STATE AND LOCAL IMPLEMENTATION OF EXISTING CHARITABLE CHOICE PROGRAMS TUESDAY, APRIL 24, 2001 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, Washington, DC. The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:08 p.m., in Room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Steve Chabot [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. Mr. CHABOT. The Committee will come to order. This is the Subcommittee on the Constitution. I am Steve Chabot, the Chairman. The subject matter of the hearing this afternoon is State and local implementation of existing charitable choice programs. While the first amendment to the Constitution provides that the government shall not establish a particular religion or religion over nonreligion, the first amendment also provides that the government shall not prohibit the free exercise of religion. Consequently, government must ensure that members of organizations seeking to take part in government programs designed to meet basic or universal human needs are not discriminated against because of their religious views. This simple principle of charitable choice allows for the public funding of faith-based organizations with demonstrated abilities to meet the needs of their neighbors in trouble while preserving the religious character of those organizations by allowing them to choose their staff, board members and methods. These principles also protect the rights of conscience of program beneficiaries by ensuring that alternative providers, providers that are unobjectionable to them on religious grounds, are always available. Charitable choice simply means equal access. Charitable choice is not a new idea. Existing charitable choice programs have benefitted thousands of persons in need without raising constitutional concerns in their implementation. Every Member of this Subcommittee, except for one newly-elected Member, has previously voted for Federal legislation containing charitable choice principles. Of all my Democratic colleagues on the Subcommittee, most have voted for at least two such pieces of legislation, the Community Service Block Grants Act and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Act. The latter was supported by every Member of the Judiciary Committee and signed into law by President Clinton. That law's purpose as stated in the legislation itself is to "prohibit discrimination against nongovernmental organizations and certain individuals on the basis of religion in the distribution of govern (1) ment funds to provide substance abuse services and to allow the organizations to accept the funds without impairing the religious character of the organizations or the religious freedom of the individuals." My own State of Ohio has benefitted greatly from charitable choice programs. Along with the States of Texas, Wisconsin and Indiana, Ohio received an "A" grade for its implementation of charitable choice programs from the Center for Public Justice, a research organization that tracks charitable choice initiatives. It is a tragedy that those moved to help others by the strength of faith, perhaps the most powerful spur to human improvement and the inspiration for untold numbers of selfless acts, face added barriers to Federal social service funds based on misguided understandings of the Constitution's religion clause. Often, it is those whose earthly compassion has the deep roots of faith who stand strongest against the winds of despair. Different rules should not apply to them when they seek to cooperate with the Federal Government in providing help to the helpless. Some perspective is also in order. For most of American history social services programs have been run by largely faith-based organizations at the local level with low administrative costs and a unique understanding of the particular needs of their neighbors in trouble. But now the government funds, controls and administers many of those programs, leading to higher taxes, greater inefficiency and unfortunately, oftentimes, less success. Today, a family with two earners pays over 40 percent of their income for taxes, more than they spend on their own food, clothing and housing combined. When the government takes so much, little is left for those families to give to their local charities, including faith-based organizations. At the same time, the government too often excludes out-of-hand faith-based organizations from the receipt of government funds, even when such organizations can help meet basic human needs most effectively and in accordance with both the free exercise of religion and the establishment clause. This is the problem charitable choice programs seek to address. Now, some critics of charitable choice programs say they worry that Federal funds will be used to preach to people. Implicit in that criticism is the idea that religious persons can't be trusted to follow the rules against the use of Federal funds for proselytizing activities. Other critics of charitable choice say they worry that churches will become corrupted by money if they receive Federal funds. Implicit in that criticism is the idea that religious persons are more prone to corruption than anyone else who receives government funds. I reject those assumptions. And I hope we can all begin a discussion of charitable choice by according those moved by faith the same respect we accord to others. A first step toward understanding the constitutional issue related to proposals to expand the number of Federal programs governed by charitable choice principles is to understand how those principles have been followed thus far. The witnesses before us today have important and insightful stories to tell, and I look forward to exploring with them how existing charitable choice programs have been implemented. I now yield to the Ranking Member of the Committee, the gentleman from New York, Mr. Nadler, for a 5-minute opening statement. Mr. NADLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Today we begin our hearings on charitable choice. Our witnesses today will discuss how previous legislation has been implemented. I hope that given the fact that there is very little track record so far, as at least one majority witness will testify, we do have-we will have the chance to look at some of the current proposals and bring in scholars to discuss the very serious constitutional issues they pose. That is to say, I hope we will have hearings on the pending legislation. a I would like to clarify the record before we begin. The majority memo and the Chairman, in his statement, stated that every Member of the Subcommittee has voted for charitable choice at one time or another. I have taken the liberty of reviewing the votes listed in the memo and discovered that, speaking for myself, my votes for drug treatment, home heating assistance and other vital programs, have been counted as support for this radical new approach for charitable choice. Nothing could be further from the truth. If my votes, and I might add others, have created misimpression, let me clear that up now. I have never supported charitable choice. We have never had an opportunity to vote on a charitable choice bill. Charitable choice provisions have been included in omnibus budget bills, omnibus appropriation bills, and in bills providing for home heating assistance and other vital programs. To vote against home heating-to vote for home heating assistance, rather, or to vote for the omnibus, I think it was $700 billion appropriations bill, cannot be counted as a vote for every provision in that bill, in particular, for the charitable choice provisions of that bill. I would also have to invite anyone curious about this matter to note that some stalwart supporters of charitable choice voted against these bills. I assume it was not because of their views on charitable choice, but for other reasons having to do with the major provisions of the bills. I have grave concerns about the constitutionality of charitable choice. The Chairman stated that throughout our history, churches and other religious institutions have provided social services and have done a good job, and that is certainly the case, and that is still the case today. And the principles of separation of church and State have not hindered them from doing that. And the principles of separation of church and State have not hindered churches and synagogues and mosques from participating in the administration of social service programs using Federal and government funds. They have, however, been required to refrain in doing so from discrimination on racial, religious or other grounds in employment and in who gets the services. They have been required to adhere to our civil rights laws. And they have been required not to engage in proselytization, subject to those-or to condition receipt of social services on listening to a religious lecture or participating in a religious ritual. Subject to those limitations, however, they have had equal right as anyone else to participate, and they have. Many availed themselves of the right to use Federal funds for their charitable and so cial service purposes. The only purpose of charitable choice, when all is stripped away, is to remove these limitations. Despite the claims of some but not all proponents of charitable choice to the contrary, to allow religious indoctrination to be a precondition of receipt of certain social services with Federal money, and to allow churches and others to discriminate in employment and in provision of services based on religion on other factors, to do an end run around the civil rights laws. And that is why I oppose these bills. They are not necessary. That is why I oppose the whole concept of charitable choice. It is not necessary in order for religious institutions to participate in social programs and use of Federal funds for that. They do so today. Charitable choice is necessary only to enable an end run around the civil rights laws or the first amendment provision of establishment of religion. The separation of government and religion has never stopped people of faith from doing good and has never stopped government cooperation with religious community in solving some of our most pressing social ills. It has, however, protected individual liberty. I see no need to tamper with that now. Religion will be better off, government accountability will be better off, and individuals will not face religious coercion precisely when they are at their most helpless. Religion has never needed government and it does not need it now. What we could use are fewer trillion tax breaks for the very wealthy and a few more dollars to feed the hungry, house the homeless, treat the sick and educate our children. I realize that is not on the agenda for this Congress or this President, so perhaps the poor had better do a little more praying because they cannot expect help from Washington any time soon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman I yield back. Mr. CHABOT. Thank you. The gentleman's time has expired. Any other Members of the Committee who would like to make opening statements, they are welcome to do so. Or they can submit them in writing. Mr. Scott. Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I know it is the practice to go on to the witnesses. I would want to make one clarification, however. In your chart that suggests that some of us have supported charitable choice at one time or another, I ask unanimous consent that I be able to introduce into the record the actual background of PL 106310 that went through various versions. When I voted for it, it did not have charitable choice in it. When it came back in conference with charitable choice, I voted no. So I would like the record to be accurate because of charitable choice. And I associated myself with the remarks of the gentleman from New York by suggesting that a vote for an omnibus bill is a vote for charitable choice is ridiculous. Yield to the gentleman from Mr. FRANK. I don't want to make a full statement. I would say in the interests of comity that I think my colleague from Ohio is a better Chairman than historian. Mr. CHABOT. Than what? Mr. FRANK. Than historian. |