[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 8]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 11677-11678]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




       FEDERAL DISASTER ASSISTANCE NONPROFIT FAIRNESS ACT OF 2015

                                 ______
                                 

                       HON. CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH

                             of new jersey

                    in the house of representatives

                        Wednesday, July 15, 2015

  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, over two years ago the House 
came together in the wake of Superstorm Sandy and overwhelmingly 
supported and passed the Federal Disaster Assistance Nonprofit Fairness 
Act. Because the Senate failed to take action before the close of the 
113th Congress, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)

[[Page 11678]]

has continued to deny houses of worship access to otherwise generally 
available disaster relief funds.
  Today, along with my colleagues Grace Meng and Pete King, I am 
reintroducing this important legislation to achieve fairness and 
nondiscrimination in the manner by which FEMA distributes federal 
disaster assistance.
  Houses of worship are foundational pillars of our communities. In the 
aftermath of disasters, they help feed, comfort, clothe, and shelter 
thousands of victims--yet when it comes to federal relief, they 
continue to be left out and left behind. While FEMA has a policy in 
place to aid nonprofit facilities damaged in disasters, it has excluded 
houses of worship from such support. This policy is patently unfair, 
unjustified, and discriminatory and may even suggest hostility to 
religion.
  Plain and simple, it is wrong--and it is time that Congress ensures 
fundamental fairness for these essential private nonprofits. The 
bipartisan Federal Disaster Assistance Nonprofit Fairness Act of 2015 
will ensure that houses of worship are eligible for federal disaster 
aid administered by FEMA. It is important to note that FEMA's 
discriminatory policy of exclusion is not prescribed by any law. There 
is nothing in the Stafford Act that precludes funds to repair, replace, 
or restore houses of worship.
  Further, congressional precedent favors enactment of this 
legislation, as there are several pertinent examples of public funding 
being allocated to houses of worship. In 1995, federal grants were 
explicitly authorized and provided to churches damaged by the Oklahoma 
City terrorist attack. The Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) 
Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI) provides funding to houses of 
worship for security upgrades. The Department of the Interior (DOI) 
proves funding to grants for historically significant properties, 
including active churches and active synagogues. The Small Business 
Administration (SBA) provides low-interest loans to houses of worship.
  A controlling Department of Justice (DOJ) Office of Legal Counsel 
(OLC) memorandum explains in detail the legal principles that make the 
Federal Disaster Assistance Nonprofit Fairness Act constitutional. In a 
2002 written opinion, the OLC 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 other natural disasters, such 
as devastating hurricanes or tornadoes.
  As the OLC memo concluded, ``we believe that provision of disaster 
assistance to the religious school 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.''
  This bipartisan legislation exhibits no government preference for or 
against religion, or any particular religion, as it merely permits 
houses of worship to receive the same type of generally available 
assistance. It not only passes the test of constitutionality, but the 
test of basic decency--permitting houses of worship to receive the same 
type of generally available assistance as many other similarly situated 
nonprofits in picking up the pieces after devastation.
  As Professor Alan Dershowitz of Harvard Law School concluded in his 
2013 analysis of the bill, ``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.''
  Similarly, Professor Douglas Laycock of the University of Virginia 
School of Law concluded that ``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 houses of worship in disaster relief is neutral; to 
exclude them would be affirmatively hostile. There is no constitutional 
obstacle to including them.''
  This legislation is supported by a broad coalition of organizations 
who believe that the recovery of houses of worship is essential to the 
recovery of neighborhoods, towns, and States. Houses of worship are 
critical public institutions within our communities, and they must not 
be denied the equal treatment they deserve. I urge my colleagues to 
move swiftly and pass this much needed legislation.

                          ____________________