properly considered, I must 
reluctantly vote ``no.''
  I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. BARLETTA. Madam Speaker, I wish to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), chairman of Judiciary.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania, the chairman 
of the subcommittee, for his hard work on this legislation and the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) for introducing it and leading 
this bipartisan effort to address what I think is a serious problem.
  I rise today in support of the Federal Disaster Assistance Nonprofit 
Fairness Act of 2013.
  Churches, synagogues, and all houses of worship are essential to the 
fabric of communities throughout this great Nation. In times of need, 
it seems that faith and the charitable acts that faith inspire are 
essential to rebuilding and healing our communities. When disasters 
occur, like Hurricane Sandy in the Northeast, it's often houses of 
worship whose faith calls them to spring into action to help their 
fellow man, to feed the hungry and house the homeless. Faith inspires 
hope that communities can become whole again.
  Every Member of Congress has seen the good works and deeds that 
houses of worship and nonprofit organizations do in our communities. 
There is no reason that the Federal Government should treat churches, 
synagogues, and houses of worship differently than other nonprofits in 
times of disaster.
  I want to note that the so-called ``pervasively sectarian doctrine,'' 
which absolutely prohibited any aid to pervasively sectarian 
organizations such as churches, is no longer supported by Supreme Court 
precedent. While that doctrine was a central part of Supreme Court 
jurisprudence during the 1970s when the Supreme Court handed down 
decisions cited by opponents of this bill, including Tilton v. 
Richardson in 1971, Hunt v. McNair in 1973, and Committee for Public 
Education v. Nyquist, also 1973, it is no longer controlling, as the 
pervasively sectarian doctrine was subsequently rejected by a majority 
of the Supreme Court in the 1999 case of Mitchell v. Helms. Indeed, as 
the Congressional Research Service concluded in its December 27, 2000, 
report to Congress:

       In its most recent decisions, the Supreme Court appears to 
     have abandoned the presumption that some religious 
     institutions are so pervasively sectarian that they are 
     constitutionally ineligible to participate in direct public 
     aid programs. It also seems clear that the question of 
     whether a recipient institution is pervasively sectarian is 
     no longer a constitutionally determinative factor.

  Today's legislation is important because it will ensure that houses 
of worship are treated equitably to other private nonprofit facilities, 
and that they are eligible for Federal Emergency Management Agency 
disaster relief and emergency assistance. I am glad that we are acting 
today to clarify that FEMA should treat churches, synagogues, and all 
houses of worship the same as other nonprofit organizations that are 
working to rebuild affected communities.
  I thank Congressman Smith for introducing this legislation, and I 
urge all Members to join with me to support this important 
clarification of existing law.
  Mr. RAHALL. Madam Speaker, I'm very honored to yield 3 minutes to a 
cosponsor of the pending legislation, the gentlelady from New York (Ms. 
Meng).
  Ms. MENG. Madam Speaker, I rise today to strongly urge my colleagues 
to support H.R. 592, the Federal Disaster Assistance Nonprofit Fairness 
Act of 2013. I want to also thank my colleague, Congressman Chris Smith 
of New Jersey, for his wonderful leadership on this issue.
  On October 29 of last year, Hurricane Sandy tore through New York 
City and its surrounding areas and left an unprecedented amount of 
damage in its wake. Homes burned to the ground, our communities were 
devastated, properties flooded, and over 120 lives were lost. 
Rightfully so, one of the 113th Congress' first actions was ensuring 
that adequate funding was made available to begin repairing the damage, 
and I was happy to be part of that effort.
  The $60 billion in aid that Congress made available was a great start 
to rebuilding our communities and making them whole, but it was only a 
start. If we as Members of Congress want our affected communities to 
recover in the aftermath of any natural disaster, we must ensure that 
FEMA public assistance grants are available to help rebuild all 
institutions that are vital to a community's way of life.
  H.R. 592 is a bipartisan bill. It would allow houses of worship, such 
as churches, synagogues, temples, or mosques, to receive the fair 
treatment they deserve. The bill places these vital community 
institutions on the same playing field as other private nonprofits that 
are already eligible for FEMA disaster relief. This bill provides no 
new funds. It sets forth no difference, no favoritism, no promotion of 
religion; it simply provides for the community and its well-being.
  Facilities that already are able to apply for funding include zoos, 
museums, community centers, and homeless shelters, and it is important 
that houses of worship not be discriminated against when they need our 
help. These houses are vital community centers that serve so many of 
our constituents. The centers' existence, safety, and ability to serve 
should not be infringed upon, especially because the funds are 
available under our broadly available program without regard to the 
religious nature of these facilities. Indeed, to deny FEMA relief to 
these important institutions would be to discriminate against them 
because they are religious institutions, in violation of the First 
Amendment to our Constitution.
  Not every facility, home, or place that engages in religious activity 
will be made available for FEMA assistance because this bill uses a 
predefined, accepted definition for what these facilities are under 
section 501(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. This is how the 
IRS currently recognizes and provides tax benefits to houses of 
worship, and this definition will help prevent erroneous claims.
  The concerns about promotion of religion are unfounded. Alan 
Derschowitz, a widely respected expert on these issues, supports this 
bill on its constitutional grounds. He wrote that:

       Under precedents of the U.S. Supreme Court, religious 
     institutions may receive government aid if it is in the 
     context of a broadly available program with criteria that are 
     neutral toward religion and pose no risks of religious 
     favoritism. This is certainly the case in the context of FEMA 
     disbursing aid

[[Page 1341]]

     to repair buildings in the wake of a natural disaster.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. RAHALL. I yield the gentlelady an additional minute.
  Ms. MENG. Many of the groups opposing this bill also oppose Nonprofit 
Security Grant funding, historic preservation grants, and parochial 
school funding after Katrina. They oppose Federal assistance that 
helped rebuild the Trinity Parish Episcopal Church in Seattle after an 
earthquake; aid made available after the tragic Oklahoma City bombing 
in which money was made available to the First United Methodist Church, 
First Baptist Church, St. Paul's Episcopal Cathedral, and St. Joseph's 
Catholic Church. This is not precedential; this is taking care of our 
constituents and their needs, our most important task in Congress.
  Congress erred by not including an important part of our communities 
in these rebuilding efforts, and I hope we can correct that today.

                                  Diocese of Rockville Centre,

                          Rockville Centre, NY, February 11, 2013.
     Hon. Chris Smith,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Smith: A few weeks ago I wrote to your 
     office to call your attention to the sad situation of houses 
     of worship that were severely damaged by Hurricane Sandy. At 
     that time I could cite Catholic churches and Jewish 
     synagogues who had been told that FEMA would not offer them 
     grants to re-build their place of worship but only loans.
       Today I learned that you plan to offer in Congress a bill 
     that would offer houses of worship the same access to 
     disaster relief as other community centers.
       I write to thank you for doing this as well as to add my 
     voice of support for just such a correction of a previous 
     position that surely does not reflect either our traditions 
     or our current realities. Houses of worship have been one of 
     the first centers of response across Long Island. The Sunday 
     after Sandy I visited the four parishes most damaged by the 
     storm where I witnessed in parish halls without heat or 
     electricity two signs of hope: faithful people worshipping 
     and the same faithful people reaching out to one another to 
     share food, clothing and other necessities even when their 
     own homes had been destroyed.
       To discriminate against houses of worship would be a mark 
     of sectarianism that denies the generosity of the people who 
     helped one another and narrows the American spirit to an 
     arbitrary sectarianism. Please know that my parishioners, my 
     priests and all the volunteers in our various outreach 
     centers are one with me in support of your bill.
                                                   William Murphy,
     Bishop of Rockville Centre.
                                  ____



                                    American Jewish Committee,

                                Washington, DC, February 12, 2013.
     Re H.R. 592.

       Dear Representative: We write on behalf of AJC (American 
     Jewish Committee) to endorse the necessity and 
     constitutionality of legislation to ensure that FEMA provides 
     disaster-relief assistance to houses of worship and other 
     facilities on an equal footing with analogous not-for-profit 
     organizations.
       We do not support such legislation lightly, since AJC 
     usually opposes direct government aid to pervasively 
     religious institutions, such as houses of worship. AJC has a 
     long record of opposing aid to pervasively religious 
     institutions as an ingredient of the separation of church and 
     state that is an essential component in the protection of our 
     religious liberties. Nevertheless, we believe disaster relief 
     is constitutionally different.
       First, disaster relief, such as the ongoing efforts 
     following Hurricane Sandy, presents special circumstances 
     that do not amount to a transfer of the costs of operating a 
     place of worship from the collection plates to the taxpayer, 
     a core concern of the Framers when they authored the First 
     Amendment's prohibition on government establishment of 
     religion. It is instead a form of social insurance in which 
     society shares the burden of recovering from extraordinary 
     disasters. There is a strong societal interest in aiding 
     those who have suffered damage from such a broad-sweeping 
     event, even institutions that for compelling constitutional 
     and policy reasons would not otherwise be eligible for 
     government assistance.
       Second, houses of worship are not uniquely beneficiaries of 
     the aid--a wide variety of not-for-profit institutions are 
     eligible for aid under the existing statutory framework, 
     including zoos and museums. These latter are undeniably 
     important social institutions, but it is clearly the case 
     that houses of worship play at least as important a role in 
     providing essential response services to people in need. 
     Disaster relief is thus available under religiously neutral 
     criteria, which leave no room for discretionary or 
     discriminatory judgments of the sort that generate 
     Establishment Clause concerns.
       For these reasons, we support in principle the goal to 
     which H.R. 592 is directed.
       We do wish to note how we read the proposed language in 
     Section 3(b), lines 15-16, that makes eligible for aid a 
     ``house of worship and a private nonprofit facility operated 
     by a religious organization . . . without regard to the 
     religious character of the facility or the primary use of the 
     facility.'' (emphasis supplied) We read this section, as we 
     believe it is intended; as meaning that an otherwise 
     qualified institution is not disqualified from aid merely 
     because it is religious, and that in its implementation, FEMA 
     must apportion aid between secular and religious functions.
       Thank you for your consideration of our views.
           Respectfully,
     Marc D. Stern,
       Director of Legal Advocacy.
     Richard T. Foltin,
       Director of National and Legislative Affairs.
                                  ____



                                   UJA Federation of New York,

                                                     New York, NY.

                   Memorandum of Support for H.R. 592


                  equal treatment of houses of worship

       Houses of worship for all faiths are a crucial part of the 
     New York region's fabric and while they have always been 
     beacons of support, comfort and community resources, since 
     Hurricane Sandy New Yorkers have needed these institutions 
     more than ever. These organizations are an essential part of 
     neighborhoods and enable rites of passage, community 
     gatherings, charitable activities and are sources of comfort 
     and prayer. In the face of lost homes and distressed 
     property, disruption of employment opportunities and 
     dislocated families, houses of worship have helped many find 
     stability and fulfillment in an uncertain time. In the 
     aftermath of Sandy, as with so many other natural disasters, 
     churches, synagogues and other houses of worship have been 
     places offering essential response services to people in 
     need--even while the church, mosque or synagogue itself is 
     damaged.
       Toward that end, UJA-Federation is proud to have funded 
     close to $1 million to 76 synagogues to help these 
     institutions support their communities through respite and 
     relief and enlisted dozens of volunteers to help rebuild 
     damaged buildings. Our efforts have made a significant impact 
     at synagogues including West End Temple in Belle Harbor, 
     Queens, Congregation Khal Yeraim in Sea Gate, Brooklyn and 
     The Jewish Russian Learning Center in Staten Island and these 
     houses of worship have helped the Jewish and broader 
     communities in the neighborhoods they are serving.
       Each of these synagogues serves as vital hubs of community 
     providing physical, spiritual and emotional shelter for 
     community members. That said, during Hurricane Sandy, many of 
     the synagogues suffered severe damage and lack the resources 
     to rebuild. UJA-Federation while helping houses of worship 
     serve individuals in need does not have the resources to 
     support capital needs.
       Many houses of worship function similar to other non-
     profits by providing day care programming, schooling for 
     children and youth, senior centers and resource centers for 
     immigrants. These services are the lifeblood for communities. 
     Houses of worship have worked closely with elected officials 
     and government on city, state and federal levels to 
     coordinate disaster relief efforts to the benefit of the 
     entire community.
       The Stafford Act provides that private nonprofit entities--
     such as schools, hospitals and community centers--damaged in 
     a natural disaster may receive financial grants from FEMA to 
     repair their buildings. The Act does not list houses of 
     worship among its list of examples of nonprofits so eligible; 
     neither does the Act exclude houses of worship in any way. To 
     the extent that FEMA has provided aid to eligible programs 
     run by houses of worship, the aid has not been provided on 
     the same terms as the aid provided to other eligible 
     nonprofits. It is, therefore, entirely appropriate for FEMA's 
     aid program for private nonprofits to assist houses of 
     worship with their rebuilding needs.
       Current Supreme Court jurisprudence makes clear that 
     religious institutions may receive government financial aid 
     in the context of a broad program administered on the basis 
     of religion neutral criteria. This is why houses of worship 
     and other religious nonprofits can, and do, currently receive 
     grants from the Department of Homeland Security to improve 
     their security and the Interior Department for historic 
     preservation.
       Numerous houses of worship have suffered financially from 
     this crisis and federal funding would significantly alleviate 
     the effects of building damage and their contents.
       Accordingly, UJA-Federation supports passage of H.R. 592.
                                  ____

                                            University of Virginia


                                                School of Law,

                           Charlottesville, VA, February 12, 2013.
     Re H.R. 592.

     Hon. Chris Smith,
     Hon. Grace Meng,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Rep. Smith and Rep. Meng: I write to support your 
     efforts to include places of

[[Page 1342]]

     worship in federal relief efforts in response to Hurricane 
     Sandy. As Professor Dershowitz has already explained, there 
     is no constitutional obstacle to including places of worship 
     in this measure, which is entirely neutral and very broadly 
     applicable.
       The Supreme Court has permitted government funds to flow 
     without discrimination to broad categories of schools, 
     including religious schools (Zelman v. Simmons-Harris). And 
     when a university undertook to subsidize publications, the 
     Court has actually required government funds to flow without 
     discrimination to a broad category that included religious 
     publications (Rosenberger v. University of Virginia).
       Charitable contributions to places of worship are tax 
     deductible, without significant controversy, even though the 
     tax benefits to the donor are like a matching grant from the 
     government. These deductions have been uncontroversial 
     because they are included without discrimination in the much 
     broader category of all not-for-profit organizations devoted 
     to charitable, educational, religious, or scientific 
     purposes.
       The neutral category here is equally broad. To include 
     places of worship in disaster relief is neutral; to exclude 
     them would be affirmatively hostile. There is no 
     constitutional obstacle to including them.
           Very truly yours,
     Douglas Laycock.
                                  ____

                                                    Cambridge, MA.
     Hon. Chris Smith,
     Hon. Grace Meng,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representatives Smith and Meng: I write to express my 
     support for your legislation (H.R. 592) which will ensure 
     that churches, synagogues, mosques and other houses of 
     worship damaged in Hurricane Sandy will be eligible to 
     receive federal disaster relief funds to repair their 
     facilities on the same terms as other, similarly situated, 
     private nonprofit organizations.
       While the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment 
     properly restricts government funds flowing to religious 
     institutions, this restriction is not absolute. Under 
     precedents of the U.S. Supreme Court, religious institutions 
     may receive government aid if it is in the context of a 
     broadly available program with criteria that are neutral 
     toward religion and pose no risks of religious favoritism. 
     This is certainly the case in the context of FEMA disbursing 
     aid to repair buildings in the wake of a natural disaster.
       Once FEMA has the policy in place to aid various nonprofit 
     organizations with their building repairs, houses of worship 
     should not be excluded from receiving this aid on the same 
     terms. This is all the more appropriate given the neutral 
     role we have witnessed houses of worship play, without regard 
     to the religion of those affected, in the wake of Sandy and 
     countless previous disasters. Federal disaster relief aid is 
     a form of social insurance and a means of helping battered 
     communities get back on their feet. Churches, synagogues, 
     mosques and other houses of worship are an essential part of 
     the recovery process.
       I hope Congress will move quickly to enact your 
     legislation.
           Sincerely,

                                              Alan Dershowitz,

                               Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law,
     Harvard Law School.
                                  ____



                                    Agudath Israel of America,

                                Washington, DC, February 12, 2013.
     Re FEMA Aid and Religious Institutions.

     Hon. Christopher H. Smith,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Smith: On behalf of Agudath Israel of 
     America, a national Orthodox Jewish organization, I write to 
     congratulate you on sponsoring H.R. 592, the Federal Disaster 
     Assistance Nonprofit Fairness Act of 2013, which is intended 
     to make clear that houses of worship and other religious 
     institutions are eligible to receive FEMA disaster relief on 
     an equal footing with other eligible nonprofits. A vote on 
     the measure is scheduled for this week.
       Over the years--most recently, during Hurricane Sandy--
     Agudath Israel has been engaged in helping to ensure that 
     religious institutions obtain a full measure of FEMA aid for 
     the repair and restoration of their disaster-damaged 
     facilities. Unfortunately, due to unnecessary and unfair 
     limitations placed on how and when disaster assistance may be 
     provided specifically to religious entities--including houses 
     of worship and religious schools--this has been an ongoing 
     challenge. Without the much needed aid, they often face 
     staggering costs that make rebuilding prohibitive.
       There is no reason to treat religious entities in this 
     manner. Supreme Court decisions, as well as executive action, 
     in recent years that have allowed federal aid to go to 
     religious institutions when the assistance is made broadly 
     available and is distributed on a religion-neutral basis--as 
     the FEMA program does.
       Religious institutions are an integral part of American 
     communities and play an important role in assisting 
     devastated neighborhoods revitalize and rebuild. After 
     natural disasters, they provide both material and nonmaterial 
     help to those in need. They should be treated like other 
     vital nonprofits and receive federal assistance without 
     prejudice or discrimination.
           Sincerely yours,
     Rabbi Abba Cohen.
                                  ____

                                           The Council of the City


                                                   of New York

                                  New York, NY, February 12, 2013.
     Hon. Grace Meng,
     Congress Member, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Chris Smith,
     Congress Member, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Congress Members Meng and Smith: We are writing in 
     support of H.R. 592, the Federal Disaster Assistance 
     Nonprofit Fairness Act of 2013. This important legislation 
     will ensure that houses of worship affected by Hurricane 
     Sandy will be eligible to receive assistance from FEMA to 
     rebuild their damaged properties. At stake are the interests 
     of New Yorkers in the many neighborhoods that were hit hard 
     by Sandy.
       Churches, synagogues and mosques serve as a bedrock for our 
     citizens and our communities. They not only provide places 
     for people to worship but operate after-school programs, food 
     pantries, and other critical services. Many of the churches, 
     synagogues and mosques that were damaged by the hurricane are 
     now facing great difficulty reopening their doors.
       Although we understand that some oppose this change due to 
     the constitutional requirement of separation of church and 
     state, in this case we don't agree. Recovery from a natural 
     disaster like Hurricane Sandy isn't a matter of state 
     sponsoring religion. It's a matter of helping those in need 
     after one of the worst natural disasters our country has ever 
     seen.
       Under such extraordinary and painful circumstances, houses 
     of worship should be eligible to receive aid on the same 
     basis as all other non-profits damaged by the hurricane. We 
     applaud you for your leadership on this matter and are happy 
     to lend our support to your bill.
           Sincerely,
     Christine C. Quinn,
       Speaker.
     Peter F. Vallone, Jr.,
       Chair, Public Safety Committee.
     Fernando Cabrera,
       Council Member.

  Mr. BARLETTA. Madam Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Pennsylvania has 7\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. BARLETTA. Madam Speaker, I wish to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts).

                              {time}  1250

  Mr. PITTS. Madam Speaker, I'm pleased to speak on behalf of my friend 
Mr. Smith's sensible legislation to help rebuild communities destroyed 
by Hurricane Sandy.
  Federal assistance is intended to make communities whole; and if we 
leave behind ruined houses of worship, we're taking the soul out of 
those places. Churches, synagogues, and other houses of worship are an 
essential piece of any community. They provide shelter in storms, 
assistance to the needy, and support for families. And they provide 
essential services and support to people of all faiths.
  In previous disasters, including Katrina, the Seattle earthquake and 
the Oklahoma City bombing, the Federal Government has extended 
assistance to places of worship. Areas affected by Sandy should be no 
different.
  I'm a strong supporter of the First Amendment, and I believe that 
this assistance is completely compatible with our Constitution. 
Assistance will be distributed without prejudice against any particular 
religion. Government cannot endorse religion, but that does not mean we 
should discriminate against those of faith during a time of disaster. 
Recovery cannot be considered successful if sacred places of our 
community are left empty.

                                      Family Research Council,

                                Washington, DC, February 12, 2013.
     U.S. Representative,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of the Family Research 
     Council (FRC) and the families we represent, I am writing 
     today in strong support of H.R. 592, the ``Federal Disaster 
     Assistance Nonprofit Fairness Act of 2013'' by Reps. Chris 
     Smith (R-NJ) and Grace Meng (D-NY). H.R. 592 would ensure 
     that houses of worship would not be denied the same relief 
     offered to other entities following a major storm or 
     disaster.
       Following every disaster, natural and man made that has hit 
     the United States, our

[[Page 1343]]

     houses of worship have been there to help. Following the 
     terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, churches, relief 
     organizations and Christian organizations went into emergency 
     response mode sending help in the form of money, food, 
     supplies and volunteers. When Katrina struck Louisiana, it 
     was religious entities that helped the victims and refugees 
     despite being affected by the storm as well. This is just as 
     true with the recent Hurricane Sandy that struck our Eastern 
     seaboard.
       Houses of worship across the Northeast including many 
     faiths and denominations were among the private nonprofit 
     facilities that sustained damage. However, it was the 
     churches, synagogues, mosques, temples, and other houses of 
     worship throughout communities in New York, New Jersey, 
     Connecticut, and elsewhere that provided relief to many 
     individuals while the federal government seemingly did 
     little.
       The Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) own 
     policies allow for grants to nonprofit organizations where 
     citizens are known to gather and engage in a variety of 
     educational, enrichment, and social activities. However, it 
     is internal FEMA policy that does not believe houses of 
     worship are worthy of the same type of relief.
       H.R. 592 is consistent with recent precedents of the 
     Supreme Court of the United States and legal opinions issued 
     by the Office of Legal Counsel of the Department of Justice. 
     We strongly urge your vote for this necessary legislation.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Tom McClusky,
                                            Senior Vice President.

  Mr. RAHALL. How much time do I have remaining, please, Madam Speaker?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from West Virginia has 8\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. RAHALL. I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Scott).
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  I rise in opposition to H.R. 592, the Federal Disaster Assistance 
Nonprofit Fairness Act of 2013, which would add ``houses of worship'' 
to the list of eligible entities that can receive direct government 
assistance from FEMA. While the devastation caused to many communities 
after Hurricane Sandy is severe, and while I empathize with the desire 
to assist all who have suffered severe losses, direct government 
funding for houses of worship, whether for building or rebuilding, 
remains unconstitutional.
  The establishment clause in the First Amendment protects religious 
freedom by preventing the government from endorsing and funding any one 
religion--or all religions. And while well intended, this bill would 
violate years of precedents interpreting the establishment clause.
  In Committee for Public Education v. Nyquist, a 1973 case which 
upheld the principles of Everson v. Board of Education, from 1947, the 
U.S. Supreme Court held that no taxpayer funds could be used for 
maintenance and repair of facilities in which religious activities take 
place, explaining:

       If the State may not erect buildings in which religious 
     activities are to take place, it may not maintain such 
     buildings or renovate them when they fall into disrepair.

  Accordingly, longstanding precedent specifically holds that taxpayer 
funds cannot go to construct, rebuild or repair buildings used for 
religious activities. The type of buildings that this bill seeks to 
make eligible for direct government funding--houses of worship--are 
inherently used for religious activities and the bill would have the 
effect of unconstitutionally funneling taxpayer money for religious 
activities.
  Other cases have also upheld the precedent established in Everson v. 
Board of Education and have further clarified the application of the 
establishment clause to cases of direct religious funding. In Tilton v. 
Richardson, the Supreme Court unanimously held that a government 
subsidy used to construct buildings at colleges and universities was 
constitutional but only if the buildings were never used for religious 
activities.
  In Hunt v. McNair, 1973, the Supreme Court upheld a South Carolina 
law which established an ``educational facilities authority'' that 
issued bonds to finance construction and renovation of facilities at 
educational institutions was upheld because it included a condition 
that government-financed buildings could never be used for religious 
worship or instruction.
  All of these cases firmly establish that it is constitutionally 
impermissible for the government to provide direct subsidization of 
religious institutions for the construction, repair or maintenance of 
any building that is, or even might be, used for religious purposes. 
Houses of worship clearly fall within this category of buildings and 
based on a long line of Supreme Court cases cannot be publicly funded 
and cannot be recipients of direct grant funding.
  Now, there are constitutional ways to assist churches along with 
other community organizations. Loan programs, such as the government-
sponsored small business loan programs available to any business in a 
community, could also be used by churches. Such loan programs have been 
upheld as constitutional so long as they are both neutral on their face 
and in their application and so long as their purpose is not to aid 
religious institutions specifically.
  In Mitchell v. Helms, 2000, the Supreme Court held that loan programs 
for religious institutions are allowable in some cases. However, such 
programs are distinguishable from grants and are further 
distinguishable from the direct funding of church facilities that are, 
or may be, used for religious purposes. The opinion included that:

       Of course, we have seen special establishment clause 
     dangers when money is given to religious schools or entities 
     rather than indirectly.

  Justice O'Connor noted the Court's ``continued recognition of the 
special dangers associated with direct money grants to religious 
institutions.'' Now, therefore, H.R. 592 clearly violates the 
principles prohibiting direct government grants to religious 
institutions. It also violates any possible exemption that could be 
available under the theory of neutrality--the standards in this bill 
applicable to houses of worship are different from the standards for 
other entities.
  While I'm in favor of constitutionally permissible ways to assist 
churches that have been damaged by natural disasters, this bill clearly 
does not do so in a constitutionally permissible way; and for this 
reason, I must oppose the bill and urge my colleagues to instead work 
together to ensure that all entities affected by Hurricane Sandy can be 
assisted in an expeditious and constitutionally permissible manner.

                               American Civil Liberties Union,

                                Washington, DC, February 12, 2013.
     Re Oppose H.R. 592, the so-called Federal Disaster Assistance 
         Nonprofit Fairness Act of 2013.

       Dear Representative: On behalf of the American Civil 
     Liberties Union (ACLU), a non-partisan organization with more 
     than a half million members, countless additional activists 
     and supporters, and 53 affiliates nationwide dedicated to the 
     principles of individual liberty and justice embodied in the 
     U.S. Constitution, we are writing to urge you to vote ``No'' 
     on H.R. 592 when the measure comes up on the suspension 
     calendar on Wednesday. This bill, which would authorize FEMA 
     to provide houses of worship with direct grants of taxpayer 
     funds, would flout longstanding constitutional law and harm 
     religious liberty.
       The Supreme Court has recognized that the First Amendment 
     was devised to prohibit ``[t]he imposition of taxes to . . . 
     build and maintain churches and church property,'' because 
     such funding is an affront to ``individual religious 
     liberty.'' Accordingly, longstanding Court precedent 
     specifically holds that taxpayer funds cannot go to 
     construct, rebuild, or repair buildings used for religious 
     activities--which clearly includes houses of worship. The 
     Court has never retreated from this bedrock Establishment 
     Clause principle. In fact, the Supreme Court continues to 
     recognize ``special Establishment Clause dangers where the 
     government makes direct money payments to sectarian 
     institutions,'' which is exactly the use of taxpayer funds at 
     issue here. And in a variety of bills over the past several 
     decades, Congress has prohibited the use of funds to 
     construct buildings used for religious purposes. Indeed, in 
     the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, Congress again 
     recognized this prohibition and limited green construction 
     funding to buildings in which secular activities take place.
       Under current policy, houses of worship may obtain 
     government loans--just not direct grants--to rebuild. All 
     for-profit businesses and non-profit organizations--including 
     houses of worship--are eligible to participate in the SBA 
     Disaster Loan Program. Houses of worship, therefore, are not 
     without government help to rebuild. Moreover, houses of 
     worship are not the only non-profit

[[Page 1344]]

     facilities that would otherwise be ineligible for direct 
     grants for reconstruction. Only non-profits with facilities 
     used for emergency, essential, and government-like activities 
     are eligible for grants. Thus, FEMA grants are not the same 
     as ``general government services,'' like police or fire, 
     which are available to every business, nonprofit, private 
     residence, and house of worship. To say that the policy is 
     unfair or that houses of worship are treated unequally--
     singled out among all other non-profits--therefore, is 
     untrue.
       Although houses of worship may serve a central role in the 
     lives of their congregants, it is impossible to see how the 
     prayer and worship conducted in these sacred buildings is 
     equivalent to the essential, government-like activities in 
     facilities that would be eligible for government grants. It 
     would be a dangerous precedent to equate religious worship 
     with the vital services government provides. And while houses 
     of worship may host educational and social activities, only 
     community centers that are open to the general public on a 
     nondiscriminatory basis, serve the entire community (not just 
     congregants), and are used for a range of different 
     activities are eligible for a FEMA grant.
       In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, the Bush 
     administration directed that houses of worship would remain 
     ineligible for FEMA funds. The Bush administration respected 
     longstanding Supreme Court precedent and continued to adhere 
     to this constitutional requirement. Churches, synagogues, 
     mosques, and temples were damaged in Katrina just as they 
     were in Sandy. As an organization whose offices were closed 
     for weeks as a result, we very much understand the serious 
     difficulties faced by people who were impacted by superstorm 
     Sandy--so many of our friends and colleagues in New York and 
     New Jersey continue to deal with its aftermath. But, the harm 
     would be compounded if this misfortune were used as a reason 
     to erode fundamental religious liberty protections enshrined 
     in the First Amendment.
       Religious liberty is one of our nation's most fundamental 
     values and it starts from the principle that religion thrives 
     when both religion and government are safeguarded from the 
     undue influences of the other. Barring federal funds for the 
     rebuilding of houses of worship is not discriminatory or 
     hostile to religion--it is one of the most fundamental ways 
     we have to protect and defend religious liberty for all. 
     Indeed, the Establishment Clause protects religious freedom 
     by preventing the government from endorsing and funding any 
     one religion--or all religions.
       Because H.R. 592 would flout longstanding constitutional 
     law and harm religious liberty, we urge you to oppose the 
     measure and vote ``No'' when the measure comes up on the 
     suspension calendar on Wednesday.
       Please contact Legislative Counsel Dena Sher if you have 
     questions or comments about our concerns.
           Sincerely,
     Laura W. Murphy,
       Director, Washington Legislative Office.
     Dena Sher,
       Legislative Counsel.
                                  ____

                                              Americans United for


                               Separation of Church and State,

                                Washington, DC, February 12, 2013.
     Re Oppose H.R. 592, the Federal Disaster Assistance Nonprofit 
         Fairness Act of 2013.

       Dear Representative: Americans United writes to express our 
     strong opposition to H.R. 592, the Federal Disaster 
     Assistance Nonprofit Fairness Act of 2013, which will be 
     debated on the House floor tomorrow, Wednesday, February 13. 
     The sole purpose of the bill is to authorize the Federal 
     Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to issue direct grants to 
     fund the rebuilding of houses of worship. We oppose this bill 
     because such funding would violate the Constitution and 
     represent a significant shift in longstanding federal policy. 
     Indeed, the George W. Bush Administration followed the 
     policies of the Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and Clinton 
     Administrations when it disallowed FEMA grants for the 
     rebuilding of ``houses of worship'' after Hurricane Katrina.
       As someone who was born and raised at the Jersey shore and 
     whose parents are still making repairs to their home and 
     cleaning up after the storm, I certainly appreciate the needs 
     the community faces. But, I also recognize that the 
     Constitution places certain limits on the government's 
     ability to fund houses of worship. The Tilton/Nyquist line of 
     Supreme Court cases firmly establish that it is 
     constitutionally impermissible for the government to provide 
     aid for the construction and repair of houses of worship. In 
     accordance with these cases, ``the State may not erect 
     buildings in which religious activities are to take place'' 
     and ``it may not maintain such buildings or renovate them 
     when they fall into disrepair.''
       The rule set down by the Supreme Court in these cases 
     remains controlling law as neither they, nor the principle 
     behind them, have ever been overruled in any subsequent 
     Supreme Court decision. To the contrary, in its more recent 
     cases examining the constitutionality of government aid to 
     religious institutions, the Supreme Court has maintained that 
     direct money grants create ``special Establishment Clause 
     dangers.'' Congress too just recently recognized the 
     applicability of this precedent when it limited green 
     construction funding in the Recovery Act to buildings in 
     which secular activities take place.
       Furthermore, proponents' claims that Tilton and Nyquist are 
     inapplicable and that Congress should instead look to free 
     speech forum and in-kind aid cases must be rejected. The 
     Supreme Court has squarely held that free speech forum cases 
     are inapposite to federal aid cases and that money grants are 
     distinct from in-kind funds.
       It is also important to note that houses of worship, like 
     most non-profit organizations and businesses, are eligible 
     for government loans--just not direct grants--to rebuild. In 
     addition, houses of worship are not the only nonprofits that 
     are ineligible for direct grants for reconstruction. To the 
     contrary, only nonprofits with facilities that are used for 
     emergency, essential, and government-like activities are 
     eligible. And, eligible facilities, such as community 
     centers, must also be open to the general public. To say that 
     houses of worship are singled out among all other non-
     profits, therefore, is untrue. It is similarly inaccurate to 
     claim that FEMA grants should be extended to houses of 
     worship because the grants are akin to ``general government 
     services,'' such as police or fire. FEMA grants--unlike 
     general government services--are not available to every 
     business, nonprofit, private residence, or other building.
       Although it may not seem easy in times of tragedy to tell 
     those seeking aid that they are ineligible for government 
     grants, the bar on the government rebuilding of houses of 
     worship is an important limitation that exists to protect 
     religious freedom for all. It upholds the fundamental 
     principle that no taxpayer should be forced to fund a 
     religion with whom he or she disagrees and that the 
     government should never support building (``establishing'' 
     religion in its most basic form) religious sanctuaries. And, 
     it protects against the government favoring, or creating the 
     perception of favoritism for, certain religions over others.
       Houses of worship are special in our country and our 
     constitution. They are both the place where worship takes 
     place, and, adorned with religious symbols and iconography, 
     are themselves expressions of worship. Accordingly, they are 
     accorded special protections--exemptions, accommodations, and 
     tax deductions. Restrictions on government funding of 
     religion is also a special protection--they protect the 
     conscience of the individual taxpayer, safeguard the autonomy 
     of the religious institution, and ensure an equal playing 
     field for all religions by prohibiting the government from 
     playing favorites.
       For the reasons listed above, we urge you to oppose H.R. 
     592.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Maggie Garrett,
     Legislative Director.
                                  ____



                                    Hindu American Federation,

                                Washington, DC, February 12, 2013.
     Re Please Oppose H.R. 592, the Federal Disaster Assistance 
         Nonprofit Fairness Act of 2013.

       Dear Representative, We at the Hindu American Foundation 
     (HAF), a 501(c)(3) advocacy organization, write to express 
     our deep concern about H.R. 592, the Federal Disaster 
     Assistance Nonprofit Fairness Act of 2013, sponsored by 
     Congressman Chris Smith (R-NJ). The act provides for direct 
     grants to fund the rebuilding of ``houses of worship.'' We 
     believe such funding violates the Constitution and represents 
     a significant shift in longstanding federal policy. As such, 
     HAF opposes H.R. 592.
       We believe constitutionally problematic because the Supreme 
     Court has long held that taxpayer funds cannot go to 
     construct, rebuild, or repair buildings used for religious 
     activities, including houses of worship without invoking 
     ``special Establishment Clause dangers.'' In fact, the 
     controlling law proscribing such funding was set down by the 
     Supreme Court in three major cases--Tilton v. Richardson, 
     Hunt v. McNair, and Committee for Public Education v. 
     Nyquist. Even Congress has recognized the applicability of 
     this precedent when green construction funding in the 
     Recovery Act was limited to buildings in which secular 
     activities take place. Past administrations, from George W. 
     Bush to Ronald Reagan, have also all recognized that direct 
     financial support to build and reconstruct houses of worship 
     raises serious Establishment Clause concerns.
       There are some government grant programs that benefit other 
     non-profit facilities, such as the Stafford Act. But these 
     grants are limited to only ``educational, utility, 
     irrigation, emergency, medical, rehabilitation, and temporary 
     or permanent custodial'' facilities,'' and ``any private 
     nonprofit facility that provides essential services of a 
     governmental nature to the general public.'' Even among 
     potentially eligible facilities, there are prohibitions on 
     funding structures used for religious purposes. That houses 
     of worship are amongst non-profit facilities which sustain 
     damage and destruction wrought by natural disasters, is a sad 
     reality. However, providing direct funding for rebuilding, as 
     Sec 3 of H.R. 592 seeks to do,

[[Page 1345]]

     would be unprecedented, would unnecessarily entwine 
     government with religion, and ultimately would threaten the 
     autonomy of religion.
       This is not to suggest that houses of worship are not 
     deserving or in need of assistance after a natural disaster; 
     only that direct federal funding should not be granted for 
     such uses. There are many government loans, which houses of 
     worship could apply for should they choose. The SBA Disaster 
     Loan Program, for example, provides loans of up to $2 million 
     to cover losses that are not fully covered by insurance, and 
     they can be used to reconstruct or repair property damaged 
     after a disaster.
       Since its inception, the Hindu American Foundation (HAF) 
     has made legal advocacy one of its main areas of focus. From 
     issues of religious accommodation and religious 
     discrimination to defending fundamental constitutional rights 
     of free exercise and the separation of church and state, HAF 
     has educated Americans at large about various aspects of 
     Hindu belief and practice in the context of religious 
     liberty, either as a party to the case or an amicus curiae. 
     These have included a successful suit against the State of 
     South Carolina over a special Christian license plate 
     mandated by the state's legislature, and amicus briefs filed 
     before the U.S. Supreme Court in cases involving the public 
     display of the Ten Commandments and legislative prayer in 
     which the county allowed only those prayers which invoked a 
     Judeo-Christian deity.
       HAF seeks to be a resource for your office with regards to 
     matters involving the Establishment Clause. Please feel free 
     to reach out us should you need further clarification to the 
     facts presented in this letter.
           Respectfully,
                                            Suhag A. Shukla, Esq.,
     Executive Director/Legal Counsel.
                                  ____

                                           Baptist Joint Committee


                                        for Religious Liberty,

                                Washington, DC, February 12, 2013.
     Re Oppose H.R. 592, the Federal Disaster Assistance Nonprofit 
         Fairness Act of 2013.

       Dear Representative: On behalf of the Baptist Joint 
     Committee for Religious Liberty (BJC), a 76-year-old agency 
     dedicated to defending and extending religious freedom for 
     all, I am writing to express our opposition to H.R. 592, to 
     be considered on the floor tomorrow, Wednesday, February 13. 
     The BJC, supported by fifteen national Baptist bodies and 
     hundreds of congregations and individual supporters, believes 
     religion is best served when it is neither advanced nor 
     inhibited by government. H.R. 592, which would authorize FEMA 
     to provide houses of worship with direct grants of taxpayer 
     funds, would flout well-established constitutional principles 
     and harm religious liberty.
       The First Amendment's Establishment Clause prohibits 
     government from providing outright grants or similar 
     financial support to churches and other houses of worship. 
     Supreme Court jurisprudence has been clear on this point, 
     having repeatedly reaffirmed the principle that direct 
     monetary contributions of taxpayer dollars to religious 
     institutions create ``special Establishment Clause dangers.'' 
     Simply put, we do not allow taxpayer dollars to build 
     churches; we likewise should not allow taxpayer dollars to be 
     used to rebuild churches.
       The damage wrought upon the Northeast by Hurricane Sandy is 
     an instance in which our moral and humanitarian instincts may 
     seem at odds with the constitutional requirement of no-
     establishment. Happily, we have ways to empathize with and 
     provide aid to churches and other religious organizations 
     damaged by the terrible storm. Repairs may be financed by 
     denominational efforts, private foundation grants and 
     contributions of the faithful. Additionally, insurance 
     proceeds are available for rebuilding efforts, and churches 
     and houses of worship may be eligible to obtain low-interest, 
     long-term loans under the Small Business Administration 
     disaster loan program for damages not covered by insurance.
       Natural disasters and other times of crisis serve as a call 
     to action for citizens of faith. When we answer that call 
     using voluntary, private donations, we reflect the very best 
     of America's longstanding commitment to religious liberty for 
     all. Public funding of houses of worship threatens to 
     undermine religious autonomy and impermissibly involve 
     government in the private affairs of religious bodies. It is 
     simply not a good idea--however our heartstrings are tugged--
     to give churches access to the public till. H.R. 592 would do 
     just that, and we therefore urge you to oppose it.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Nan Futrell,
                                                BJC Staff Counsel.

  Mr. RAHALL. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I absolutely agree with my colleagues 
of the necessity of an absolute firewall around the protection of the 
First Amendment. And I do believe that Members understand the sacred 
aspect of freedom of religion and the separation of church and state.
  But I rise today to support H.R. 592, and I support it so that it can 
be considered by the Senate and that we can reinforce the distinctive 
separation between church and state. But coming from Hurricane, if you 
will, Valley, coming from the gulf, living through Hurricane Rita and 
Hurricane Katrina, the pain I saw that places of worship, of any kind, 
were devastated, the members are taxpayers. And for all that we could 
do, we could never get those places to be restored.
  The small business loan program does not work because many of our 
churches are just that, they give their money to the poor. They are not 
rich institutions. That is the bulk of places of worship no matter what 
your faith may happen to be.
  And as the Federal Emergency Management Agency does, in fact, support 
nonprofits, I would argue to the authors of this bill whether or not 
they would be open to ensure that the funding is specifically for the 
devastation that occurred on that specific natural disaster, that there 
was a time limit, that there were specific items of which the church--
or the place of worship, let me be general--could utilize it for.
  I come to the floor because I have lived the pain of pastors, I have 
lived the pain of rabbis, imams and priests who have suffered the 
devastation of their faith. It is not a fault of their own.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. RAHALL. Madam Speaker, the gentlewoman is making such a 
persuasive case, I yield her all the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman is recognized for 1\1/2\ 
minutes.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the distinguished gentleman for his 
kindness. Let me thank the ranking member very much.
  I think we can make this work. And I also want to just mention an 
anecdotal story: when we had Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, the places of 
worship opened their doors to the surviving members out of Louisiana or 
survivors out of Louisiana and just opened their doors.

                              {time}  1300

  They had leaking roofs. They were damaged. But in Texas, they opened 
their doors. We took a quarter of a million, and they opened their 
doors. They put cots up, and they fed them. All of those items could 
not be reimbursed.
  We saw places of worship--no matter what their faith--literally shut 
down. They just could not survive because they had given their all with 
their leaking roof, their non-resources to give food in a place that 
these people could stay.
  So in this instance, having walked through a number of disasters, 
from the tragedy of 9/11, a heinous manmade disaster, to every 
hurricane that we've had, including the tsunami way across the ocean, 
to see what a natural disaster can do and to preclude these places who 
can legitimately document--I would even suggest that it be on a 
reimbursement form. But we can work together so that we can document 
that what these dollars are used for will be used for the restoration 
of the physical plant that houses or allows those who are Americans, 
who pay taxes, and are contributing to this Nation.
  I ask my colleagues to consider H.R. 592 and how we can make it 
better so that it can go forward and help the places of worship.
  Mr. BARLETTA. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I thank my good friend for yielding, and I 
thank the gentlelady from Texas for her very strong and passionate 
remarks.
  I especially again want to thank Congresswoman Meng for her excellent 
statement and her support and cosponsorship of this important bill.
  Let me just say a couple of points to my colleagues. First of all, I 
will be submitting for the Record a very fine analysis by the Becket 
Fund for Religious Liberty, an outstanding public interest law firm 
that has done yeoman's work throughout the country on religious 
liberty.
  It's a statement to us as Members of Congress by its leaders. It 
points out

[[Page 1346]]

first not only does the Establishment Clause provide no support for 
FEMA's practice of discriminating against houses of worship, that 
practice itself runs afoul of the First Amendment by discriminating 
against religious institutions.
  Second, the bill you have proposed will not lead to Establishment 
Clause violations because no act of Congress can purport to repeal the 
First Amendment. Arguments to the contrary are constitutional 
scaremongering.
  Eric Rassbach and Daniel Blomberg have authored again a very 
important contribution to this debate.
  Madam Speaker--and Ms. Meng mentioned this earlier and it bears 
repeating--in letters of support for H.R. 592, Harvard Professor Alan 
Dershowitz concludes:

       Religious institutions may receive government aid if it is 
     in the context of a broadly available program with criteria 
     that are neutral toward religion and pose no risk of 
     religious favoritism.

  He states further:

       Once FEMA has a policy in place to aid various nonprofit 
     organizations with their building repairs, houses of worship 
     should not be excluded from receiving this aid on the same 
     terms.

  This is all the more appropriate given the neutral role that we have 
witnessed houses of worship play without regard to religion to those 
afflicted in the wake of Sandy and countless previous disasters.
  Federal disaster relief aid in the form of social insurance and other 
means of helping battered communities get them back on their feet. 
Churches, synagogues, mosques, and other houses of worship are an 
essential part of the recovery process.
  Madam Speaker, religious liberty scholar Professor Douglas Laycock of 
the University of Virginia School of Law wrote a letter endorsing H.R. 
592 and said in part:

       Charitable contributions to places of worship are tax 
     deductible without significant controversy, though the tax 
     benefits to the donor are like a matching grant from the 
     government. These deductions have been uncontroversial 
     because they're included without discrimination in a much 
     broader category of all not-for-profit organizations devoted 
     to charitable, educational, religious, or scientific 
     purposes. The neutral category here is equally broad; to 
     include places of worship in disaster relief is neutral. To 
     exclude them would be affirmatively hostile. There is no 
     constitutional obstacle to including them.

  That is according to Professor Laycock of the University of Virginia 
School of Law, a preeminent expert on these matters.
  Madam Speaker, houses of worship are an integral, irreplaceable part 
of the contour and fabric of our communities. Like any other private 
nonprofit organization, their recovery is essential to the recovery of 
neighborhoods, towns, and States. They should not be excluded from 
Federal programs that ensure community recovery, especially since they 
so selflessly provide assistance to all in need.
  In conclusion, Madam Speaker, this legislation has been backed by a 
number of important organizations, including the Union of Orthodox 
Jewish Congregations of America, the United States Conference of 
Catholic Bishops, the National Association of Evangelicals.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. BARLETTA. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Just to underscore for my colleagues the 
broad support that this has, the American Jewish Committee has also 
supported it, the Family Research Council. As I said earlier, the 
Becket Fund and so many others have written very extensive remarks in 
favor of it.
  I do hope there will be very strong support for this important 
legislation. It's a matter of inclusion to stop current-day, present-
day exclusion.

                               Memorandum

     To: Interested Parties
     From: Nathan J. Diament, Exec. Director of Public Policy
     Date: February 6, 2013
     Re Legal Analysis Supporting Including Houses of Worship, 
         Among Private Nonprofit Facilities, Eligible for Federal 
         Disaster Relief Funds Administered by FEMA Under the 
         Stafford Act.

Conclusion: The Establishment Clause does not bar the award of federal 
 grants to houses of worship for the repair of facilities damaged in a 
   natural disaster, in the context of the Stafford Act's ``private 
                   nonprofit facility'' aid program.

                                   I.


                             A. Background

       The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency 
     Assistance Act provides that the Federal Emergency Management 
     Agency (FEMA) may provide funding, through its Public 
     Assistance program, to restore facilities of certain private 
     nonprofit organizations which were damaged in a natural 
     disaster. 42 U.S.C. 5122, 5172.
       The private nonprofit organizations eligible for such aid 
     include those which provide ``critical services'' (ie: 
     utilities, hospitals and schools) and those which provide 
     ``essential services'' (ie: museums, community centers, 
     libraries, day care centers and more). The Stafford Act does 
     not explicitly include or exclude houses of worship from 
     eligibility for public assistance. In its regulations and 
     policies, FEMA has imposed restrictions on eligibility for 
     aid to houses of worship. FEMA excludes facilities whose 
     ``primary use'' is religious from eligibility.
       It is worth noting an illustrative example of FEMA's 
     unequal policy. One eligible category of nonprofit providing 
     ``essential services'' is community centers. FEMA policy 
     defines these entities as ``a gathering place for a variety 
     of social, educational . . . and community service 
     activities.'' FEMA policy describes a broad array of 
     activities that fit this definition--but excludes a facility 
     that hosts the very same activities if that facility and 
     those activities are in a house of worship in a religious 
     context.
       FEMA's exclusion of houses of worship from eligibility 
     cannot be exclusively on constitutional grounds because, as 
     noted, FEMA awards aid to religious entities that operate 
     what it deems to be eligible nonprofits. FEMA's exclusion is 
     also not on statutory grounds as the statute does not 
     explicitly exclude houses of worship.
       FEMA's policy is unfair, discriminatory and not required by 
     constitutional jurisprudence.


                  B. Possible Constitutional Concerns

       Those who would contend that providing government funds for 
     the repair of houses of worship is barred by the Constitution 
     would argue that a two-part rule governs direct financial 
     support of religious institutions. First, that direct aid may 
     be given to ``non-pervasively sectarian'' religious 
     institutions, provided the aid is not used to fund 
     specifically religious activity and is channeled exclusively 
     to secular functions. Second, that there are institutions--
     ``pervasively sectarian'' institutions--in which ``religion 
     is so pervasive that a substantial portion of [their] 
     functions are subsumed in the religious mission.'' (Hunt v. 
     McNair, 413 U.S. 734, 743 (1973)). The opponents would 
     further contend that, because houses of worship would qualify 
     as ``pervasively sectarian'' institutions, in which the 
     ``secular and religious functions'' are ``inextricably 
     intertwined,'' the government may not provide direct aid to 
     them ``with or without restrictions,'' because the aid will 
     inevitably end up advancing religion. (Tilton v. Richardson, 
     403 U.S. 672 (1971), and Committee for Public Educ. v. 
     Nyquist, 413 U.S. 756 (1973)).
       In addition, the opponents of fair inclusion of houses of 
     worship would contend that to the extent that it is possible 
     to distinguish between the religious and secular, any 
     governmental effort to separate out the facilities and 
     functions that engage in exclusively religious activities 
     could well involve the kind of monitoring of a religious 
     entity otherwise prohibited by the Establishment Clause. 
     Opponents would again cite Tilton and Nyquist, which imposed 
     certain restrictions on the government's provision of 
     construction, maintenance, and repair aid to properties used 
     by religious educational institutions.
       As the following discussion will demonstrate however, in 
     the context of disaster response and relief, these 
     contentions are inconsistent with current constitutional 
     jurisprudence.

                                  II.


                 A. General Constitutional Perspective

       A proper reading of Supreme Court decisions and 
     jurisprudence developed in the decades since Tilton and 
     Nyquist clearly lead to the conclusion that providing federal 
     grants to houses of worship, among many types of nonprofits, 
     as part of a broad disaster relief program, is 
     constitutionally acceptable. Most notably, the Supreme 
     Court's ruling in Mitchell v. Helms, 550 U.S. 793 (2000), 
     explicitly undermined the continued application of Tilton and 
     Nyquist.
       First, Congress may legitimately conclude that the federal 
     government has a secular interest in aiding a community's 
     recovery from a natural disaster, that repairing damaged 
     private nonprofit facilities is an essential component of 
     that recovery and that houses of worship are among those 
     nonprofit facilities which should be aided.
       Second, the public assistance grants are not an isolated 
     initiative designed to aid religion--it is but one part of a 
     much larger legislative effort to assist a disaster stricken 
     region with its recovery. In this critical way, it is quite 
     distinguishable from the targeted

[[Page 1347]]

     aid programs considered in the Tilton and Nyquist cases.
       Third, the aid to houses of worship is within the context 
     of the Stafford Act's broader provision of aid to nonprofit 
     entities. In this respect, inclusion of houses of worship is 
     consistent with many existing and past examples of inclusion 
     of religious institutions in broader infrastructure 
     improvement and federal aid programs. Notable examples of 
     such programs include:
       i) the Interior Department's ``Save America's Treasures'' 
     program provides grants for the repair and maintenance of 
     historically significant properties, which have included the 
     Boston's Old North Church and Newport's Touro Synagogue;
       ii) FEMA awards disaster relief grants to repair facilities 
     under the Stafford Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121-5206, damaged in 
     natural disasters to religious institutions including, for 
     example, a Seattle parochial school;
       iii) following the Oklahoma City bombing, Congress 
     authorized FEMA and other federal agencies to provide 
     disaster relief funds to houses of worship on the same basis 
     as all other nonprofit facilities;
       iv) the California Missions Preservation Act, P.L. 108-420 
     (Nov. 30, 2004), authorizes federal grants for restoring 
     colonial era missions in California, many of which are still 
     used for religious worship;
       v) Congress has overwhelmingly authorized grants for 
     security upgrades for nonprofits, including houses of 
     worship, under the Department of Homeland Security's UASI 
     program;
       and many other examples abound.
       Therefore, a federal disaster relief program which includes 
     houses of worship among its eligible grantees cannot be 
     materially distinguished from other aid programs that are 
     constitutional under longstanding precedents establishing 
     that religious institutions are fully entitled to receive 
     widely available government benefits and services.


  B. Disaster Relief and Repair Grants Are ``General Gov't Services''

       It is highly significant that eligibility for FEMA's public 
     assistance grants extends to a broad class of beneficiaries, 
     defined without reference to religion and including both 
     public and private institutions. Ever since 1947, the year of 
     its decision in Everson, the Supreme Court has indicated that 
     religious institutions are entitled to receive ``general 
     government services'' made available on the basis of neutral 
     criteria. 330 U.S. at 17. Everson held that the Establishment 
     Clause does not bar students attending religious schools from 
     receiving generally available school busing services provided 
     by the government. In reaching its decision, the Court 
     explained that even if the evenhanded provision of busing 
     services increased the likelihood that some parents would 
     send their children to religious schools, the same could be 
     said of other ``general state law benefits'' that were even 
     more clearly constitutional because they were equally 
     available to all citizens and far removed from the religious 
     function of the school. Id. at 16. As examples, the Court 
     cited ``such general government services as ordinary police 
     and fire protection, connections for sewage disposal, public 
     highways and sidewalks,'' concluding:

       ``cutting off church schools from these services, so 
     separate and so indisputably marked off from the religious 
     function, would make it far more difficult for the schools to 
     operate. But such is obviously not the purpose of the First 
     Amendment. That Amendment requires the state to be a neutral 
     in its relations with groups of religious believers and non-
     believers; it does not require the state to be their 
     adversary. State power is no more to be used so as to 
     handicap religions, than it is to favor them.''

     Id. at 17-18. See also id. at 16 (``[The state] cannot 
     exclude individual Catholics, Lutherans, Mohammedans, 
     Baptists, Jews, Methodists, Non-believers, Presbyterians, or 
     the members of any other faith, because of their faith, or 
     lack of it, from receiving the benefits of public welfare 
     legislation. . . . [W]e must be careful, in protecting the 
     citizens of New Jersey against state-established churches, to 
     be sure that we do not inadvertently prohibit New Jersey from 
     extending its general state law benefits to all its citizens 
     without regard to their religious belief.'').
       Federal disaster aid is analogous to aid that qualifies as 
     ``general government services'' approved by the Court in 
     Everson.
       As the Supreme Court explained in Widmar v. Vincent, 454 
     U.S. 263, 274 (1981), ``[t]he provision of benefits to so 
     broad a spectrum of groups is an important index of secular 
     effect.'' Accord Zobrest v. Catalina Foothills Sch. Dist., 
     509 U.S. 1, 8 (1993) (``we have consistently held that 
     government programs that neutrally provide benefits to a 
     broad class of citizens defined without reference to religion 
     are not readily subject to an Establishment Clause 
     challenge''); Board of Educ. of Kiryas Joel Village Sch. 
     Dist. v. Grumet, 512 U.S. 687, 704 (1994) (``we have 
     frequently relied explicitly on the general availability of 
     any benefit provided religious groups or individuals in 
     turning aside Establishment Clause challenges''). Thus, the 
     aid here is closely analogous to the provision of ``general'' 
     government aid like that sanctioned by the Court in Everson. 
     See also Church Arson Prevention Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 
     104-155, 110 Stat. 1392 (creating a program that provides 
     low-income reconstruction loans to nonprofit organizations, 
     including churches, destroyed by arson motivated by racial or 
     religious animus). As Justice Brennan expressed the point in 
     Texas Monthly: ``Insofar as [a] subsidy is conferred upon a 
     wide array of nonsectarian groups as well as religious 
     organizations in pursuit of some legitimate secular end, the 
     fact that religious groups benefit incidentally does not 
     deprive the subsidy of the secular purpose and primary effect 
     mandated by the Establishment Clause.'' 489 U.S. at 14-15 
     (plurality opinion) (footnote omitted).
       When viewed in the context of disaster response, Walz v. 
     Tax Commission, 397 U.S. 664 (1970), strongly supports this 
     conclusion. There the Court rejected an Establishment Clause 
     challenge to a property tax exemption made available not only 
     to churches, but to several other classes of nonprofit 
     institutions, such as ``hospitals, libraries, playgrounds, 
     scientific, professional, historical, and patriotic groups.'' 
     Id. at 673; see also id. at 667 n.1. In upholding the tax 
     exemption, the Court relied in part upon its breadth: the 
     exemption did ``not single[] out one particular church or 
     religious group or even churches as such,'' but rather was 
     available to ``a broad class of property owned by nonprofit, 
     quasi-public corporations.'' Id. at 673. As the Court stated 
     in reference to Everson, if ``buses can be provided to carry 
     and policemen to protect church school pupils, we fail to see 
     how a broader range of police and fire protection given 
     equally to all churches, along with nonprofit hospitals, art 
     galleries, and libraries receiving the same tax exemption, is 
     different for purposes of the Religion Clauses.'' Id. at 671. 
     Thus, just as a broad category of beneficiary institutions 
     was sufficient to sustain the inclusion of religious 
     institutions in the tax benefit in Walz--which, after all, 
     substantially benefitted churches' property--the breadth of 
     programs funded in the Stafford Act weighs heavily in favor 
     of the constitutionality of including houses of worship.


            C. No Risk of Perceived Endorsement of Religion

       No reasonable observer would perceive an endorsement of 
     religion in the government's evenhanded provision of funds to 
     repair a house of worship damaged in a natural disaster such 
     as Hurricane Sandy. See Mitchell, 530 U.S. at 842-44 
     (O'Connor, J., concurring in judgment). While it is true that 
     in a narrower direct aid program one could argue that if a 
     school ``uses the aid to inculcate religion in its students, 
     it is reasonable to say that the government has communicated 
     a message of endorsement,'' Id. at 843, that is not the case 
     in the context of this broader disaster relief effort. A 
     presumption of governmental endorsement is not present where 
     the aid is provided to a wide array of public and private 
     entities for the sake of recovery from a disaster and where 
     the government is indifferent to the religious or secular 
     orientation of the facility's function. Moreover, we think a 
     reasonable observer--one informed about the purpose, history, 
     and breadth of the program, see Zelman, 536 U.S. at 655--
     would understand that the federal government is not paying 
     for religious activity; it is paying to help devastated 
     communities recover. That is not an endorsement of religion.


                  D. Distinct from Tilton and Nyquist

       Opponents will contend that the Supreme Court's decisions 
     in Tilton and Nyquist, which involved construction and 
     maintenance aid to religious schools, should be read to 
     support the conclusion that FEMA aid to houses of worship 
     violates the Establishment Clause. We disagree.
       In Tilton, the Court sustained the provision of federal 
     construction grants to religious colleges insofar as the 
     program at issue barred aid to facilities ``used for 
     sectarian instruction or as a place for religious worship,'' 
     but invalidated such grants insofar as the program permitted 
     funding the construction of buildings that might someday be 
     used for such activities. See 403 U.S. at 675, 683 (plurality 
     opinion) (citations omitted). The Court concluded that a 20-
     year limitation on the statutory prohibition on the use of 
     buildings for religious activities was insufficient because 
     ``[i]f, at the end of 20 years, the building is, for example, 
     converted into a chapel or otherwise used to promote 
     religious interests, the original federal grant will in part 
     have the effect of advancing religion.'' Id. The Court 
     therefore held that the religious use restriction had to run 
     indefinitely. Id.
       Similarly, Nyquist involved a program that provided 
     maintenance and repair grants to religious elementary and 
     secondary schools. The grants at issue were limited to 50 
     percent of the amount spent for comparable expenses in the 
     public schools, but the Court invalidated the program. ``No 
     attempt [was] made to restrict payments to those expenditures 
     related to the upkeep of facilities used exclusively for 
     secular purposes,'' the Court stated, and the 50 percent 
     restriction would not necessarily prevent rehabilitation of 
     entire religious schools. 413 U.S. at 774. The Court thus 
     concluded that such aid would have the effect of advancing 
     religion, in violation of Lemon's second prong. Id.
       These holdings have been severely undermined and limited. 
     See Mitchell v. Helms, 530 U.S. 793,

[[Page 1348]]

     856-57 (2000) (O'Connor, J., concurring in judgment).
       A broad reading and application of Tilton and Nyquist does 
     not apply here for several reasons. First, Tilton and Nyquist 
     are in considerable tension with a more recent line of cases 
     holding that the Free Speech Clause does not permit the 
     government to deny religious groups equal access to the 
     government's own property, even where such groups seek to use 
     the property ``for purposes of religious worship or religious 
     teaching.'' Widmar v. Vincent, 454 U.S. 263, 265 (1981). See 
     Lamb's Chapel v. Center Moriches Sch. Dist., 508 U.S. 384, 
     394 (1993); Capital Square Rev. & Advisory Bd. v. Pinette, 
     515 U.S. 753 (1995); Good News Club v. Milford Central Sch., 
     533 U.S. 98 (2001); see also Westside Community Bd. of Educ. 
     v. Metgens, 496 U.S. 226 (1990). Providing religious groups 
     with access to property is a form of direct aid, and allowing 
     such groups to conduct worship services plainly ``advances'' 
     their religious mission. The Court, however, has consistently 
     refused to permit (let alone require) state officials to deny 
     churches equal access to public school property on the basis 
     of these officials' argument ``that to permit its property to 
     be used for religious purposes would be an establishment of 
     religion.'' Lamb's Chapel, 508 U.S. at 394.
       The Supreme Court's Establishment Clause jurisprudence has 
     greatly evolved since the Court's decisions in Tilton and 
     Nyquist were rendered, and many of the legal principles that 
     supported those decisions have been discarded. In 1985, for 
     example, the Court struck down programs under which the 
     government provided religious and other schools with teachers 
     who offered remedial instruction to disadvantaged children. 
     See Aguilar v. Felton, 473 U.S. 402 (1985); School Dist. of 
     Grand Rapids v. Ball, 473 U.S. 373 (1985). The Court reasoned 
     that teachers in the program might ``become involved in 
     intentionally or inadvertently inculcating particular 
     religious tenets or beliefs.'' Ball, 473 U.S. at 385. In 
     Agostini v. Felton, 521 U.S. 203, 223 (1997), however, the 
     Court overruled Aguilar and substantial portions of Ball, 
     explaining that the Court had abandoned the presumption that 
     placing public employees in religious schools ``inevitably 
     results in the impermissible effect of state-sponsored 
     indoctrination or constitutes a symbolic union between 
     government and religion.'' Similarly, in the 1970s the Court 
     held that the state could not provide any ``substantial aid 
     to the educational function of [religious] schools'' 
     reasoning that such aid ``necessarily results in aid to the 
     sectarian school enterprise as a whole.'' Meek v. Pittenger, 
     421 U.S. 349, 366 (1975); accord Wolman v. Walter, 433 U.S. 
     229, 250 (1977). In Agostini and Mitchell, however, the Court 
     expressly abandoned that view, overruling Meek and Wolman. 
     See Agostini, 521 U.S. at 225; Mitchell, 530 U.S. at 808, 
     835-36 (plurality opinion); id. at 837, 851 (O'Connor, J., 
     concurring in judgment). In addition, other portions of 
     Nyquist have been substantially narrowed or overruled. As the 
     Court stated in Zelman, ``[t]o the extent the scope of 
     Nyquist has remained an open question in light of these later 
     decisions, we now hold that Nyquist does not govern neutral 
     educational assistance programs that, like the program here, 
     offer aid directly to a broad class of individual recipients 
     defined without regard to religion.'' 536 U.S. at 662.
       Perhaps more important, recent Supreme Court decisions have 
     brought the demise of the ``pervasively sectarian'' doctrine 
     that comprised the basis for numerous decisions from the 
     1970s, such as Tilton and Nyquist. As noted above, that 
     doctrine held that there are certain religious institutions 
     in which religion is so pervasive that no government aid may 
     be provided to them, because their performance of even 
     ``secular'' tasks will be infused with religious purpose. 
     That doctrine, however, no longer enjoys the support of a 
     majority of the Court. Four Justices expressly abandoned it 
     in Mitchell, see 530 U.S. at 825-29 (plurality opinion), and 
     Justice O'Connor's opinion in that case set forth reasoning 
     that is inconsistent with its underlying premises, see id. at 
     857-58 (O'Connor, J., concurring in judgment, joined by 
     Breyer, J.) (requiring proof of actual diversion of public 
     support to religious uses to invalidate direct aid to schools 
     and explaining that ``presumptions of religious 
     indoctrination are normally inappropriate when evaluating 
     neutral school-aid programs under the Establishment 
     Clause''). See also Columbia Union College v. Oliver, 254 
     F.3d 496, 502-04 (4th Cir. 2001) (explaining that the 
     pervasively sectarian test is no longer valid in light of the 
     holdings of six Justices in Mitchell). Justice O'Connor 
     rejected the view that aid provided to religious primary and 
     secondary schools will invariably advance the schools' 
     religious purposes, and that view is the foundation of the 
     pervasively sectarian doctrine.
       Such was the reasoning and conclusion reached by a federal 
     district court in a current case highly analogous to the FEMA 
     aid program--American Atheists Inc. v. City of Detroit DDA, 
     503 F.Supp.2d 845 (2007). There, plaintiffs challenged 
     Detroit's ``Facade Improvement Plan'' under which the city 
     provided funds to buildings in a particular section of 
     downtown in order to improve their appearance for the 
     Superbowl which was to be held in the city. Three churches 
     received such grants and this was challenged in the lawsuit. 
     The federal court concluded that the program was available to 
     a broad array of buildings and its grant criteria were 
     religion neutral and the FIP was thus constitutional.
       For all of these reasons, Tilton and Nyquist do not control 
     the question at issue in the case of FEMA's public assistance 
     aid to private nonprofit facilities, including houses of 
     worship.


E. Singling Out Faith-Related Entities for Exclusion Runs Counter to a 
             Proper Application of the Establishment Clause

       In recent years, Justice Breyer has insightfully invoked 
     the balanced and practical approach to the Establishment 
     Clause previously championed by Justices Goldberg and Harlan. 
     In Van Orden v. Perry, 545 U.S. 677 (2005), Justice Breyer 
     wrote that ``the Court has found no single mechanical formula 
     that can accurately draw the constitutional line in every 
     case. See School Dist. of Abington Township v. Schempp, 374 
     U.S., at 306 (1963) (concurring opinion). Where the 
     Establishment Clause is at issue, tests designed to measure 
     ``neutrality'' alone are insufficient, both because it is 
     sometimes difficult to determine when a legal rule is 
     ``neutral,'' and because ``untutored devotion to the concept 
     of neutrality can lead to invocation or approval of results 
     which partake not simply of that noninterference and 
     noninvolvement with the religious which the Constitution 
     commands, but of a brooding and pervasive devotion to the 
     secular and a passive, or even active, hostility to the 
     religious.'' Ibid. In proceeding to rule that a display of 
     the Ten Commandments on the grounds of the State of Texas' 
     capitol was acceptable, Justice Breyer argued that, in so 
     many of these cases, context matters. Thus, ``to reach a 
     contrary conclusion here [and declare the display to violate 
     the Establishment Clause], based primarily upon on the 
     religious nature of the tablets' text would, I fear, lead the 
     law to exhibit a hostility toward religion that has no place 
     in our Establishment Clause traditions.''
       If we apply Justice Breyer's principled pragmatism to the 
     issue at hand, if Congress and the President decide to 
     appropriate billions of dollars to help private nonprofits 
     rebuild after a natural disaster, but also determine to 
     deliberately exclude houses of worship when they otherwise 
     meet the relevant criteria, such a decision would be the very 
     exhibition of hostility toward religion that the Justices 
     have inveighed against pursuing in the name of the 
     Establishment Clause.
       In the wake of Hurricane Sandy and every major disaster 
     within recent memory--churches, synagogues and other houses 
     of worship have been essential in a community's recovery and 
     response effort. Even while the church may have its HVAC 
     system destroyed it will welcome the homeless. Even while the 
     synagogue may have been flooded, it will feed the hungry.
       Basic fairness and principles of nondiscrimination, let 
     alone compassion, should compel Congress and the Executive 
     Branch to change policy and declare houses of worship 
     eligible for disaster relief assistance administered by FEMA.
                                  ____

         United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Ad Hoc 
           Committee for Religious Liberty,
                                Washington, DC, February 11, 2013.
     Hon. Chris Smith,
     House of Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Smith: As the House of Representatives 
     prepares to consider H.R. 592, the Federal Disaster 
     Assistance Act, we write in support of the legislation, which 
     would ensure the fair and equal treatment for houses of 
     worship damaged in a natural disaster.
       Your legislation is consistent with Supreme Court 
     jurisprudence, which recognizes the right of religious 
     institutions to receive public financial aid in the context 
     of a broad program administered on the basis of religion-
     neutral criteria. The bill is not asking for special 
     treatment, just equal treatment that conforms to 
     constitutional protections.
       It should be noted that in the aftermath of a natural 
     disaster houses of worship often play an irreplaceable role 
     in the recovery of a community. Discrimination that treats 
     houses of worship as ineligible for federal assistance in the 
     wake of a natural disaster, beyond being a legal violation, 
     hurts the very communities most affected by the 
     indiscriminate force of nature.
       The best approach to address questions of eligibility for 
     houses of worship is a permanent clarification of federal 
     law. For this reason we support your bill and ask that it be 
     adopted by Congress.
           Sincerely,
     Most Reverend William E. Lori,
       Archibishop of Baltimore, Chairman, USCCB Ad Hoc Committee 
     for Religious Liberty.
     Most Reverend Denis J. Madden,
       Auxiliary Bishop of Baltimore, Chairman, USCCB Committee 
     for Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs.

[[Page 1349]]

     
                                  ____
         Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, 
           Institute for Public Affairs,
       Dear Representatives Smith and Meng: We write to express 
     our strong support for the Federal Disaster Assistance 
     Nonprofit Fairness Act of 2013. Your legislation will ensure 
     the fair and equal treatment for houses of worship damaged in 
     Hurricane Sandy and future natural disasters.
       The Stafford Act provides that private nonprofit entities--
     such as schools, hospitals, museums and community centers--
     damaged in a natural disaster may receive financial grants 
     from FEMA to repair their buildings. The Act does not list 
     houses of worship among its list of examples of nonprofits so 
     eligible; neither does the Act exclude houses of worship in 
     any way.
       In the aftermath of Sandy, as with so many other natural 
     disasters, churches, synagogues and other houses of worship 
     have been places offering essential response services to 
     people in need--even while the church or synagogue itself is 
     damaged.
       It is, therefore, entirely appropriate for FEMA's aid 
     program for private nonprofits to assist houses of worship 
     with their rebuilding needs. Moreover, if houses of warship 
     are excluded from this otherwise religion neutral program--
     that unfair treatment would be improper anti-religious 
     discrimination.
       Current Supreme Court jurisprudence makes clear that 
     religious institutions may receive government financial aid 
     in the context of a broad program administered on the basis 
     of religion neutral criteria. This is why houses of worship 
     and other religious nonprofits can, for example, currently 
     receive grants from DHS to improve their security and the 
     Interior Department for historic preservation.
       Your legislation clarifying the Stafford Act is consistent 
     with these precedents and policies and we urge the House of 
     Representatives to pass this measure as soon as possible.
           Thank you,
     Yehuda Neuberger.
     Nathan Diament.
                                  ____

                                              NJ State Association


                                        of Jewish Federations,

                                                February 11, 2013.
     Hon. Christopher H. Smith,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Smith: The N.J. State Association of 
     Jewish Federations and its eleven constituent federations and 
     their network of affiliated and beneficiary agencies are 
     pleased to acknowledge your leadership in introducing H.R. 
     592, the Federal Disaster Assistance Nonprofit Fairness Act. 
     We support the legislation which would authorize those houses 
     of worship impacted and devastated by Hurricane Sandy to 
     receive assistance through the recently enacted Sandy relief 
     funding.
       Our houses of worship, as with other faith based 
     institutions, play a crucial role every day providing 
     stability, comfort and serving as a community resource. With 
     the hurricane's impact still very much in evidence for our 
     state, we have needed houses of worship more than ever to 
     ease the path of recovery for community and each of their 
     individual members. Even though the church, mosque, temple or 
     synagogue may have been physically damaged, houses of worship 
     continue to provide essential response services to people in 
     need.
       Jewish Federations in those areas that suffered most from 
     Sandy's might assisted their synagogues and congregants to 
     overcome the immediate crisis through financial aid, respite 
     and relief while securing dozens of volunteers to help 
     rebuild damaged buildings in the greater local community. The 
     Jewish Federation of Monmouth County, as one of the 
     communities hardest hit by the hurricane, the relief funding 
     provided by it and its partner Federations in the state have 
     enabled Monmouth to meet a wide array of human service needs 
     in the county. Their approach has been strategic, identifying 
     both short-term and long-term needs and dislocations 
     following the storm, empowering our partners in their efforts 
     to respond, and connecting those who could most benefit to 
     these resources. Most importantly, the Federation has been 
     proactive in spreading word throughout Monmouth County that 
     the Jewish community is here to help in storm recovery 
     efforts.
       Jewish Family and Children Service organizations replaced 
     lost clothing, provided gift cards for food, counseled Sandy 
     victims easing their anxiety and emotional pain and made 
     available flexible repayment loans to help families and 
     businesses recover. The Jewish Federation of Greater Metro 
     West has provided $50,000 to JFS agencies to assist with the 
     medium and long term needs. Chabad of Hoboken received $5,000 
     for counseling assistance, while federation is also 
     developing a partnership with Union Beach, a community 
     outside their catchment area and will provide $10,000 toward 
     relief efforts there.
       Many of our synagogues suffered severe damage and lack the 
     resources to rebuild. Jewish Federations, while helping 
     houses of worship serve individuals in need, do not have the 
     resources to support capital needs. Assistance from the 
     Jewish Federation of Monmouth County helped ``Chabad of the 
     Shore'' roof and carpet repaid, as well as providing plywood 
     to cover vulnerable windows. Temple Shalom in Aberdeen had 
     roof damage which was repaired through Federation assistance. 
     There were a number of other similar actions of relief 
     provided by the Monmouth federation.
       This is not only the Jewish community experience, but one 
     shared with houses of worship of all religions. It is 
     entirely appropriate for FEMA's aid program for private 
     nonprofits to assist houses of worship with their rebuilding 
     and community outreach needs.
       For all the reasons stated, herein, the passage of H.R. 592 
     will bring equity in a time of crisis and will recognize the 
     unselfish sacrifices made by our houses of worship in 
     response to an event that left devastation in its wake and 
     tragic consequences for its victims. Accordingly, the NJ 
     State Association of Jewish Federations is pleased to support 
     the enactment of the Federal Disaster Assistance Nonprofit 
     Fairness Act.
           Sincerely,
     Ruth Cole,
       President.
     Jacob Toporek,
       Executive Director.
                                  ____



                                           Diocese of Trenton,

                                   Trenton, NJ, February 11, 2013.
     Hon. Chris Smith,
     Rayburn House Office Building, House of Representatives, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Smith: I understand that you will soon be 
     presenting a bill to Congress which would provide federal 
     funding in the form of grants to houses of worship which were 
     devastated by the hurricane last October.
       I applaud your efforts and offer my full support for this 
     bill. Volunteers from the Catholic churches as well as other 
     denominations were on the front line with food, clothing, 
     shelter and other basic necessities as soon as the storm 
     passed. They were surely the first responders and just as 
     surely will be there as long as they are needed. To exclude 
     houses of worship from which these volunteers have come is a 
     grave injustice.
       On behalf of the clergy, religious and lay people who live 
     and work within the Diocese of Trenton, I thank you for being 
     our advocate and for taking the initiative to introduce this 
     bill on behalf of all faith communities.
           Sincerely,

                                        Most Reverend David M.

                                                  O'Connell, C.M.,
     Bishop of Trenton.
                                  ____



                                  Congregation Sons of Israel,

                                  Lakewood, NJ, February 12, 2013.
     Hon. Christopher H. Smith,
     Rayburn House Office Building, House of Representatives, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Smith: As the House of Representatives 
     prepares to consider H.R. 592, the Federal Disaster 
     Assistance Nonprofit Fairness Act, we write in support of the 
     important legislation that you have introduced. Thank you for 
     your effort to ensure the fair and equal treatment for houses 
     of worship in the aftermath of this devastating natural 
     disaster.
       It is universally acknowledged that houses of worship play 
     a central role in the recovery of a community in the 
     aftermath of any natural disaster. Faith-based volunteers are 
     the first responders providing aid and comfort to those who 
     have lost so much, and they persevere with their efforts as 
     long as help is needed. To exclude the houses of worship from 
     where these volunteers have come from government assistance 
     would be a grave injustice.
       Discrimination that treats houses of worship as ineligible 
     for federal assistance in the wake of a natural disaster, 
     beyond being a legal violation, hurts the very communities 
     most affected by the devastating storm.
       We strongly feel that you have identified the best approach 
     to address recurring questions of eligibility for houses of 
     worship by proposing a permanent clarification of federal 
     law. We therefore strongly support your bill and ask that it 
     be adopted by Congress.
       With much appreciation for your efforts,
                                             Rabbi Samuel Tendler,
     Congregation Sons of Israel.
                                  ____

                                              National Association


                                              of Evangelicals,

                                                February 12, 2013.
     Hon. Chris Smith,
     Hon. Grace Meng,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representatives Smith and Meng: Thank you for your 
     efforts to correct a misguided policy of the Federal 
     Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) that currently bars houses 
     of worship from receiving federal disaster assistance for 
     rebuilding damaged structures. Your work to insure that 
     government assists private nonprofit entities, including 
     houses of worship, in an evenhanded way is very much 
     appreciated.
       In any major natural disaster, churches, synagogues and 
     other houses of worship play indispensable roles in providing 
     comfort and relief to those who have experienced loss. They 
     bring food, water, clothing and other essential supplies to 
     those who are stranded

[[Page 1350]]

     or displaced. They care for the wounded and comfort the 
     bereaved. Our communities are stronger because they are 
     there.
       When the houses of worship themselves have been damaged, 
     the effects are often felt far beyond the membership. When an 
     important part of the community infrastructure is damaged, 
     the entire community suffers. Many times, churches continue 
     serving their communities even after their own buildings have 
     been destroyed.
       FEMA does not violate the establishment clause when it 
     administers a religion-neutral program of support for the 
     rebuilding of community infrastructure. In fact, if religious 
     organizations are specifically excluded when comparable 
     secular organizations are included, the government's practice 
     would be discriminatory. This is the clear conclusion of 
     Supreme Court jurisprudence, and is consistent with current 
     federal practice in the Department of Homeland Security and 
     the Interior Department.
       Thank you for your leadership in working to restore 
     fairness to FEMA disaster assistance.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Galen Carey,
     Vice President, Government Relations.
                                  ____

                                      Bais Kaila Torah Preparatory


                                        High School for Girls,

                                  Lakewood, NJ, February 12, 2013.
     Hon. Christopher H. Smith,
     Rayburn House Office Building, House of Representatives, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Smith: I hope that all is well with you 
     and your family. With your introduction of H.R. 592, the 
     Federal Disaster Assistance Nonprofit Fairness Act, we see 
     that you are again taking the initiative to do what is right, 
     especially considering that houses of worship are always at 
     the forefront of the recovery process when communities are 
     hit with natural disasters. It is therefore very appropriate 
     that they be able to participate on an equal footing with 
     other nonprofits in receiving federal aid, as a means of 
     helping damaged communities get back on their feet.
       As I understand it, the Federal Emergency Management Agency 
     is charged with ensuring that communities are prepared for 
     natural disasters, and then responding to facilitate recovery 
     in the wake of such disasters. FEMA has historically provided 
     disaster-related aide to parochial schools damaged by 
     earthquakes. Other examples of federal aid to houses of 
     worship, includes grants for security improvements from the 
     U.S. Department of Homeland Security and historic 
     preservation grants from the U.S. Department of the Interior. 
     Your legislation, H.R. 592, would simply ensure that the 
     Stafford Act is consistent with these policies.
       In conclusion, once again we thank you for your leadership 
     and advocacy and we look forward to seeing the passage of 
     H.R. 592.
           Sincerely yours,
                                      Rabbi Yisroel Schenkolewski,
     Dean.
                                  ____

                                            The Jewish Federations


                                             of North America,

                                Washington, DC, February 11, 2013.
     Hon. John A. Boehner,
     Speaker of the House of Representatives, Capitol Building, 
         Washington, DC.
     Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
     House Democratic Leader, House of Representatives, Capitol 
         Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Speaker Boehner and Leader Pelosi: The Jewish 
     Federations of North America (JFNA) is writing to express our 
     support for H.R. 592, the Federal Disaster Assistance 
     Nonprofit Fairness Act. This bill, scheduled to be on the 
     suspension calendar this coming Wednesday, February 13, 2013 
     and co-sponsored by Representatives Chris Smith (R-NJ) and 
     Grace Meng (D-NY), will ensure the fair and equal treatment 
     for houses of worship damaged in Hurricane Sandy.
       JFNA is the national organization that represents and 
     serves 154 Jewish Federations and 300 independent Jewish 
     communities across North America. In their communities, 
     Jewish Federations and volunteers is the central address for 
     fundraising and an extensive network of Jewish health, 
     education and social services. In response to Hurricane Sandy 
     Jewish Federations have raised almost $7 million in direct 
     Sandy-related relief and allocated almost $11 million to 
     Sandy victims in Connecticut, New Jersey and New York.
       The Stafford Act provides that private nonprofit entities--
     such as schools, hospitals and community centers--damaged in 
     a natural disaster may receive financial grants from FEMA to 
     repair their buildings. The Act does not list houses of 
     worship among its list of examples of nonprofits so eligible; 
     neither does the Act exclude houses of worship. To the extent 
     that FEMA has provided aid to eligible programs run by houses 
     of worship, the aid has not been provided on the same terms 
     as the aid provided to other eligible nonprofits.
       In the aftermath of Sandy, as with so many other natural 
     disasters, churches, synagogues and other houses of worship 
     are locations where essential response services have been 
     provided to people in need--even while the church or 
     synagogue itself has suffered extensive damage. It is, 
     therefore, entirely appropriate for FEMA's aid program for 
     private nonprofits to assist houses of worship with their 
     rebuilding needs. Moreover, if houses of worship are excluded 
     from this otherwise religion neutral program--that unfair 
     treatment would be improper anti-religious discrimination. 
     Additionally, for almost 30 years, it has been FEMA's mission 
     to lead America to prepare for, prevent, respond to, and 
     recover from domestic disasters. This has led to FEMA's 
     provision of disaster-related aide to parochial schools 
     damaged by earthquakes.
       Current Supreme Court jurisprudence makes clear that 
     religious institutions may receive government financial aid 
     in the context of a broad program administered on the basis 
     of religion neutral criteria. This is why houses of worship 
     and other religious nonprofits can, and do, currently receive 
     grants from DHS to improve their security and the Interior 
     Department for historic preservation.
       H.R. 592, the Federal Disaster Assistance Nonprofit 
     Fairness Act, would ensure that the Stafford Act is 
     consistent with these policies, and we ask that you vote in 
     favor of this legislation.
           Sincerely yours,

                                            William C. Daroff,

                                Vice President for Public Policy &
     Director of the Washington office.
                                  ____

                                                   The Becket Fund


                                        For Religious Liberty.

     Hon. Christopher Smith,
     House of Representatives, 2373 Rayburn House Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
     Re FEMA's discriminatory treatment of houses of worship.
       Dear Congressman Smith: You and others have asked us to 
     examine the application of the Establishment Clause of the 
     United States Constitution to the disbursement of federal 
     disaster relief funds to houses of worship damaged in severe 
     weather events such as Superstorm Sandy. In particular, you 
     would like us to examine (1) whether the Federal Emergency 
     Management Agency's practice of not funding repairs to houses 
     of worship is justified by the Establishment Clause grounds, 
     and (2) whether your proposed act preventing FEMA's practice 
     would give rise to Establishment Clause problems.
       The answer to both questions is no. First, not only does 
     the Establishment Clause provide no support for FEMA's 
     practice of discriminating against houses of worship; that 
     practice itself runs afoul of the First Amendment by 
     discriminating against religious institutions. Second, the 
     bill you have proposed will not lead to Establishment Clause 
     violations because no Act of Congress can purport to repeal 
     the First Amendment. Arguments to the contrary are 
     constitutional scaremongering.


                               Background

       Superstorm Sandy devastated many of the Northeast's coastal 
     cities. The federal government is expected to spend about $60 
     billion to help restore these hard-hit communities. Yet FEMA 
     has categorically denied foundational elements of those 
     communities--synagogues, churches, mosques, and other houses 
     of worship--access to this otherwise generally-available 
     relief funding. A broad range of nonprofit organizations, 
     including zoos and museums, qualify for disaster-relief 
     grants administered by FEMA. But when religious organizations 
     asked FEMA for the same assistance it provides many other 
     nonprofits, FEMA told them that it considered them ineligible 
     for the grants. This leaves houses of worship like All Saints 
     Church of Bay Head, New Jersey, which was built by 
     shipbuilders in 1889 and now has a sinkhole for a sanctuary, 
     without access to the help that is available to the 
     neighborhood zoo.
       Despite acknowledging that religious facilities can meet 
     the threshold aid requirement that the facility be ``used for 
     a variety of community activities,'' FEMA considers 
     ``churches, synagogues, temples, mosques, and other centers 
     of religious worship'' categorically ineligible simply 
     because of their religious use. Nor is this a recent problem: 
     the George W. Bush Administration took the same stance after 
     Hurricane Katrina, based on a federal regulation promulgated 
     in 1990 by the George H.W. Bush Administration. (As noted 
     below, though, the federal government has often departed from 
     this stance to assist houses of worship through neutral and 
     generally available funding programs.)


                                Analysis

       FEMA's discriminatory policy. To justify its discrimination 
     against houses of worship, FEMA has cited arguments asserting 
     that the Establishment Clause of the United States 
     Constitution prevents houses of worship from having equal 
     access to FEMA disaster assistance grants. Others make the 
     same claim. For instance, Barry Lynn of Americans United for 
     Separation of Church and State has stated that, ``even after 
     the devastation of [Superstorm] Sandy,'' the federal 
     government cannot provide relief to destroyed synagogues, 
     churches, and mosques.
       But this argument is simply not true. When Lynn recently 
     made a similar argument in an amicus brief to the U.S. Court 
     of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, the court--in an opinion 
     authored by Judge Sutton--flatly and unanimously rejected the 
     argument. The

[[Page 1351]]

     court noted that long-standing Supreme Court precedent 
     allowed ``churches, synagogues, and mosques'' to receive 
     ``generally available benefits'' like ``police and fire-
     protection services'' and access to ``sewers and sidewalks.'' 
     The court reasoned that ``[i]f a city may save the exterior 
     of a church from a fire,'' it could certainly provide equal 
     access to government funds that ``help that same church with 
     peeling paint.''
       That conclusion is all the more true here, where the 
     problem the government seeks to remedy is not peeling paint 
     but complete devastation. Notably, the Sixth Circuit 
     supported its conclusion by explicitly noting the widespread 
     legal acceptance ``of government programs designed to provide 
     one-time emergency assistance through FEMA . . . to churches 
     devastated by natural disasters.''
       Indeed, the federal government--including FEMA--has 
     repeatedly given disaster relief to religious groups in the 
     past. For instance, after Seattle Hebrew Academy was damaged 
     by a major earthquake in 2002, FEMA awarded a disaster relief 
     grant for repair. Before it did so, FEMA asked the Department 
     of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel whether that was 
     constitutionally permissible. OLC's detailed response 
     concluded that ``a FEMA disaster grant is analogous to the 
     sort of aid that qualifies as `general government services' 
     approved by the [Supreme] Court'' for provision to houses of 
     worship. The OLC letter pointed out that, far from banning 
     equal access to government funding, the First Amendment bans 
     the government from ``deny[ing] religious groups equal access 
     to the government's own property,'' and ``require[s] equal 
     funding'' of religious expression. The letter ended by noting 
     that an argument could be made that ``excluding religious 
     organizations from disaster assistance made available to 
     similarly situated secular institutions would violate the 
     Free Exercise Clause and the Free Speech Clause.''
       OLC has likewise approved, and the federal government has 
     permitted, the participation of houses of worship in the Save 
     America's Treasures program, which authorizes matching grants 
     for preservation of properties with historical significance. 
     For instance, the OLC approved a National Park Service grant 
     to restore Boston's Old North Church--a church which is 
     currently used by an active Episcopal congregation and was 
     once used to warn Paul Revere of British military plans. 
     Similar grants have been provided for Atlanta's Ebenezer 
     Baptist Church, where Martin Luther King, Jr., preached, the 
     historic Franciscan missions in California, and Touro 
     Synagogue in Rhode Island. All of those houses of worship 
     needed repairs for damage caused by the ravages of time--why 
     would damage caused by the ravages of Sandy be any different?
       Several other federal statutes permit federal funding or 
     support for houses of worship that have been damaged or 
     destroyed. Indeed, after the Oklahoma City bombing, Congress 
     specifically authorized FEMA and other agencies to provide 
     disaster relief to damaged churches on the same basis that 
     any other private nonprofit facilities may receive such aid.
       Finally, FEMA's policy of discriminating against houses of 
     worship is itself problematic under the Establishment Clause 
     because it denies religious institutions access to a 
     generally available benefit, solely because they are 
     religious. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that ``[t]he 
     First Amendment mandates governmental neutrality between 
     religion and nonreligion.'' Singling out religious 
     institutions for special disfavor is not neutral. Similarly, 
     FEMA's approach also creates a potential conflict with 
     federal civil rights law, specifically the Religious Freedom 
     Restoration Act, which forbids government imposition of 
     substantial burdens on religious exercise. As courts have 
     frequently held, denial of a generally available benefit to 
     religious persons because they are religious constitutes a 
     substantial burden on the exercise of religion.
       In short, FEMA is wrong to claim that the Establishment 
     Clause--which combats discrimination--justifies its decision 
     to discriminate. It is instead FEMA's discrimination policy 
     that is more likely to trigger scrutiny under the First 
     Amendment and related civil rights laws.
       The proposed bill. For the same reasons, it is our opinion 
     that your proposed bill will not raise Establishment Clause 
     problems. Instead, it will alleviate them by offering a way 
     to stop discrimination against houses of worship in federal 
     disaster relief funding.
       On the night before your bill was set for a vote, FEMA 
     issued a statement in opposition to the bill. As an initial 
     matter, much of FEMA's three-page statement does nothing more 
     than lay out existing law and reiterate what we've 
     established above: Congress has made similar regulatory fixes 
     before and the OLC has provided legal opinions supporting 
     religious organizations' equal access to generally available 
     government funds.
       FEMA really makes only two complaints against the proposed 
     bill. First, it warns that entities like the ACLU have 
     threatened to sue unless it keeps discriminating against 
     religious organizations. But, as explained above, such 
     threats are meritless and will be met in court by the Becket 
     Fund and other organizations that are happy to defend equal 
     access for houses of worship that have been devastated by 
     natural disasters. Further, it is imprudent to allow such 
     threats to take federal legislation hostage, as giving in to 
     them will only encourage future threats. Finally, concerns 
     about litigation might make some sense if FEMA were run by a 
     tiny village government with a small budget that might be 
     intimidated by the prospect of litigating against the ACLU. 
     But given the resources of the Department of Justice, this 
     argument from fear of litigation makes no sense.
       FEMA's second complaint is that the bill could require them 
     to choose whether to fund ``arks of the covenant [and] prayer 
     books.'' But, as a factual matter, it appears FEMA is trying 
     to manufacture this particular controversy in order to scare 
     legislators. As Rabbi David Bauman of Temple Israel in Long 
     Beach--which was flooded by up to 14 feet of storm-surge 
     saltwater--explained, no one is asking the government to 
     restore prayer books; they need help with basic structural 
     repairs, just like other buildings in the neighborhood. More 
     importantly, the bill cannot repeal the Establishment Clause: 
     FEMA will remain bound by the Constitution. Thus to the 
     extent a religious organization requests funds that would 
     result in a constitutional violation, FEMA will still be 
     bound to turn them down. What the bill actually does is get 
     rid of the artificial and discriminatory standard created by 
     FEMA and replace it with the standard of neutrality required 
     under the First Amendment.
       In addition, to the extent that there is any problem it is 
     one of FEMA's own making. As it admits in its statement of 
     opposition, it is FEMA's own regulatory interpretations that 
     would require it to pay for prayer books or other similar 
     items. But neither of the regulations that FEMA cites as 
     forcing it to make the apparently unpalatable choice appear 
     to require any such decision. And FEMA can always exercise 
     its interpretive power to avoid a constitutional violation.
       Again, no one is asking the government to buy prayer books 
     or Torahs. Instead, synagogues, churches, and mosques are 
     simply asking that they receive the same disaster relief as 
     many other private nonprofits. Doing anything less would not 
     live up to the neutrality required by the Establishment 
     Clause--it would express a blatant hostility to religion that 
     the Establishment Clause rejects.
       In conclusion, it is our opinion that FEMA cannot rely on 
     the Establishment Clause to categorically ban houses of 
     worship from competing for disaster relief funds on the same 
     terms as other eligible nonprofits. Your proposed bill will 
     not violate the Constitution but will instead protect it.
           Very truly yours,
                                                 Eric C. Rassbach,
                                                  Daniel Blomberg,
                            The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty.

  Mr. BARLETTA. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I know all too well and firsthand what happens when disaster strikes 
at home. My constituents were affected by Hurricane Irene and Tropical 
Storm Lee.
  So I would like to commend the gentleman from New Jersey for his hard 
work for the constituents back home. It's times like this that we need 
to come together in a bipartisan fashion to help Americans who need 
that help.
  With that, Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, in the wake of the devastation caused by 
Superstorm Sandy, Congress must be an active partner in the effort to 
rebuild, so I will vote in favor of the bill before the House today, 
which extends FEMA disaster relief assistance to houses of worship on 
an equal footing with other not-for-profit organizations affected by 
the storm.
  I wish, however, that the House had taken the time to hold hearings 
on this legislation before bringing it to the House Floor so that we 
could have more fully explored the constitutional issues involved with 
this matter. Clearly, the federal government can and does provide 
federal resources to houses of worship for a variety of purposes, 
including homeland security grants and small business loans, but we 
must tread carefully in this area to ensure that the assistance 
extended passes muster with the basic provisions of the Constitution. 
It would have been better to thoroughly vet the language of this bill, 
among ourselves in the House and with constitutional scholars before 
bringing it up for a vote. As this legislation must pass the Senate in 
order to become law, I hope there will be in their proceedings a 
careful review of these issues before they act, including making any 
needed changes, which would bring the bill back to the House for final 
enactment.
  Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Madam Speaker, we often come to this floor to 
advocate any number of controversial issues--issues that often produce 
strong disagreement from the given Speaker's opposing party. But I 
stand

[[Page 1352]]

here today stating what I'm confident an overwhelming majority of 
Americans would deem simple common sense: if the government responds to 
a disaster--like Hurricane Sandy, which caused devastating damage and 
losses in the tens of billions of dollars--it should strive to help the 
entire community recover, not pick and choose some to receive help and 
others to go it alone.
  But, stunningly, that's not the way it currently works, Madam 
Speaker. As it stands, many of the strongest, most necessary pillars in 
our society--churches and other places of worship--are being excluded 
from even being considered for the recovery aid provided by FEMA in the 
wake of Sandy.
  Since the policy has come to light, some have attempted to defend it, 
invoking that all-too-commonly abused notion of the separation of 
church and state. But, Madam Speaker, even if we accept the most 
radical definition of this phrase, there would still be no reasonably 
legal explanation for this inexcusable oversight.
  The Supreme Court responded to a similar issue when it decided 
Everson v. Board of Education. In that decision, the court criticized 
the ``imposition of taxes to pay ministers' salaries and to build and 
maintain churches and church property.'' But in the very same decision, 
the court makes clear the obvious exception to this policy, stating 
that the state has the duty to maintain neutral relations with places 
of worship, and that they should be granted access to the same basic 
government services as the rest of the community--``such general 
government services as ordinary police and fire protection, connections 
for sewage disposal, public highways and sidewalks.''
  Who can, with any modicum of intellectual honesty, suggest that 
disaster relief does not fit the definition of a basic government 
service? The government is not maintaining neutral relations with 
houses of worship in this sphere. It is actively and specifically 
excluding them from a basic government service enjoyed by every other 
member of the community.
  Of course, perhaps the cruelest irony of this entire situation is the 
fact that it is so often the churches who step in to help in the 
immediate aftermath of such disasters. They are the ones sending their 
congregations to feed, clothe, and house a desperate community. They 
are the ones taking up donations en masse to help the most afflicted. 
And they are the ones selflessly emptying their food closets to 
sustain, for just a little while longer, families anxiously awaiting 
government aid--the same government aid for which they will 
inexplicably not even be considered.
  Madam Speaker, this unconstitutional, un-American, unreasonable 
discrimination against these essential, compassionate members of our 
society simply must not continue. Churches and other places of worship 
must be held to the same criteria as other members of the community in 
these decisions. I urge my colleagues to strongly support H.R. 592.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, Superstorm Sandy inflicted 
unprecedented damage on communities in the Northeast including my 
district in New Jersey. Congress and the President have responded by 
providing $60 billion in emergency and recovery aid.
  Today's debate and vote however isn't at all about whether or how 
much funding Congress appropriates to mitigate the impact of Sandy. 
We've had that vote.
  Rather, it is about those who are being unfairly left out and left 
behind. It's about those who helped feed, comfort, clothe and shelter 
tens of thousands of victims now being told they are ineligible for a 
FEMA grant.
  It is unconscionable that foundational pillars of our communities 
damaged by Sandy--synagogues, churches, mosques, temples and other 
houses of worship--have been categorically denied access to these 
otherwise generally-available relief funds. Current FEMA policy is 
patently unfair, unjustified and discriminatory and may even suggest 
hostility to religion.
  FEMA has a policy in place to aid nonprofit facilities damaged in the 
storm, but the agency has excluded houses of worship from this support. 
That is wrong. And it's time Congress ensures fundamental fairness for 
these essential private nonprofits.
  The bipartisan Federal Disaster Assistance Nonprofit Fairness Act of 
2013--H.R. 592--will ensure that churches, synagogues, mosques, temples 
and other houses of worship are eligible for federal funds to 
effectuate repairs, restoration and replacement of damaged facilities.
  Madam Speaker, it's worth noting here that FEMA's discriminatory 
policy of exclusion isn't prescribed by any law. Nothing in the 
Stafford Act or any other law including the Hurricane Sandy Disaster 
Relief Appropriations Act precludes funds to repair, restore or replace 
houses of worship. Indeed, congressional precedent favors enacting H.R. 
592 as there are several pertinent examples of public funds being 
allocated to houses of worship.
  For example:
   FEMA grants were explicitly authorized by Congress and provided to 
churches damaged in the Oklahoma City terrorist attack;
  Homeland Security Department and UASI provides funding to houses of 
worship for security upgrades;
  Interior Department provides funding for grants for historically 
significant properties including churches and synagogues;
  It is important to note that a controlling Justice Department Office 
of Legal Counsel Memorandum explains in detail the legal principles 
which make H.R. 592 constitutional. In a September 25, 2002, written 
opinion, the Office of Legal Counsel concluded it was constitutional 
for Congress to provide disaster relief and reconstruction funds to a 
religious Jewish school, along with all sorts of other organizations, 
following a devastating earthquake.
  The same principles apply to protect religious organizations 
following a devastating hurricane. As the Office of Legal Counsel memo 
concluded ``provision of disaster assistance to [religious 
organizations] cannot be materially distinguished from aid programs 
that are constitutional under longstanding Supreme Court precedent 
establishing that religious institutions are fully entitled to receive 
generally available government benefits and services, such as fire and 
police protection.''
  The Supreme Court handed down its first modern Establishment Clause 
decision in Everson v. Board of Education, which involved a program in 
my own state of New Jersey. In that case the Court held that religious 
institutions are entitled to receive ``general government services'' 
made available on the basis of neutral criteria.
  The Court held that the Establishment Clause does not bar students 
attending religious schools from receiving generally available school 
busing services provided by the government. In reaching its decision, 
the Court explained that even if the evenhanded provision of busing 
services increased the likelihood that some parents would send their 
children to religious schools, the same could be said of other 
``general state law benefits'' that were even more clearly 
constitutional because they were equally available to all citizens.
  As examples, the Court cited ``such general government services as 
ordinary police and fire protection, connections for sewage disposal, 
public highways and sidewalks,'' concluding that ``cutting off church 
schools from these services . . . would make it far more difficult for 
the schools to operate. But such is obviously not the purpose of the 
First Amendment. That Amendment requires the state to be a neutral in 
its relations with groups of religious believers and non-believers; it 
does not require the state to be their adversary. State power is no 
more to be used so as to handicap religions, than it is to favor 
them.''
  As Nathan J. Diament, Executive Director of Public Policy for the 
Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America notes in his 
excellent legal analysis which I will include in the Record ``federal 
disaster relief is analogous to aid that qualifies as 'general 
government services' approved by the Court in Everson.
  That same Supreme Court also held that ``[Government] cannot exclude 
individual Catholics, Lutherans, Mohammedans, Baptists, Jews, 
Methodists, Non-believers, Presbyterians, or the members of any other 
faith, because of their faith, or lack of it, from receiving the 
benefits of public welfare legislation . . . [W]e must be careful, in 
protecting the citizens of New Jersey against state-established 
churches, to be sure that we do not inadvertently prohibit New Jersey 
from extending its general state law benefits to all its citizens 
without regard to their religious belief.''
  In Walz v. Tax Commission, the Court rejected an Establishment Clause 
challenge to a property tax exemption made available not only to 
churches, but to several other classes of nonprofit institutions, such 
as ``hospitals, libraries, playgrounds, scientific, professional, 
historical, and patriotic groups.'' As the Court stated in reference to 
Everson, if ``buses can be provided to carry and policemen to protect 
church school pupils, we fail to see how a broader range of police and 
fire protection given equally to all churches, along with nonprofit 
hospitals, art galleries, and libraries receiving the same tax 
exemption, is different for purposes of the Religion Clauses.''
  The bill before us today simply makes clear and clarifies that 
federal disaster relief includes religious entities along with every 
other sort of entity. As the Court later stated in Widmar v. Vincent, 
``[t]he provision of benefits to so broad a spectrum of groups is an 
important index of secular [that is, constitutional] effect.'' And as 
it stated more recently in Texas

[[Page 1353]]

Monthly, Inc. v. Bullock, ``[i]nsofar as [a] subsidy is conferred upon 
a wide array of nonsectarian groups as well as religious organizations 
in pursuit of some legitimate secular end, the fact that religious 
groups benefit incidentally does not deprive the subsidy of the secular 
purpose and primary effect mandated by the Establishment Clause.''
  Significantly, Madam Speaker, when three churches in Detroit received 
taxpayer funded grants to repair and spruce up their buildings prior to 
the 2006 Superbowl, American Atheists sued the City of Detroit and 
lost. In a sweeping decision authored by Judge Sutton, the U.S. Court 
of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit unanimously held that the direct 
assistance to the churches did not violate the Establishment Clause.
  Judge Sutton said: ``Detroit sought to fix up its downtown, not to 
establish a religion. And as will generally be the case when a 
governmental program allocates generally available benefits on a 
neutral basis and without a hidden agenda, this program does not have 
the impermissible effect of advancing religion in general or any one 
faith in particular. By endorsing all qualifying applicants, the 
program has endorsed none of them, and accordingly it has not run afoul 
of the federal or state religion clauses . . . In the Establishment 
Clause context, that means evenhanded, neutral laws generally (though 
not invariably) will be upheld. So long as the government benefit is 
neutral and generally applicable on its face, it presumptively will 
satisfy the Establishment Clause.''
  In sum, H.R. 592 exhibits no government preference for or against 
religion, or any particular religion, since it merely permits houses of 
worship to receive the same type of generally-available assistance in 
picking up the pieces after stunning devastation that many other 
similarly situated nonprofits receive. Thus, the bill not only passes 
the test of constitutionality, it passes the test of basic human 
decency.
  Indeed, to do otherwise would be to single out churches for adverse 
treatment, which is itself constitutionally suspect. The Supreme Court 
held in Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah, that ``[a]t a 
minimum, the protections of the Free Exercise Clause pertain if the law 
at issue discriminates against some or all religious beliefs.'' And in 
Employment Division v. Smith, the Court held that under the Free 
Exercise Clause, the state may not ``impose special disabilities on the 
basis of religious views or religious status.'' Similarly, in 
Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia, the 
Court held that ``the government offends the First Amendment when it 
imposes financial burdens on certain speakers based on the content of 
their expression,'' including religious expression. To continue to 
single houses of worship out for discrimination does not express 
government neutrality, it expresses government hostility. And there is 
no place for government hostility toward religion under our 
constitution.
  The constitution clearly allows, and arguably requires, that 
religious organizations be treated equally when it comes to Congress' 
providing for the well-being of Americans following the onslaught of 
Superstorm Sandy and other natural disasters.
  The damage unleashed by Sandy has taken a huge toll on houses of 
worship. According to the N.J. Catholic Conference more than 145 
churches suffered significant damage in my state alone. Another 125 
churches in New York have been damaged and are seeking FEMA help with 
more to be counted as repairs and ongoing work are addressed and 
contracted out for completion.
  Similarly, dozens of synagogues and temples in both states are now 
looking to see how they repair after spending months of providing goods 
and services--with no regard to religion--to those who needed it.
  In testimony just last week before the New York City Council, Joseph 
Rosenberg of the Catholic Community Relations Council poignantly noted 
that when Sandy hit, the leaders of the churches, synagogues and other 
houses of worship did not first ask if their facilities would be 
eligible for federal assistance before providing food and shelter and 
relief to thousands of displaced persons.
  Nor did these providers of assistance ask the religious affiliation 
of the victims. No, they went to work providing tangible, life-saving 
aid to all comers.
  In his letter of support for H.R. 592, Harvard professor Alan 
Dershowitz concludes that ``religious institutions may receive 
government aid if it is in the context of a broadly available program 
with criteria that are neutral toward religion and pose no risks of 
religious favoritism.''
  Professor Dershowitz notes further:

       Once FEMA has the policy in place to aid various nonprofit 
     organizations with their building repairs, houses of worship 
     should not be excluded from receiving this aid on the same 
     terms. This is all the more appropriate given the neutral 
     role we have witnessed houses of worship play, without regard 
     to religion of those affected, in the wake of Sandy and 
     countless previous disasters. Federal disaster relief aid is 
     a form of social insurance and means of helping battered 
     communities get back on their feet. Churches, synagogues, 
     mosques and other houses of worship are an essential part of 
     the recovery process.

  Religious liberty scholar Professor Douglas Laycock of the University 
of Virginia School of Law wrote a letter endorsing H.R. 592 and said in 
part: ``Charitable contributions to places of worship are tax 
deductible, without significant controversy, even though the tax 
benefits to the donor are like a matching grant from the government. 
These deductions have been uncontroversial because they are included 
without discrimination in the much broader category of all not-for-
profit organizations devoted to charitable, educational, religious, or 
scientific purposes. The neutral category here is equally broad. To 
include places of worship in disaster relief is neutral; to exclude 
them would be affirmatively hostile. There is no constitutional 
obstacle to including them.''
  America's houses of worship are an integral, irreplaceable part of 
the contour and fabric of our communities. Like any other private non-
profit organization, their recovery is essential to the recovery of 
neighborhoods, towns and states. They should not be excluded from 
federal programs that ensure community recovery, especially since they 
selflessly provide assistance to all in need.
  H.R. 592 has been endorsed by several organizations including the 
Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations, the United States Conference of 
Catholic Bishops, the Council of Churches of the City of New York and 
the American Jewish Committee.
  I would like to take this moment to submit one more additional letter 
of support for H.R. 592 from Carl H. Esbeck, Professor of Law, 
University of Missouri, and my full statement for the Record.

                                            University of Missouri


                                                School of Law,

                                                February 11, 2013.
     Re Federal Disaster Assistance Nonprofit Fairness Act of 
         2013.

     Hon. Chris Smith,
     Rayburn HOB, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Grace Meng,
     1317 Longworth HOB, Washington, DC.
       Dear Representatives Smith and Meng: I have been asked to 
     give an opinion concerning the constitutionality of the 
     Federal Disaster Assistance Nonprofit Fairness Act of 2013. 
     The bill was introduced in the House of Representatives on 
     Friday, February 8, 2013. It would amend Sections 102(10)(B) 
     and 406(a)(3) of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and 
     Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5122(10)(B) and 
     5172(a)(3)), to clarify that houses of worship are eligible 
     for disaster relief and emergency assistance on the same 
     terms as other nonprofit facilities providing certain defined 
     essential services to the public. Stated differently, houses 
     of worship that are otherwise eligible for relief and 
     assistance are not to be discriminated against because of 
     their religious character.
       FEMA's current policy is set forth in its memorandum 
     captioned ``Houses of Worship--FEMA Public Assistance 
     Eligibility.'' Concerning multiple-use facilities, FEMA 
     denies relief and assistance to otherwise eligible houses of 
     worship unless the primary use of the space in a facility is 
     for essential services of a governmental nature. FEMA 
     converts ``primary use'' into a simple fifty-percent (50%) 
     rule, but it does not state the legal authority for the rule.
       The matter of interest is compliance with the Establishment 
     Clause in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The 
     United States Supreme Court has formulated a neutrality 
     principle to assess general programs of aid to the 
     nongovernmental sector. The principle requires: (i) that the 
     program have a secular purpose, and (ii) that the recipients 
     of the aid be eligible without regard to religion. Under the 
     above-referenced bill, Section 102(10)(B) defines an eligible 
     private nonprofit (PNP) as a facility that provides: (a) 
     essential services; (b) while not by government, of that 
     ``nature;'' and (c) available to the public. The three-part 
     definition is secular in purpose. True, the bill expressly 
     mentions houses of worship as eligible. But that makes sense 
     and is secular in purpose, because in the past they were 
     sometimes excluded by FEMA. So Congress, in passing this 
     amendment, is just bringing matters back from a 
     discriminatory situation to one of religious neutrality.
       A parenthetical in 102(10)(B) gives several examples of 
     such eligible PNP facilities providing essential services. If 
     a private ``museum'' is an essential service in the 
     ``nature'' of ``governmental,'' the eligible recipients are 
     not as narrowly limited as might at first appear. ``Community 
     centers'' are expressly named as eligible, and this bill has 
     ``houses of worship'' as a type of community center. The 
     findings in Section 2(5) of the bill further help to define 
     how houses of worship serve as a type of community center. 
     The findings also help to explain how a community center 
     provides ``essential services,''

[[Page 1354]]

     namely activities central to community rebuilding and 
     reconstruction after a natural disaster.
       Several U.S. Supreme Court cases prepared the way for the 
     neutrality principle as we presently recognize it. In Bowen 
     v. Kendrick, 487 U.S. 589 (1988), the Court upheld a 
     congressional program funding counseling centers targeting 
     adolescent sexuality that was available to religious as well 
     as secular providers. In Zobrest v. Catalina Foothills Sch. 
     Dist., 509 U.S. 1 (1993), the Court held that a public school 
     district had to provide the same special education services 
     to a student when he switched enrollment from a public to a 
     religious high school. In Witters v. Washington Dep't of 
     Servs. for the Blind, 474 U.S. 481 (1986), the Court upheld a 
     state vocational rehabilitation program, available without 
     regard to religion, even when it resulted in aid to a student 
     to attend a seminary.
       The neutrality principle became fully grounded with the 
     Court's decision in Agostini v. Felton, 521 U.S. 203 (1997). 
     Agostini involved the implementation of federal funding for 
     K-12 special educational services in schools in the State of 
     New York. The special educational services were rendered by 
     special education teachers employed by the local public 
     school district. For those special education students in 
     religious schools, it was more effective and less costly to 
     have the teachers travel to the religious school campus to 
     deliver the services. But this had been barred by prior case 
     law. In Agostini, the Court overruled its prior precedent and 
     approved the delivery of services to all special needs 
     students on a basis neutral as to religion. The services were 
     secular, and there was no reason because of the Establishment 
     Clause to discriminate against children enrolled in the 
     religious schools.
       The Agostini secular-purpose/religion-neutral analysis was 
     carried forward by the Supreme Court in Mitchell v. Helms, 
     530 U.S. 793 (2000). The case involved a challenge to a part 
     of the Primary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, which 
     provide educational materials and services to all K-12 
     schools without regard to religion. The challengers wanted 
     the aid denied to religious schools. The nature of the 
     educational materials was secular. Accordingly, the Court 
     upheld the practice of treating all schools neutrally. These 
     religious schools were intensely religious, but that was no 
     reason to discriminate against them. Care should be exercised 
     so that no governmental aid is diverted from its intended 
     secular purpose, in particular that the aid not be diverted 
     to an explicitly religious purpose.
       It is my opinion that the above-referenced proposed 
     amendment to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and 
     Emergency Assistance Act is consistent with the Establishment 
     Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
       Thank you for your kind consideration of this letter 
     opinion.
           Sincerely,
     Carl H. Esbeck,
       R.B. Price Professor of Law and Isabelle Wade & Paul C. 
     Lyda Professor of Law, University of Missouri.

  Mr. HOLT. Madam Speaker, of course Congress should make sure the 
Federal Emergency Management Agency, the Small Business Administration 
and other government agencies are funded sufficiently to help 
communities recover from natural disasters like Sandy. H.R. 592, the 
Federal Disaster Assistance Nonprofit Fairness Act of 2013, would add 
``houses of worship'' to the list of eligible entities that can receive 
direct government assistance from FEMA. Religious institutions are 
important to our communities. Unfortunately, as drafted H.R. 592 is 
unconstitutional.
  In 1971, the Supreme Court unanimously held that a government subsidy 
used to construct buildings at colleges and universities was 
constitutional only if the buildings could never be used for religious 
activities. Two years later, the U.S. Supreme Court held that no 
taxpayer funds could be used for maintenance and repair of facilities 
in which religious activities take place. The types of buildings that 
this bill seeks to make eligible for direct government funding-houses 
of worship-are inherently used for religious activities and the bill 
would have the effect of unconstitutionally funneling taxpayer money 
for religious activities. Under current law, houses of worship are 
eligible for Small Business Administration loans to help rebuild in the 
wake of a disaster like Sandy. Thus, there is already federally 
available aid that is neutral in its application that churches, 
synagogues and other houses of worship can avail themselves of without 
implicating the government in providing direct support to religious 
institutions. And private insurance companies have long provided such 
policies for houses of worship.
  As I have since Hurricane Sandy devastated New Jersey, I will 
continue to push for the maximum possible funding-including disaster 
recovery loans-for all New Jersey communities impacted by this and 
future storms.

  Ms. McCOLLUM. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 592.
  In this country, we have a strong tradition of coming to the aid of 
communities that have suffered national tragedies and natural 
disasters. This is a tradition to be proud of, but H.R. 592 takes an 
unprecedented and unconstitutional step of adding houses of worship to 
the list of entities eligible for direct government assistance through 
Federal Emergency Management Agency.
  The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that direct government aid for 
houses of worship is unconstitutional. In Tilton v. Richardson (1971) 
and Committee for Public Education v. Nyquist (1973), the Supreme Court 
ruled that taxpayer funds could not go to buildings to construct or 
repair facilities intended to be places of worship. Religious 
institutions are still eligible for federal loans, including small 
business loans, to help rebuild their place of worship.
  Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote in a later ruling (Mitchell v. 
Helms, 2000), that direct grant government grants to religious 
institutions brings ``special dangers.'' This danger is not just to the 
government, but also to the religious institution. Religious freedom is 
one of our country's most sacred principles. Theseparation of church 
and state protects not only the state, but also the church from state 
interference and restriction. This type of direct assistance, however 
well intentioned, puts that separation and religious freedom at risk.
  Churches, synagogues, temples and mosques are often the center of a 
community; the wish to rebuild as quickly as possible in the wake of a 
natural disaster is well-intentioned and understandable. However, 
rebuilding or repairing these houses of worship with direct government 
assistance, putting their independence at risk, comes at too high of a 
cost.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Barletta) that the House suspend the 
rules and pass the bill, H.R. 592.
  The question was taken.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds 
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
  Mr. BARLETTA. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this motion will be postponed.

                          ____________________