JUNE 28, 20:49 EST

Faith-Based Funding Clears Panel

By LAURA MECKLER
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - Legislation opening government programs to religious
charities cleared a House committee Thursday, but not before exposing deep
divisions between Republicans and Democrats over the separation of church and state.

The House Judiciary Committee approved the bill - one of President Bush's top domestic priorities - on a 20-5 party-line vote recorded after most Democrats had left the session.

Bush praised the committee action and urged the full House to act promptly.

"I believe strongly that government should support programs that work to save and change the lives of those in need,'' the president said in a statement Thursday evening.

Republicans rejected a series of Democratic amendments, almost all of them on straight party-line votes, most notably, one that would have forced churches and other groups that accept tax dollars to hire people of all religions.

They also rejected amendments meant to ensure that minority religions are not discriminated against, to make it clear that participants must be offered a secular alternative to religious programs and to eliminate education programs from the legislation.

The bill allows religious charities to compete for government grants in eight new programs without altering the religious character of their organizations. They may retain religious names, charters and symbols on building walls, and they may consider religion in deciding whom to hire.

Under a deal meant to quell constitutional concerns, groups are allowed to offer religious services, prayer or preaching, but they must be separated from the government-funded program and participants can't be forced to attend.

That left the issue of hiring as the most contentious aspect of legislation, which is aimed at bringing more churches, synagogues and religious groups into social service.

Under current law, churches enjoy an exemption from civil rights laws that bar discrimination in hiring. That means a synagogue can decide to hire only Jews, and a Catholic church can hire only Catholics.

The bill keeps that exemption in place, even when the groups accept tax dollars for their secular programs. The committee rejected by a 19-11 party-line vote the Democratic amendment to strip the exemption.
Democrats argued that since the programs would be nonreligious anyway, there's no reason that churches shouldn't be forced to hire people of all religions.

"We do nothing to help poor and needy individuals if we tolerate discrimination,'' said Rep. John Conyers of Michigan, the committee's top Democrat.

Republicans responded that in many cases, it will be the same people who work for the church and who deliver the social services.

"I don't think it's discrimination for Baptists to want to hire Baptists to do something Baptists want to do,'' said Rep. Henry Hyde, R-Ill.

Meanwhile, civil rights icon Rosa Parks became a bit of a political football.

On Monday, she endorsed the Bush initiative. Early Thursday, Democrats distributed a letter where she endorsed the Democratic civil rights amendment. Later Thursday, Republicans passed out yet another letter where Parks said she didn't have enough information to decide where she stood on the amendment.

Parks agreed to write the last letter after being challenged by Republicans
and being unable to answer their questions, said Anita Peek, executive director of the Rosa & Raymond Parks Institute for Self Development.

"This seems to be a hot issue,'' Peek said. After a break for the Fourth of July, the Ways and Means Committee planned to take up related provisions giving new tax breaks for charitable contributions, and GOP leaders hoped to see the bill on the House floor by
the end of summer.

=============================

CQ WEEKLY - SOCIAL POLICY
June 30, 2001

Faith-Based Charity Bill Advances in House With Little Democratic Support

By Lori Nitschke, CQ Staff

With considerable prodding from the White House, the House has started to move on one of President Bush's highest domestic policy priorities -- allowing faith-based charities easier access to federal funding for the social services they provide.

The new version of the House legislation (HR 7) remains far from the bipartisan rallying point that the president once envisioned, however. That was driven home by the Judiciary Committee's partisan debate and 20-5 party-line vote to approve it June 28. Only one Democrat on the panel, Anthony Weiner of New York, expressed any inclination to support the measure, but he and 10 other committee Democrats departed for the July Fourth recess before the final roll call at 8 p.m.

B o x S c o r e Bill: HR 7 -- To expand the availability of federal social service funds to religious groups and expand the tax benefits of philanthropy. Latest action: House Judiciary Committee approved, 20-5, June 28. Next likely action: Ways and Means Committee markup the week of July 9. Reference: Background, CQ Weekly, pp. 1520, 661, 609, 283.

GOP Conference Chairman J.C. Watts Jr. of Oklahoma, the bill's chief sponsor, predicted that when the measure is taken up by the House, its Democratic supporters will not extend much beyond "the two Halls" --Ralph M. of Texas, one of the most conservative members of the caucus, and Tony P. of Ohio, a cosponsor of the bill.

Before the floor vote, the Ways and Means Committee is likely to take up the bill's tax provisions, the most significant of which would allow non-itemizers to deduct their charitable contributions.

Watts, who had earlier predicted that the House would not consider the bill before fall, now sees the debate taking place before the August recess. It remains unclear if the Democratic-controlled Senate will take up the measure.

For the president -- who says his recommitment to Christianity was one reason he stopped drinking alcohol in 1986 -- the proposal appears to be a personal as well as a legislative priority. Promoting the measure in Detroit on June 25 in a speech to a convention of mayors, Bush said it would allow Washington to pay for "the good works of the faithful, not faith itself." At another point, he said, "America can be saved, one heart, one soul, one conscience at a time."

Just how far religiously oriented charities should be allowed to go in efforts to "save" those seeking services was at the crux of the first legislative debate on Bush's "faith-based" initiative. Democrats were adamant that religious overtures should be kept out of federally funded social services.

Judiciary Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner Jr., R-Wis. -- who held up the bill for more than a week as he sought to ensure that it would be constitutional -- gave the most definitive answers thus far to questions about the legislation's intent. Charities, he said flatly, would be barred from using federal funds provided through the measure to proselytize while delivering services. If they are unable or unwilling to separate their religious activities from their social work, Sensenbrenner said, they "shouldn't apply for grant money." Anything else, "the Constitution flatly doesn't allow."

He said charities could, for instance, hold a Bible study during a lunch break in a social service program under the bill, but that participation could not be a condition for staying in the program. The committee rejected, 7-22, an amendment by Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., that would have prevented organizations providing social services from engaging in religious worship or instruction with recipients, regardless of who was paying for the program or if recipients had requested the religious activity.

Still, the rewritten bill would apparently foreclose funding for some of the programs that have been touted by bill supporters as model beneficiaries of a "charitable choice" law. One is Teen Challenge, which attempts to help drug-addicted teenagers in part through Christian worship. "A personal relationship with Jesus Christ permeates everything we do," the group's Web site says.

If the bill restricts access to federal funds for groups for whom "finding God" is key to curing social ills, some religious conservatives may be unhappy. Rep. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., said such groups should be allowed to receive funds without altering their programs because "the faith component is why they have a better success rate."

He and others in the House conservatives' Republican Study Committee nonetheless said they were generally satisfied with the measure, which Sensenbrenner shepherded through the panel with the help of Mark Green, R-Wis., a Study Committee member. They believe a provision requiring governments to provide a secular alternative for needy people who do not want to receive social services from religiously oriented providers is key to ensuring that church-run programs are allowed to maintain religious tone.

The section was one that Sensenbrenner had concentrated on when rewriting the bill, but Democrats and some city officials charged that money would not be available to fund secular alternatives to many programs.

Continuing Concerns

Several top administration officials -- including Vice President Dick Cheney and White House Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card Jr. -- and House GOP leaders visited Sensenbrenner in the previous two weeks in search of a compromise that could withstand lawsuits alleging a breech of the constitutional separation of church and state. Sensenbrenner said he worked most closely with Solicitor General Theodore Olson, noting that he is "going to be the one who defends this law in the Supreme Court."

At the markup, by voice vote, the panel adopted an amendment embodying Sensenbrenner's changes to the bill, including provisions to describe how social service recipients could opt out of religious programs and a requirement that organizations deposit federal funding in separate bank accounts.

Democrats made clear their concerns extend beyond the question of proselytizing. A provision that Sensenbrenner did not alter --an exemption from civil rights laws that would allow faith-based charities to base hiring decisions on an applicant's religion --drew a great deal of fire.

"We are promoting religious discrimination," Barney Frank, D-Mass., charged. But Steve Chabot of Ohio, echoing many other Republicans, said removing the language would deny "the guarantee of institutional autonomy" for religious groups.

Sensenbrenner said the language retained affirms a provision of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (PL 88-352) that exempted churches from the law's prohibition against religious discrimination. Hospitals, schools and other facilities connected to religious institutions are also covered by the exemption, he said. (1964 Almanac, p. 338)

Ranking Democrat John Conyers Jr. of Michigan said many in his party would support the bill if charities providing non-religious services were fully subject to civil rights laws, but the panel defeated, 11-19, an amendment by Robert C. Scott, D-Va., to carry out that goal.

The committee subsequently adopted by voice vote an amendment by Melvin Watt, D-N.C., intended to limit religious discrimination in hiring for federally financed jobs. Committee aides said its effect was unclear.

The panel rejected:

· By 10-17, a Scott amendment to bar religious groups from receiving funds for after-school activities or other programs under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. (Education, p. 1560)

· By 7-15, an amendment by Tammy Baldwin, D-Wis., and Frank to require charities to follow state anti-discrimination laws, including those banning discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

· By 7-20, a Scott amendment to prohibit discrimination against "minority" religions in the awarding of grants. Democrats said Republicans might be making incorrect assumptions about who would get the grants. Among those they cited was the Nation of Islam, which had provided security for Baltimore housing projects until government officials objected.

Source: CQ Weekly
The definitive source for news about Congress.
©2001 Congressional Quarterly Inc. All Rights Reserved.