Improving the Community Services Block Grant Act of 2004

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, under the rules outlined here in the House, we are debating the rule to consider the bill. Once this rule is approved, we will spend, I would imagine, the better part of the afternoon discussing the protections granted to religious organizations under the 1964 Civil Rights Act. I think that would be a more appropriate time to have this debate.

If the gentleman will yield further, the Congress in 1964, and as amended in 1965, passed landmark civil rights legislation in America, and it was the Congress in the mid-sixties who saw fit to provide religious organizations with one small exemption, and that in the case of employment, to religious organizations. And if you read the comments of the debate and the record of that debate, it was because those civil rights laws guarantee Americans full access to jobs, to all types of programs in our country.

But they did understand that religious organizations, by their very nature, ought to have an exemption in employment so religious organizations can, if they want, not all do, hire people of their faith.

The only issue here is whether those organizations, faith-based organizations, that do in fact provide community services with Federal funds, whether they should continue to have that exemption.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield further, let me pose the opposite question to you. Why should a faith-based organization that is providing tremendous community services give up the protections granted to them under the 1964 Civil Rights Act just because they accept Federal dollars in their mission to help low-income people?

If the gentleman would yield further, if that organization in their beliefs want to hire people of their faith, because in many cases the people they may hire will not only participate in a job training program, they may also teach Sunday school, they may also do other things for that religious organization.

But I would bring the gentleman's attention back to the bill we have before us, and the bill before us, that is the Community Services Block Grant reauthorization bill, last passed and reauthorized by the Congress in 1998 and signed into law by then President Bill Clinton, that act in 1998 and the President's signature in 1998 contains the identical language that this bill contains.

Now, the Congress passed this overwhelmingly in 1998, and the President

signed it into law. Now here we are 6 years later and we are saying, oh my goodness, there is a problem. If I could just finish, if over the last 6 years it would have been clear that there was a problem with faith-based organizations maintaining their rights under the 1964 Civil Rights Act, I think we would have heard about it. I have not heard a word.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, this is not the only statute on the books that allows religious organizations to maintain their 1964 protections under the Civil Rights Act; there are at least a half a dozen others.

But the point I would make is that if we want to debate the merits or changes to the 1964 Civil Rights Act, let us do that out of the bill that comes out of the Committee on the Judiciary, where it was rightfully debated and processed. The fact is, the 1964 Civil Rights Act is very clear in providing this exemption to these organizations. And if the gentleman disagrees with the 1964 Civil Rights Act, as amended in 1965, let us take that debate to the Committee on the Judiciary, let us bring the bill out here and have that debate. But that is the law.

What we are trying to do here is to comply with that. And in the underlying bill here, the Community Services Block Grant bill, we have had this exemption, maintained this exemption for those organizations. All we do in this bill today is to maintain it.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding, and I clearly recognize that there is a difference of opinion on this. I do not castigate any aspersions on the feelings of my colleagues. But both of my colleagues on the other side here who have engaged in this debate have referred to the intent of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) even used Senator Ervin's name in terms of there was no intent for these organizations to give up, to give up their religious exemption.

I have a quote here from Senator Ervin during that debate and he said, ``This amendment is to take the political hands of Caesar off the institutions of God where they have no place to be.'' I would suggest to both gentlemen that Senator Ervin from North Carolina clearly intended for the hiring exemption under title VII to be there.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman yielding me this time.

In answering the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott)'s question, the fact is this has been the law of the land in this program for 6 years, and I challenge anyone to come to the floor and say where there has been a problem, because there has not been a problem.

But in the bigger question, let us not forget that these faith-based organizations in many of our poorest communities are doing tremendous work to help needy people. And my concern, by changing the law along the lines of what my two colleagues would like to do, would be to provide a chilling effect on faith-based organizations from participating in programs to help their fellow citizens.

So we will have plenty of time for this debate this afternoon once we get into the bill, but I do think that there are various points of view here. They ought to be heard. The rule allows for a clear and open debate on this question and the rest of the bill, and let us have that debate then.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, before I get into my remarks on the underlying bill, the Community Services Block Grant reauthorization, let me take a moment to welcome our colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), and the ranking democrat on my committee, back to the House. He had some surgery over the break in December and has been in a period of recuperation. And we just want to welcome him back, back to the House and hope that he is in a very pliable and amenable mood.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3030, improving the Community Services Block Grant Act, a bill that strengthens the popular and valuable Community Services Block Grant program.

I want to thank my colleague from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne) who is the author of this legislation, who, along with his staff and our committee staff, has worked hard to guide this legislation through the committee where the bill received bipartisan support.

The CSBG provides Federal money to State and local agencies to lessen the

effects of poverty. States pass at least 90 percent of the Federal funds they receive through to community action agencies who run programs to help with finding and retaining a job, getting food on the table, and providing emergency services.

Since 1981, this program and the agencies it funds have helped millions of fellow Americans. Mr. Osborne's legislation makes improvements to this popular initiative by increasing accountability and efficiency while preserving the successful framework of this proven program. The bill requires the community action agencies to set clear, locally determined goals and to work each year to meet those goals. Agencies that repeatedly fall short of their own goals will be subject to action by the States. H.R. 3030 works with the local centers while making sure taxpayer dollars are carefully accounted for.

In the interest of improving the quality of local programs, this bill requires States to reevaluate their lowest performing grantees and justify to the Secretary of Health and Human Services why those organizations should continue to receive Federal funding. Again, this bill makes sure that agencies using Federal funds are delivering high- quality services.

Finally, this bill maintains the current law regarding faith-based organizations. We are all aware that some of the finest social service organizations in this country are run by religious charities; and I, along with a majority of my colleagues on the committee, believe that these faith-based organizations ought to be able to continue to provide help to their neighbors in need.

In 1998 when this bill was last reauthorized, then President Clinton signed into law the same language that we have in the bill of the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne) today. It allows faith-based community services to continue to maintain the character of their organizations with regard to their own hiring decisions. In fact, a broad group of faith-based organizations including Catholic charities, the American Association of Christian Schools, the Salvation Army, World Vision, and the Coalition to Preserve Religious Freedom have expressed strong support for the faith-based protections included in this bill.

There are some on the other side who would like to strip these rights to deny religious charities the rights they are granted under the 1964 Civil Rights Act and as upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court and current law.

Now, should the minority succeed in depriving these groups of their rights, I do think it would have a chilling effect on the participation of faith-based organizations in the Community Services Block Grant program.

We can expect that at least some of these groups would choose not to participate in CBGC, rather than compromise their character. As we all know, the group most likely to suffer the consequences are the most vulnerable in our society, those who need the help most.

This legislation makes some key improvements to ensure quality and accountability in the Community Services Block Grant program but leaves the essential character of this popular and successful program unchanged.

I want to urge my colleagues to support this valuable antipoverty program that the funds in this bill promote and vote ``yes'' on H.R. 3030 to improve the Community Services Block Grant program.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne), the author of the bill before us.

Mr. Chairman,I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, it should be clear to our colleagues today that the underlying bill, the reauthorization of the Community Services Block Grant program, has been done on a broad bipartisan basis. The only issue here of disagreement in the Chamber is the issue of whether faith-based providers would give up their title VII exemption in order to continue working in this program.

As I mentioned before, for the last 6 years this language allowing faith-based providers to receive federal funds and to maintain their exemptions under title VII has in fact been the law. And to my knowledge, there has been no complaints. Now, it is pretty clear to me, and I think to most of my colleagues, that faith-based organizations, whether they are using their own money or they are using federal funds, I would venture to say that the vast majority of them probably would never take up their title VII exemption or need it. But the fact is that that is the law.

The 1964 Civil Rights Act made it very clear that religious organizations did not have to give up their rights to hire the person of their choice under that act. And all we do here is maintain that and we have been doing this, as we said, in the welfare reform law, a number of other laws, over the past decade or so. And for those who have differences with this law, and I certainly respect their opinion, the fight should not be here on this bill. If they really feel strongly that the title VII exemption for religious organizations should be taken away, they should go to the Committee on the Judiciary and move a bill to change the 1964 Civil Rights Act. But let us not do it on this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), who has worked diligently on this program, not only here as a Member of Congress, but in his prior life of Governor of the great State of Delaware.

Mr. Chairman, I do not have any at the present time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of our time under general debate.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, we are debating the substitute offered by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), our good friend and committee member; and the only difference between the substitute and the underlying bill is the issue of whether faith-based providers can continue to maintain their title VII exemption under the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

The gentleman from Massachusetts made a case for the fact that we should not continue to allow this to occur. The fact is that the Congress in 1964, and as amended in 1965, went out of its way to say that religious organizations, when it comes to their hiring, can, in fact, make a decision and use religion as a basis of hiring. That is the law; and for our colleagues who disagree with that, as I said before, let them take this case to the Committee on the Judiciary. Let us go amend the 1964 Civil Rights Act, but it is not the issue here.

Secondly, I would point out that these faith-based organizations in many cases are very effective organizations, helping needy people who need our help, and they do tremendous work; and in many cases, these organizations, faith-based community organizations, hire people who have multiple jobs.

My concern with the language that is being offered in the substitute is that it will, in fact, have a very chilling effect on these faith- based organizations when it comes to their willingness to participate in Federal programs to help meet their mission and our mission of helping poor people that are in crisis.

These organizations have been doing this work for a long time. Many of them have participated in Federal programs where they were protected, like the program we have before us. The Community Service Block Grant program going back to 1998 has the same language in it that the bill has in it today. I have not heard one complaint from anywhere in the country that because they are allowed to have their 1964 civil rights protections that they have discriminated against anyone.

The fact is that these organizations do very good work in our communities. We ought to allow them to participate, as we have.

And it is not just this program. There are at least a half dozen other programs, including the 1996 Welfare Act, that allows faith-based organizations to provide these services while maintaining their protections under the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

So all we are asking in the underlying bill is to maintain the current

law and continue to allow these organizations, who are doing great work, to keep doing what they are doing. I think that is a reasonable assumption, and I believe that most Americans would support what we are trying to do with the underlying bill.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

One of the points the gentleman made is that organizations should not be forced, faith-based organizations should not be forced to hire people that do not share their same opinions. As a matter of fact, in a hearing, a field hearing, a Reverend Tony Marciano, Executive Director of the Charlotte Rescue Mission in Charlotte, North Carolina made this statement: ``The first 677 words of our mission is to minister the good news of Christianity. So yes, in our application, we ask for your church affiliation. Our statement of faith is attached to the application so that there are no questions who we are and who we are hiring. We expect people, as they sign off on the application, to sign on to our statement of faith. And that is key,'' he says, ``because even though we have people from different denominations, Presbyterian, Baptist, Methodist, et cetera, we need to make sure that everybody is on the same page, you know, as we work with the chemically addicted homeless.''

It is not just these organizations, faith-based organizations, that are doing such great work and who are supportive of this language. We have a number of associations: Agudath Israel of America, American Association of Christian Schools, Association of Christian Schools International, Call to Renewal, Catholic Charities, Catholic Health Association of the United States, Center for Public Justice, Christians for the Faith-Based Initiative, Christian Community Health Fellowship, Christian Legal Society, Council of Christian Colleges and Universities, Evangelicals for Social Action, the General Conference of Seventh-Day Adventists, the Heritage Foundation, Latino Coalition for Christian, Community, and Faith-Based Initiatives, the National Association of Evangelicals, the National Center for Neighborhood Enterprise, Prison Fellowship, the Salvation Army, Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, We Care America, World Relief, and World Vision, all of these organizations are supportive of the underlying language in the bill.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

As we near the end of the debate on the Woolsey substitute, let me remind my colleagues that the two bills that we have before us are identical, with one exception, that exception being the language that we preserve in the current law to allow faith-based organizations to participate in Community Service Block Grant programs without giving up the protections granted to them under the 1964 Civil Rights Act. That is the only difference.

We have worked the rest of the bill out in a bipartisan basis, but this one issue that we have argued on this floor, we have done so on numerous occasions, whether it be the 1996 Welfare Reform Act, several times last year when we considered the Workforce Investment Act, and when we considered the reauthorization of the Head Start bill, we had the same debate here in the House about whether faith-based providers using Federal funds would have to give up the protections granted to them under the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

As we have heard today from numerous Members, these faith-based organizations do very good work with the poorest of the poor in many of our communities. And to deny them their protections under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, we believe would in fact have a chilling effect on their willingness to take Federal funds and to work in the community to help deal with many of the problems that are there.

When I listen to the debate today, there are a lot of examples used of discrimination, discrimination in hiring. And I would suggest to most of my colleagues that use these examples, if you don't like the 1964 Civil Rights Act that provides religious organizations an exemption in hiring, then we ought to change it. But that is the law. And what we are trying to do is trying to continue to comply with the law, and we should not deny those organizations that are faith-based the protections that are granted to them under the 1964 Civil Rights Acts.

I would ask my colleagues when we near the vote on this substitute, that we vote no on the substitute and to support the underlying bill which, in fact, has been the law since 1998.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, the Community Services Block Grant program has a proud history of inclusion of faith-based organizations in the coordination of poverty reduction services, and we should continue that tradition of inclusion and reject attempts to add new barriers to faith-based organizations who are already serving in this program.

This amendment offered by my good friend from Virginia (Mr. Scott) does two things. It adds new language that is duplicative and redundant to the current program or the current operation of the CSBG program; and, second, it complicates the operation of the program by adding a new paperwork requirement only for faith-based providers, I might add, and requiring them to certify to the funding agency that they are in compliance with the law.

On the first issue, the amendment seeks to add language regarding the voluntariness of participation by beneficiaries in religious activities and the separation of these activities from the services under the program. Both of these issues are duplicative and redundant to the current requirements of the program.

Specifically, under section 1050.3(b) of the Community Services Block Grant regulations, the requirement is clear that direct funds under the program may not be expended for inherently religious activities such as worship, religious instruction, or proselytizing. The same section goes on to state that if an organization conducts such activities, it must offer them separately in time or location from the programs or services directly funded under any applicable program, and participation must be voluntary for program beneficiaries.

The second issue is purely a new paperwork requirement, again targeted only at faith-based providers, and based on the unsubstantiated assumption that these organizations are somehow violating the current requirements

of the law. This requirement seeks to erect new, unnecessary barriers to the participation of faith-based providers by requiring that they, and only they, certify to the funding agency that they have read the law and will comply. Other program operators that are not faith-based will not have this requirement under the language offered by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

Unfortunately, its real purpose, I think, is likely a bit more insidious. In adding this new requirement solely for faith-based providers, it creates further barriers designed to limit the participation of faith-based providers and will likely lead to a chilling effect for both current and potential faith-based providers.

Should this amendment pass, we expect at least some of those groups would choose not to participate in the Community Services Block Grant program. As we all know, the group most likely to suffer the consequences are the most vulnerable in our society and those who need the help most and those who the Community Services Block Grant program is designed to serve.

So I would suggest to my colleagues that we do not need this language. It will drive faith-based providers away from the program, and the amendment deserves to be defeated.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, our friend from Virginia (Mr. Scott) offers the second amendment, which is very close to the language that was contained in the Woolsey substitute, striking the ability of faith-based providers from their protections under the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

The current law, which was signed by President Clinton in 1998, makes clear that when faith-based organizations participating in the Community Services Block Grant program take religion into account in their hiring practices, they are not discriminating. That language is consistent with the protections provided to religious organizations under the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

What the gentleman seeks to do is to take that protection away from those faith-based providers who would participate in the Community Services Block Grant program. It has been the subject of debate for hours here on the floor today; and to save all of us a little time and effort, the amendment would, in fact, have a chilling effect on the willingness of faith-based providers to participate in the Community Services Block Grant program; and, therefore, I believe it is a bad amendment and does not deserve our support.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I really do not know where to begin. I have been around the political arena for the better part of 20 years, and I have seen every political stunt that I think there is; but I have never seen a more cynical attempt to exploit American unemployed workers for political gain.

Now, let us talk about the facts that are contained in the gentleman's amendment. The gentleman's amendment would create a new program within the Community Services Block Grant program. This is nothing more than an authorization. It has no money attached to it. The Community Services Block Grant program helps poor people in all of our communities across the country. They have no capability to pay out unemployment benefits. So we have only here an authorization for a program that cannot deliver the funds. And if they were to deliver, it would take years to implement such a system. Yet there is no money that has been appropriated to actually pay these.

Now, these are the kinds of political stunts that occur in the middle of even numbered years divisible by four. But to exploit American workers here in

the House of Representatives is wrong, and the gentleman fully well knows that unemployed workers will wait years to get their extended unemployment benefits under the language that is being offered here today.

Mr. Chairman, I might add that last March this Congress provided $8 billion additional to the States for the extension of unemployment benefits, $8 billion. As of January of this year, the States were sitting on $5.4 billion of that money. The States were sitting on it. Thus, if you look at nearly 2 years since Congress provided this $8 billion in Federal funds, States have spent less than half of this to assist unemployed workers. A total of 45 States still have some of their share of the original $8 billion. 31 States, 31 States still have over 90 percent of the money that Congress allocated to them still in their accounts today.

Now, what we ought to be doing is encouraging the States to take care of those who have extended unemployment problems. But my colleagues know and all the Members ought to know that this is not the way to do it and that this is nothing more than a hollow, empty promise, exploiting American workers for political gain; and I do not think this Congress is worthy of that kind of gamesmanship.

We as a House ought to stand up and say no. If we want to have a debate about extending unemployment benefits and to help those who are in need and looking for a job, then let us have that debate. But this is not the place to do it, and the gentleman knows this is not the place to do it.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, over the course of this debate I am sure that my colleagues from the Committee on Ways and Means that have jurisdiction over the extension of the unemployment benefits and the unemployment program will be here to handle that debate. But to hold up the Community Services Block Grant program, a program that helps the community action agencies in all of our communities, helps them with their assistance to the poorest of the poor, to hold it up over this kind of a political stunt, I think, is regrettable. It does not deserve the support of our colleagues.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that we limit the remaining time on this amendment and all amendments thereto to 30 minutes equally divided between myself and the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham).

Mr. Chairman, we will reserve the balance of our time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of our time.

Mr. Chairman, we are debating the Community Services Block Grant reauthorization program that funds the community action agencies in all of our communities to help the poorest of the poor, Meals on Wheels, other coordination of social services, to help those that are very needy. It is a very important program and a program that needs to be reauthorized.

But out of nowhere, at the 11th hour, we get this cynical attempt to talk about extending unemployment benefits. It has no business on this bill. As I said before, this is an authorization. There is no money attached to it; and for goodness sakes, no unemployed worker in America ought to count on anything happening out of this bill because it never will be funded.

The gentleman from California, my good friend and colleague, although we do disagree and we are disagreeing today, knows that this has no chance of becoming law. We are here scoring political points today at the expense of unemployed workers, and I really do think that is a sad use for the U.S. House of Representatives, not that there is never politics played here, but they are not usually played on the backs of the unemployed. I think that is what causes me such distress as I stand here today in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

Two years ago, when we sent this $8 billion out to the States for unemployment out of the Federal unemployment trust fund, we told the States they could do a number of things with that money. They could increase benefits. They could add additional workers. They could increase the amounts or they could extend unemployment benefits for those whose were expired.

As we have heard in the debate today, 45 States have almost all of the money that we sent them, 45 States; and so the money is there and the States, in my view, are acting to help those people. Why are we here?

Even if this were germane and it were in order, the money would go out to the States. The same States that already have the money, would they really help any more unemployed workers? The States ought to get off their rear ends and help those who need help. We know there are people out there whose benefits have run out, and those State legislators and those Governors ought to step up to the plate and use the money we sent them out of the Federal unemployment trust fund to help them.

In the meantime and back to this debate, this amendment does not deserve to be here. This amendment does not deserve our vote. I will not vote in a cynical way to try to tell unemployed workers we are going to extend their benefits when I know, when I know that this bill will never be funded, and this program, even if it were funded, would take years and years to actually implement the extension of benefits for these workers. It is not fair to them, and playing politics on the backs of unemployed Americans is beneath the dignity of this institution.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I want to begin by thanking the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) for all of their work on this legislation.

I want to compliment the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne), a relatively new Member of the Congress, for his effort in shepherding this through our committee and bringing it to the floor on a timely basis. And I want to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) for working with us on many of the provisions in this bill to make sure that States and local entities are held to strong accountability while providing services to reduce the effects of poverty. And I rise in strong support of the Community Services Block Grant program.

The Community Services Block Grant is a relatively small, but an extremely important, program. The central purpose of this program is to minimize the effects of poverty and to maximize self-sufficiency. This program gives money to local entities who can create innovative programs and respond to community needs. It helps low-income individuals and families with services such as domestic violence prevention programs, job training and business development, senior services, homelessness, food pantries, adult literacy, and early education.

As we read that list of names, many of us will recognize our friends and families who volunteer in many of these efforts in our communities because the Community Services Block Grant has also been a catalyst to bring together other elements of the community help volunteers to address these problems that are present in our local community. I support the provisions of this legislation, and the substitute makes important steps to further strengthen the accountability of goals and performances.

However, I cannot support this bill because this bill contains a poison pill. I will not support government-sponsored religious discrimination. And we can dress it all up and we can talk all around the point, but the fact of the matter is that what this legislation does is allow faith-based organizations to make discriminatory hiring decisions with the funds from the Community Services Block Grant.

The majority claims that these types of repeals of civil rights laws are necessary for faith-based groups to participate is simply wrong. The faith-based organizations have been participating in this program from its inception. In many instances, the faith-based organizations were here prior to the creation of the Community Services Block Grant.

When we think back to the War on Poverty, when we think back to ending segregation in this country and to providing opportunity in this country, to poor and minority families in our communities, if it had not been for the faith-based organizations, many of those efforts would have never gotten off the ground in many regions of this country, in many of our cities, and many of our communities.

So the fact of the matter is from its inception faith-based organizations have been a key component, a necessary component, and a welcome component to the providing of services under the Community Services Block Grant and in many other governmental activities that we undertake to improve our communities.

Mr. Chairman, I also want to point out that the suggestion that, but for this provision in the law, these organizations are not participating, according to a nonpartisan survey, over two-thirds of local Community Service Block Grant boards include faith-based organizations. Forty percent of the community action agencies contract with faith-based organizations to deliver services.

I expect, again, that Members of Congress will recognize that activity. I certainly do from the congressional district that I represent because I rely on, and our community relies on, and the families and recipients of these services rely on faith-based organizations to extend the efficiency of these programs, to extend the effectiveness of these programs. We do it when working with prison parolees and their families; we do it working with the victims of domestic violence and working with children who need additional mentoring and tutoring, all kinds of activities that take place in our community.

Nearly 100 percent of the community action agencies refer clients to faith-based providers because the services are there and they are effective and they are working. The majority's claim that Democrats and President Clinton have supported discriminatory language we are debating today is really not true. When the Community Services Block Grant was before us in 1998 the religious discrimination language was put into conference report and was voice voted at 2 a.m. Some on the other side of the aisle may recognize that because that has become a habit. Whenever there is something controversial, we do it after midnight in the House of Representatives.

Mr. Chairman, we simply should not as a matter of law give to religious organizations the right to discriminate when they are using Federal dollars, because that makes the government of the United States a partner in the discriminatory agent. And that is what the Constitution is all about, to make sure that the government does not do that.

We had a little tune-up here a little earlier on the floor between my chairman and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards), and I think it is clear that there is a distinction what faith-based and private organizations do with their own money. It is a distinction that has been brightly drawn in Federal law as to what they do with the taxpayers' dollars. Obviously these taxpayer dollars come from people of all faiths, and they should not be used to discriminate.

The underlying bill is a very good bill. It is a very important bill. It is an improved bill because of the work of the members of our committee. But it, in fact, contains this poison pill that specifically provides for discrimination with Federal funds. I will not support that effort. I would hope that most of the Members of Congress would not support that effort, and then we can get on to renewing the effort by the community action agencies, by our States and our cities and localities and agencies and so many of the faith-based organizations that are already providing so many of these services and helping so many of the agencies and helping so many in our community to battle the impacts of poverty on families and children in our communities.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, if I may inquire of the chairman how many additional speakers he has on general debate.

Mr. Chairman, we have no further speakers, and I yield back our time. We can move right to the substitute. I think we were debating the substitute in any case.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I want to make a point because I think the previous speaker in the well completely misstates history.

This is not about driving anybody away who wants to help our communities. One of the other speakers talked about rolling back time. We have 30 years of experience where faith-based organizations have stepped up to the plate to help our communities, to help our families, to help our children, to help our homeless; and they have been doing it all along. They were there before the government programs were there. They were there with the initial programs in the 1960s. It was the only way we could get services delivered.

Now, to suggest that somehow because we do not think that they should discriminate in the hiring that we are chasing them away, they were there before this was the law. I was building houses with Habitat for Humanity before 1998. This is not about that. This is about whether or not people in good faith who walked through the front door who need a job who have a talent are going to be chased away because of their religion. That is what this is about, whether or not a completely well- qualified individual who walks in and asks for a job to help out, and is told they cannot have that job because of their religion, that is who is being chased away, people of good faith and intentions who need help in our community who need a job and who are qualified to do the job.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. So would the Jewish and Muslim citizens of this country be amazed.

I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment authorizes an additional 6 months of urgently needed extended unemployment compensation benefits through the Community Services Block Grant program.

Last week, the shocking neglect of the unemployed by this administration became all too apparent. The tag-team termination of extended unemployment benefits by the Republican leadership and the Bush administration has left a staggering, record-breaking 375,000 unemployed individuals who have been out of work over a half a year and still cannot find work. By July, over 2 million unemployed workers will be left to fend for themselves, with no paycheck and no unemployment assistance. Two million Americans who were working before this recession, 2 million Americans who were working before the tech bubble burst, 2 million Americans who were working before the corporate scandals in this Nation, who were supporting their families and themselves, cannot find work and this government will not help them because this administration does not see it as a priority. In no other month on record and in no other 6-month period for which data is available have so many unemployed workers exhausted their regular unemployment benefits without being able to receive additional aid.

At a time when we see that this administration is willing to lavish billions of dollars on special perks for the pharmaceutical companies and HMOs but nothing for an unemployed family, at a time when we see us borrowing money to rebuild Iraq and provide sole-source contracts that are now overcharging us millions of dollars for the care and feeding of our soldiers, no money for the unemployed. At a time when this administration comes to us and tells us we should borrow to go to Mars, nothing for the unemployed. We should borrow to rebuild Iraq, nothing for the unemployed. Time and again, we have made decisions in this Congress and in this administration that do not include the ordinary, hardworking American families who have fallen on hard times through no fault of their own. Their jobs have been outsourced, their jobs have been sent overseas, their jobs have been eliminated. It is not because they are not struggling. These people want a job. They want a job. They would trade their unemployment check in a minute for a job. But the jobs are not available.

They were told at the beginning of this Congress by this administration with their economic program, with their budget priorities that they were going to create 1.8 million jobs. Well, here we are, folks, a year later, and they are 1.6 million jobs short. They just did not hit the target. But what they did hit was the misery and the trauma among the unemployed in this country.

In the past, we have recognized when jobs are not available, as the economy bottoms out, as it starts to turn up, we have extended the unemployment benefits to get those people to a job. These people have been looking for work for 6 months. But this administration will not do it. This administration will not do it.

This administration makes this part of the attack on middle-class America, middle-class working people who have lost their jobs. They take away their unemployment benefits. Middle-class America, that relies on overtime to meet their annual support for their families, to provide their cars, to buy their houses, they want to engineer the taking away of their overtime. Middle-class America that needs a pension, they want to take away their pension in the cash balance program.

What is it that middle-class America did that so angered the Republican Party, that so angered this President, that he cannot understand and have compassion over what these families are going through when they are unemployed? What is it that the middle class did that does not allow this President to understand what it means when they close down the factory in your hometown, when they out-source your job to India, to China, to Singapore? Your job just disappeared.

The answer from this administration and this Congress, this Republican Congress, is, tough; it is tough. These are hard-working people. They were working the day before they were unemployed. They have a work history. They have a history of supporting their families, of supporting themselves, of trying to hold on to a standard of living.

Mr. Chairman, we have a remedy today. You vote for this amendment, and we can tell the 61,000 people from North Carolina who are expected to lose their jobs over the next 6 months that we will help them and their families until they find a job. You can tell the 66,000 people in Florida that we will help them and their families and their children until they find a job; or the 51,000 people in Georgia or the 314,000 people in the State of California that this government will help them until they can find employment.

Compassionate conservatism? Sounds pretty good to me. Where is the compassion? These are breadwinners. These are providers for families. Where is it that we cannot help them?

There is $17 billion in the Unemployment Trust Fund that was put there by the work and the sweat and the toil of America's workers, and what we are asking you today is to authorize that those funds be released for the next 6 months so that these people can have an opportunity to hold on to their house, to hold on to their health care, to hold on to their children, because that is what happens when you lose all of your financial support: you start to lose your family, you start to see divorce is a possibility, you start to lose your mortgage, you start to lose your car, and you have got to start all over again and you are 50 years old.

That is an America of compassionate conservatism? That is the America of Bush compassionate conservatism? No, that is a very mean-spirited America. But you have an opportunity to turn that around today. You have an opportunity to turn it around immediately. Pass this amendment and ask for a supplemental to take those hard-earned worker funds that are in the trust fund, that are there for their benefit, for exactly this purpose in this economic emergency and help those 375,000 people that this administration pushed off the employment cliff and the economic cliff in this country last month.

When would we have that debate? When is that bill coming to the floor? Why did it not come to the floor just before we went home for Christmas? Why did it not come to the floor before these people fell off the edge?

Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).

(Mr. GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens).

(Mr. OWENS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis).

(Ms. SOLIS asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the ranking member of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).

(Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

(Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu).

(Mr. WU asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).

Does the gentleman have any additional speakers?

How much time do we have remaining?

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining time.

Mr. Chairman, this is an important debate. I appreciate that my colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle do not like this bill being used for this purpose; but let me say to them, this is the only vehicle we have because they will bring us nothing to address the unemployment problem in this country and the loss of unemployment benefits. We are trying. We are trying on this side of the aisle to use any vehicle we have to try to get this Congress to respond to the needs of millions of Americans who are at risk of losing or have already lost their unemployment benefits, millions of middle-class Americans who are working hard, who are about to go in a downward financial spiral that leads to chaos in their families, that leads to bankruptcies, that leads to the loss of assets, millions of working Americans who play by the rules, had a job, worked hard at it, and then through no fault of their own they lost it.

This Congress stands by as 375,000 people lost their benefits in the month of January. We knew it was going to happen. We went home for Christmas. What kind of Christmas did these people have when they knew that their benefits were going to run out? What kind of Christmas did these hard-working families have?

We have heard a lot over the last couple of months about two Americas. This is the other America. This is the America without stock options. This is the America without vacations. This is the America without jobs.

Most of them have worked their whole lives, played by the rules, tried to do it the right way, tried to raise their families; and now all of that is at risk, and we sit with $17 billion in the trust fund, and they say go to the States. The State of Illinois is out of money. The State of Minnesota is out of money. The State of Missouri is out

of money. North Carolina is out of money. New York's out of money. Texas is out of money. California's about out of money, and Arkansas is heading in that direction.

My colleagues do not have a solution, go to the States. What a cynical approach. The gentleman from Texas takes the well and says go to the States, and his State with 300,000 people in it is out of money, is out of money. So his answer apparently is nothing for these families.

I do not get it. I just do not get how this happens to people who work all year long, year after year; and then they find out they are closing the factory, they are closing the mill, their job has disappeared. They run out and try to find another job. They cannot find the job. They run from place to place. They send out resumes; they go through retraining. They cannot find a job, and then they run out of unemployment benefits, and they get to go home to their spouse and to their children and say we are going to have to sell the house, we are going to have to sell the car, we have lost our health insurance. What is this Congress for? What is this Congress for if we are not here to try and bridge those people across these troubled waters from unemployment to employment.

I know my colleague is going to say, these people want a job? You bet your buns they want a job. They just do not have one in the Bush economy. They just do not have the opportunity.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule. We think this is an important piece of legislation. It seems to have fairly broad bipartisan support in most areas. Obviously this legislation reauthorizes the CSBG Act and preserves the CSBG as a State block grant program. The main issue here is that we do try to do some things that improve the quality of the block grant program.

First of all, State and local goals must be met by grantees, so there is some accountability, which probably heretofore has been lacking in some cases.

States monitor grantees to ensure that services are provided to those with the greatest need. Many times it has not in the past gone to those who are most destitute.

It streamlines reporting data to HHS to avoid duplication and eliminates extraneous information. I guess everyone likes to see less paperwork.

Also the States must either defund low-performing entities or justify to Labor-HHS why low-performing entities continue to be funded. So there is, again, an area of accountability.

In addition, this particular bill encourages initiatives to improve economic conditions in rural areas, which are often underserved, encourages education and youth crime prevention through youth mentoring, which saves money and lives by investing in young people before they are enmeshed in the criminal justice system, and, of course, it also allows faith-based organizations to consider religion while hiring, while ensuring that recipients are not discriminated against on the basis of religion. Also it continues to fund discretionary programs at current authorization levels and extends them through 2009.

I might just mention one story that I think pretty much illustrates the importance of this situation. A young mother in my district was abandoned by her abusive fiancee. She had no money, no car, no job, no family support, and a 5-year-old child. A Blue Valley community action crisis intervention program provided counseling, obtained housing, helped her find a job, and so she is now supporting her child, productively employed and preparing to own her own home. This is just one story that can be told thousands of times.

So I urge support of this bill. It provides those who have great need in the most efficient, most cost-effective way.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) for his kind comments regarding the overall worth of the bill. I am glad to see him back.

I really have three comments regarding the faith-based issue. First of all, I think that we need to recognize that there is legal precedent. And some of this has been discussed earlier. There are four different acts: The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration Act; the Welfare Reform Act of 1996; the Community Renewal Tax Relief Act of 2000; the Community Services Block Grant Act of 1998, which we have been discussing, which is current law; title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which we have been discussing; Supreme Court decisions such as Bowen v. Kendrick. So all of these provide sound legal support for the fact that faith-based organizations have a right to consider religion in determining hiring. And so we think this is well substantiated.

What time of night we voted on a bill should not have any bearing. We are accountable people. We cannot call Kings Acts because it was at a certain time of day.

We hear about special interests being involved in this, such as the Salvation Army, Catholic Social Services. These are not really very powerful special interest groups, and I do not think we need to worry about them very much.

The second point I would make is this, and the chairman made this earlier, this is a bill that is working. And so often when we get down to where the rubber hits the road in this body, we want to quibble over details, and we do not want to worry about the big picture. The big picture is how many people in need are we helping? And, obviously, this bill has done a good job for the last 6 years. There have been minimal complaints. Matter of fact, we know of no legal challenge to this bill.

So why all the sudden now is this becoming a big issue?

The third point that I would like to make is simply that of return on investment. And we hear a lot about budget deficits and our tax dollars and how they are being spent. Well, let us take a look at this because I think this is important. I will give you a case history from my district.

One agency has total funding of $8.5 million; $250,000 of this comes from community service block grants. That is 3 percent of the total. This particular agency serves 12,000 people. So if you prorate that, that means an average of $700 goes to each recipient. The community service block grant would then serve 350 of that 12,000.

Now, let us take, say we took that $250,000 community service block grant and said, okay, we got to go rent a building. We have to go hire 3 employees. We have to get a car. We have to buy some computers. We have to get some telecommunications going. You would eat up the whole $250,000 getting started. You would serve nobody.

What we are doing is getting more bang for the buck. I think everybody can understand that. We are not hurting anybody. I think it is important to understand that.

I think it is also important to understand that if faith-based organizations are not allowed to maintain hiring practices where faith is a consideration, obviously, many will leave the program. So they would be open to lawsuits regarding a hostile environment due to religious symbols and art. So if somebody has a picture on the wall that is a religious connotation, and somebody does not like it and they have been hired and they do not understand the mission of that organization, they can file a lawsuit because of a hostile environment which makes it almost impossible to function.

Also, as the chairman pointed out earlier, many faith-based organizations have employees with multiple responsibilities. So the music director at a church may also run the Head Start program. A youth pastor may run the food pantry. If you have multiple responsibilities, you obviously have to have people in place who understand the mission of that particular church or organization, and you cannot say, well, we need to have somebody who is socially acceptable and politically correct, but is actually the antithesis of what that particular organization wants to hire. You cannot do that.

Also, they could lose their tax-exempt status because tax-exempt status is provided to entities which share a common faith. So if you have to hire people that do not share that common faith, then how are you going to maintain that tax exemption? So we often assume the worst about faith-based organizations. I think this is a mistake.

The overwhelming majority of faith-based organizations hire people who agree simply with their mission. They hire people of other faiths but they want to make sure they understand the mission.

Dr. Nelson testified before our committee. She runs a faith-based organization in Chicago. She says their mission is based on a passage from the book of Isaiah that refers to justice and compassion. So obviously they hire a broad spectrum of people from many different faiths that simply aspire to that mission.

So this organization should not be forced to hire those who do not agree with the mission. That is simply what we are saying. We do not think there is widespread discrimination anyway.

Lastly, I will say this: The Supreme Court in Mitchell v. Helms set forth the proposition that members of religious organizations should always be presumed to be acting in good faith. It seems to me that we are doing exactly the opposite here. We are assuming that members of religious organizations act in exactly the opposite, they operate in bad faith. I do not think they do this. That is why for 6 years we have not had complaints. This is working. So we think we have a good bill. We think we need to pass it, as written, and we would urge a vote against the substitute.

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to rise today in support of my bill, H.R. 3030, Improving the Community Services Block Grant Act of 2003. H.R. 3030 reauthorizes the Community Services Block Grant Act (CSBG). The Community Services Block Grant program distributes Federal money to more than 1,100 Community Action Agencies nationwide that use those funds to lessen the effects of poverty.

In my congressional district, there are six Community Action Agencies: Blue Valley Community Action, Central Nebraska Community Services, Community Action Partnership of Mid-Nebraska (Kearney), Goldenrod Hills Community Services, Northwest Community Action, and Panhandle Community Services. Each of these agencies provide invaluable services to the citizens of Nebraska.

Many people have asked about what CSBG funds do. In short, CSBG funds provide the

glue that help Community Action Agencies coordinate funding and services across the spectrum of what families might need. An example of the success of the CSBG was shared with me by Shelley Mayhew of the Blue Valley Crisis Intervention. Shelley worked with a young mother with a 5-year-old child who was abandoned, with no money or car, by her abusive and violent fiance.

Unable to search for a job because of her inability to pay for childcare, lack of extended family support, lack of domestic violence services, and her lack of a car, since in rural Nebraska we have no mass transit system, this young mother was referred to Blue Valley Community Action Crisis Intervention. There, through the actions of staff at Blue Valley, the child was enrolled in school, the family received domestic violence counseling and found affordable housing, and the mother found a job that allows her to support her family. Today, this young mother is even enrolled in a program to help her prepare for homeownership. Shelley, the caseworker, says, ``I watched a family struggling and hopeless become self-sufficient and optimistic about the future. I feel very fortunate to be part of an agency that makes a difference in so many people's lives.''

This is just one story from my congressional district. H.R. 3030 preserves the CSBG as a true State block grant program, allowing States to establish and operate antipoverty programs that meet the unique needs of their low-income communities. It also retains the current definition of an eligible entity to include the grandfather provisions, but requires eligible entities to successfully develop and meet locally determined goals and meet State goals, standards, and performance requirements in order to continue to receive funds.

H.R. 3030 contains a number of important provisions:

Increases quality by requiring States to reevaluate funding the lowest-performing grantees. States are not required to defund these groups, but to explain why underperforming agencies should continue to receive funding. In addition, agencies are required to set locally determined goals and meet those goals and State goals, standards, and performance requirements.

Improves accountability by requiring states to take swift action to improve or defund low-performing entities that do not meet State and local goals.

Retains protections for faith-based charities. H.R. 3030 allows faith-based organizations to make employment decisions based on religion. I realize that this will be a topic of much discussion as we address this bill today, but I hope we can keep in mind that this is current law, signed into law by President Clinton. The bill does not permit federal funds to be used for the purposes of promoting religion. Rather, the CSBG funds under this bill can be used for secular purposes without compromising the essential character of the faith-based organization providing the services.

In addition, the bill maintains current overall funding levels as well as continues funding discretionary programs, including the National Youth Sports Program, which is particularly important to me.

I want to thank all the staff on both sides of the aisle who worked so hard to craft the compromise language that was necessary to insure that H.R. 3030 met the needs of the local organizations that work so hard to provide services to all of our constituents.

I urge passage of H.R 3030 and yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, in the absence of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), I recognize myself for 3 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, I have been here all afternoon. I know the chairman of the committee has been here all afternoon. The main reason we have been here is we would like to see H.R. 3030, the Community Service Block Grant Act of 2003, passed.

I think most people here believe this is a good bill. It does provide needed services. There was a dust-up over the faith-based provision, but I think for the most part people are supportive.

We already have an unemployment compensation system. This amendment creates a new grant program. It creates a second system operated through Health and Human Services instead of the Department of Labor. What this amendment will do, it will certainly confuse consumers. It will splinter resources. It will weaken an already good bill. And furthermore, there is no money to fund the amendment. We would have to go through the appropriations process separately.

The amendment, in addition, is inconsistent with services provided under CSBG provisions. CSBG provides grants to States, not to individuals directly. So we have an entirely new system here and it alters the entire nature of the program.

Lastly, let me say something that is little bit controversial. I do not try to be partisan. I do not try to be controversial, but there are some numbers thrown around here about unemployment and I think that certainly many of those are accurate, many of them are very justified. However, we seldom hear the figures I am going to quote.

During 2003 we went from 137,447,000 jobs in the United States to 138,479,000 jobs, from January 2003 to January 2004. The unemployment rated dropped from 5.8 to 5.7. We would like to see it down at 2 or 3 percent, but it is dropping and it will probably continue to drop. So we feel that some folks that have lost their jobs have become entrepreneurs. Some have gone into business for themselves.

We understand the problems that the other side is trying to address. We simply do not believe this is the vehicle to do it. We would like to see the bill passed. We think that people need it, and we think that it is a well-written bill and I think will command widespread support, but this amendment certainly does not enhance the bill in any way.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).

(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, we reserve the balance of our time.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

(Ms. McCOLLUM asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I stand today to support the Woolsey amendment because, you see, the underlying bill provides more than $635 million to communities throughout this country to combat poverty, improve the lives of people who are homeless, hungry, jobless, and all too often hopeless. These funds distributed through Community Service Block Grants put valuable resources into all of our communities to combat poverty, and I support the general goals of the underlying bill and the program it funds.

But it is not the funding alone that meets the needs of the homebound, the drug addicted, the destitute, and the hopeless. It is the tens of thousands of determined men and women who work as health outreach workers in shelters, as social service workers, in treatment centers, as counselors, and throughout our community to meet the needs of others. I admire the service and the selflessness of these men and women who live compassion every day they go to work, and not as a soundbite on a campaign trail.

Today, I rise on behalf of the STD and HIV clinic, the foster care social worker, the midnight-to-6-a.m. attendant at a group home, to oppose this bill because it uses their tax dollars and mine to fund religious organizations that can hire them and then fire them based on their religion or how they pray. This bill promotes State-sponsored religious intolerance in employment and it should be defeated, and that is why I support the Woolsey amendment.

Our country was founded on the principle of freedom of religion, and our tax dollars never should be used to enable religious discrimination in hiring. The Bush administration is continuing this disturbing trend of taking social service funding from successful, experienced organizations and redistributing to faith-based organizations that are permitted to use religion in hiring.

How can Congress enable and fund religious organizations to use a person's faith or religious orthodoxy to determine if a candidate is qualified to deliver social services or to mop a floor or to cook soup in a soup kitchen or to teach in a Head Start center? This is wrong. Separation of church and State is not an opt-in or opt-out provision of our Constitution. Using tax dollars to promote discrimination on the basis of religion is just plain, in my opinion, un-American.

I was disturbed by an article in Monday's New York Times describing the Salvation Army's new hiring practices for employees who deliver social services with taxpayers' money that take advantage of the Bush administration's faith-based agenda. The New York division's second-in- command of the Salvation Army is quoted as saying, ``Do we require our employees to believe in Jesus Christ and administer the doctrines and tenets of the Salvation Army? Not unless we hire them for a specific ministry.'' And then he clarified. ``Everything we do is related to our ministry and, in fact, is our ministry. The mission of the Salvation Army,'' which is listed on job postings and calls on new hires to ``preach the gospel of Jesus Christ and to meet human needs in his name.''

Mr. Chairman, I respect any American's freedom to pray, and I pray myself. I worship and I believe in God, and I believe every American should be able to worship in the way that they choose. But this congressionally funded and sanctioned discrimination based on religion is an abomination and debases our Constitution.

I call on all Members of Congress who respect religious freedom and believe in the constitutional separation of church and State to vote against this dangerous extremist bill and to support the Woolsey amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record the full text of the New York Times article I referred to earlier from February 2.

[From the New York Times, Feb. 2, 2004]

Charity Reopens Bible, and Questions Follow

(By Daniel J. Wakin)

The Salvation Army of Greater New York, long known for its

network of thrift shops and shelters, has begun an effort to

reassert its evangelical roots, stressing to lay employees

that the Army's core mission is not just social services, but

also spreading the gospel.

The New York division's new leaders have ordered that job

descriptions now state the mission clearly. they have

reminded employees who deal with children that they must fill

out a form promising to follow the Army's religious mission

in working with them. The form also asks those employees to

describe their church affiliations.

``Periodically, we have to kind of reclaim the

ecclesiastical turf, if you will,'' said Col. Paul M. Kelly,

a former New York division commander who was brought in as a

consultant last year to assess its operations.

The effort has stirred a mini-rebellion among some longtime

employees who resent what they see as an intrusion on their

privacy and the potential for religious discrimination. Such

demands for religious loyalty, they say, breach the wall

between church and state because the division accepts $70

million in state and city funds for its programs.

``We've been told that things are changing, that they've

come to whip us into shape, and they want us to become more

like the Army,'' said one social worker in a Salvation Army

foster care program who wanted to remain anonymous for fear

of retaliation. ``Everyone's really freaked out.'' Robert

Gutheil, a former official with an Army social service

program, said the New York division was considered an anomaly

within the national Army for the lack of emphasis of religion

in its programs.

One high-ranking administrator, in a complaint to the Equal

Employment Opportunity Commission, said a Salvation Army

official said during a meeting that any staff member who

refused to sign revised job descriptions proclaiming the

church's mission would be fired. And a former human resources

executive said a Salvation Army official asked about

religious affiliations of people who worked for her and

whether several of them were gay.

Catholic Charities, the UJA-Federation of New York and the

Evangelical Lutheran Church's local synod all said they do

not require social service employees to reveal religious

affiliations or commit themselves to a religious mission.

The Salvation Army's New York division leaders would not

comment on the specific charges, but denied that their

policies are new or even out of the ordinary for a religious

institution. Officials acknowledged, however, that they had

begun efforts to reinforce the organization's religious

identity among employees as part of a general effort to tell

the world about the group's mission.

The Army's charitable role was in full focus last week when

the national headquarters announced it had received a

bequest of $1.5 billion to build and endow 25 or 30

community centers around the country, each of which will

contain a place of worship. The bequest came from Joan B.

Kroc, the wife of the McDonald's chain founder, who died

in October.

Local Army officials said it was far too early to say how

the money would affect operations, but national officials

have said the centers will be used for educational and

spiritual purposes, not for social services.

Best known for the thrift shops and red kettles that help

support its network for services for the poor and homeless,

the Salvation Army is first and foremost a worldwide

evangelical church, according to the New York division's

second in command, Maj. Guy D. Klemanski.

``Everything that we do is related to our ministry, and is

in fact our ministry,'' he said in an interview. ``Do we

require our employees to believe in Jesus Christ and

administer the doctrines and tenets of the Salvation Army?

Not unless we hire them for a specific ministry.''

The tension between the social and spiritual sides of the

Army on display in New York have occurred in Salvation Army

divisions elsewhere in the nation, officials said. Major

Klemanski said the questionnaire asking about church

affiliation has been in effect nationwide since 1993,

although it was not always adhered to in the New York

division and was re-emphasized last fall. The church

questions were to help with background checks, he said,

adding that many people in the New York division did not seem

to be aware of the mission.

Major Klemanski said it was only natural that the

Salvation Army expects general support from its employees for

its mission.

``Why would you go to McDonald's and tell everybody to go

to Burger King?'' he asked. ``Why would any one want to go to

work for the Salvation Army if they are not supportive of

us?''

The major said he and the New York commander, Lt. Col.

Nestor Nuesch, arrived in their posts in July with a desire

to remind employees and the public of the Army's religious

functions. They would have done the same anywhere, he said.

``It's fresh leadership.''

Their arrival came on the heels of a reorganization plan

by Col. Kelly that was circulated last spring. In it, Col.

Kelly urged that more Salvation Army members be recruited for

jobs. ``The Army's `Christian perspective' is rarely

emphasized,'' he said.

The church and its program are happily growing, he said,

``but what appears to be happening is a widening gap between

the ecclesiastical Salvation Army and the social service

component.''

He praised a human resources executive for ordering a

Muslim employee to remove ``various Muslim artifacts'' from

one center. His report also questioned whether it was a good

idea to have hired a human resources director for the Army's

adult services agency ``who represents and Eastern

religion,'' apparently Buddhism or Hinduism.

The clash between the group's religious and social service

missions goes to the heart of President Bush's effort to make

it easier for churches to obtain Federal money for so-called

faith-based social programs, a debate in which the Salvation

Army has been central.

The group has lobbied the White House to allow exemptions

from gay discrimination laws, and in New York, has argued

that its hiring policies fall well within the terms of

contracts with the city, the city's human rights law and a

1980 executive order.

Opponents sharply disagree. ``It's governmental monies to

spread the mission of Christ,'' said Martin Garbus, a First

Amendment lawyer who is representing at least a dozen Army

employees who are upset by the religious policy and fear

retaliation. ``The government shouldn't support Pat

Robertson, it shouldn't support the Catholic church, it

shouldn't support Jewish synagogues.''

The New York Civil Liberties Union asked the city and state

comptrollers two weeks ago to audit the New York branch,

Lawyers for the group say the New York division may be

violating city and state contracts prohibiting religious

discrimination.

The city comptroller, William G. Thompson, has passed the

complaint on to the New York City Human Rights Commission,

and the office of the state comptroller, Alan G. Hevesi, said

it was studying the case.

Lawyers for the employees said a lawsuit could be filed

this week.

``This is an agency acting on behalf of a government

providing government services,'' said Donna Lieberman, the

civil liberties union director. ``It cannot be in the

business of promoting religion and discriminating against its

employees based on religion.''

Religious institutions are exempt from religious anti-

discrimination laws, but not for employees working in

government-funded programs, the civil liberties union argues.

The Bush administration favors allowing religious

institutions to consider religion in hiring people who work

for their government-funded programs.

The Army, which operates in 109 countries, was founded in

London in the 19th century by a Methodist minister, who

patterned its structure and terminology after the military.

Adherents undergo training before being ``commissioned,'' or

ordained, as ``officers,'' the equivalent of ministers. Army

doctrine holds that the Bible is truthful revelation and

salvation depends on obedience to Christ.

Nationwide, the Army has 46,000 employees, a budget of $2.5

billion and a reputation for being efficiently administered.

Some 1,700 employees work in the Greater New York

Division's social service agencies, which have a budget of

$120 million a year, about 60 percent from government

sources, the division said. The agencies operate more than 60

group homes, foster care, treatment programs, H.I.V.

services, shelters and the like. The New York division, which

covers New York City, Long Island and seven counties north of

the city, said it touches the lives of 5 million people a

year.

A few supervisors refused to hand out the forms that

included questions on church affiliations. Some workers

feared losing their jobs if they did not sign. They included

Jews, Muslims and Hindus, gays and lesbians, atheists and

even a lapsed Salvation Army member, employees said.

The civil liberties union has also condemned job

descriptions calling for applicants to support ``the

mission'' of the Salvation Army, which is listed on job

postings and calls on new hires to ``preach the Gospel of

Jesus Christ and to meet human needs in His Name without

discrimination.''

The associate executive director of the children's agency,

Anne Lown, who is Jewish, filed the E.E.O.C. complaint,

according to the New York Nonprofit Press, which reported the

dispute last month. Ms. Lown, now associate director, would

not respond to questions about the complaint.

Mr. Gutheil, the executive director of the children's

division, said in a Sept. 26 memo to his superiors that the

church-affiliation form would have an ``enormously chilling

effect'' on hiring good applicants. He said it was bound to

be challenged in court, bringing bad publicity and hurting

donations.

``Finally, whatever the legality and whatever the practical

implications, this is just plain offensive to many of us who

share the Gospel faith of the Salvation Army,'' wrote Mr.

Gutheil, an Episcopalian. ``This is a city that thrives on

its diversity. Our workplace should reflect that.''

Within weeks, Mr. Gutheil had left the Army after more than

20 years. On Tuesday, he said a confidentiality agreement

that was part of a severance agreement prevented him from

discussing his departure. But he said the dispute contributed

to it.

``It was an important stand to take,'' he said. ``I'm sorry

I'm not at liberty to say more about it.''

Mr. Speaker, the first 16 words of the Bill of Rights enshrined in our psyche in this country, the belief that every American citizen should have the right to his or her own religious views.

I want to point out, Mr. Speaker, to colleagues here in the House and to the people across this country, that in this legislation is language that will make it perfectly legal for an American citizen to receive, say, a $5 million job training grant, or a Head Start grant, and then using those tax dollars, that one American citizen can say to another citizen, if you do not pass my private religious test, then you do not qualify for a tax-funded job. In effect, what this bill does is to subsidize, not just tolerate, but to subsidize religious bigotry in America.

How ironic, at a time when we are fighting for religious freedom in Iraq and across the world, that we would pass legislation that would maintain in the law a prescription for religious discrimination. I think it is wrong to do so, and I would be willing to even yield some of my time to any Republican Member that would stand up and tell me that it is okay in 2004 in America to say that you should have to pass my religious test to qualify for a federally-funded job.

That is wrong, and it should not be a partisan issue. It is an American issue, because it is ingrained in the very first 16 words of the Bill of Rights that has protected America's religious liberty for over two centuries.

So far, I have not had any of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle willing to stand up and say in public that it is okay that someone else should have to pass another American citizen's religious test in order to qualify for a federally-funded job. Yet, guess what happens? When the doors are closed and decisions are being made on the bills and interest groups are plying their pressure, that kind of discrimination language was put in this bill.

It is wrong, it is unconstitutional, and I find it morally offensive as a person of faith that any American ought to have to pass someone else's private religious test to qualify for a tax-funded job.

Mr. Speaker, I would welcome a debate on this issue at any point during the debate of this bill with any of my colleagues on either side of the aisle. As I said, this should not be a partisan issue. Protecting religious freedom in America should be an American value, an American issue, and we ought to have the courage in this Congress to stand up to special interest groups and say we do not care how much power

you have, we are not going to let you try to put in the law of this land a rule that allows other Americans to discriminate against citizens, to exercise religious bigotry when using Federal dollars to funds those jobs.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the gentlewoman from Tennessee before she leaves the Chamber if she would be willing to have a discussion. I would be glad to yield some time to have a discussion on the issue of whether a group should be able to say with tax dollars that we are not hiring Jews or we are not hiring Catholics in this job training program or education program, even though you are perfectly qualified for that job.

My friend and colleague the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) is on the floor, and I would be glad to yield for the purpose of a discussion.

I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would just say to the gentleman, he and I came to the House together 14 years ago and we know on a daily and weekly basis we utilize rule time to discuss what is in a bill.

Obviously, I do not like this rule because it allowed a bill to come to the floor that I find deeply offensive to the First Amendment protection of religious freedom. But if this was an issue important enough for Madison and Jefferson to debate for 10 years in the Virginia legislature, the issue of religious freedom in America, then certainly it is worthy of our discussion here on the floor.

I guess what I would like to ask the gentleman is just do you not think it is wrong that you would have to pass my personal religious test to qualify for a tax-funded job? Why should you have to pass my religious test? Why should I have the right to give you a religious test to qualify for a job that is being paid for by the American taxpayers?

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, if I could respond to that, then I would be glad to yield, because I appreciate the opportunity to have a discussion on this, I think if the gentleman would go back and look at the debate, including Senator Sam Irvin's comments on the Title VII exemption to the Civil Rights Act and the amendments thereto, you would find that the focus there was saying that Baptist churches with their own money should have the right to hire Baptist pastors; a Jewish Synagogue with its own money ought to have the right to hire a Jewish rabbi, rather than a Baptist pastor.

I think there is a real serious question about suggesting that Title VII said it is perfectly okay for a faith-based group to take Federal tax dollars and say, ``Mr. Boehner, I am not hiring you today because you do not pass my personal religious test.''

Let us put Title VII aside for a moment. There might be differences of opinion about what is in it. Let us discuss the direct principle. Why should any American citizen have to pass another American citizen's personal religious test to qualify for a Federal education program or a job training program? Why should it be legal for a group to accept a $5 million Head Start or job training grant from the taxpayers and say we are not going to hire Jews or Catholics? Or it might be a Muslim group that says we are not going to hire Christians.

In the land that cherishes religious freedom, do you really believe that that is a good public policy?

Reclaiming my time, I will be glad to answer that question, and then I will give the gentleman time to answer my question.

I would say, first of all, I disagree with the gentleman that the Title VII exemption gave faith-based groups a carte blanche to use public tax dollars to discriminate in job hiring. The second thing is, when they accept Federal money, they already, under long-standing law, agree not to proselytize.

So when you accept taxpayer money, there are certain standards you accept. My question back to the gentleman is does he think it is okay for a faith-based group to receive a $5 million job training grant and say we are not going to hire you because you are Jewish or Catholic? Is that okay?

Reclaiming my time, there are cases starting to come to the surface. For example, in the State of Florida or Georgia, a Jewish citizen, perfectly qualified for a job, was denied the right to a job simply because he was Jewish.

Now, again, I differ with the idea that the Title VII exemption of the Civil Rights Act allowed faith based groups to exercise religious discrimination or, in the worst cases, religious bigotry.

But I at least want to clarify, at least the gentleman is saying, for whatever reasons he mentioned, groups ought to be able to do with public tax dollars whatever they want; the gentleman is saying that it is okay for a faith-based group running a federally funded jobs training program to say to a Jew or a Catholic or a Christian of one denomination or another, we are not going to hire you even though you are perfectly qualified for this job, simply because of your religious faith. I think most Americans would think that type of religious discrimination is absolutely wrong, especially when we consider we cannot fund religious programs. We all agree that is prohibited under Federal law.

So what we are doing is we are funding social programs. Why should your religious faith have an affect on whether you can ladle soup at a soup kitchen or train a 5-year-old child? Perhaps we have just an honest disagreement. I think it is wrong for a group to say with tax dollars we are not going to hire you because of your personal religious faith. Perhaps the gentleman feels that these groups ought to be able to discriminate in that fashion. And if he does, then at least that is an honest debate and we will let the American people decide which side they come down on.

One other point. I would challenge the gentleman. Other than the gentleman's tremendous knowledge as the chairman of this committee, there were not 10 Members out of 435 in this House that knew the discrimination language was in there in 1998. I have gone back and chronicled the first 3 or 4 times that we passed charitable choice language like this. The first time was the Welfare Reform Act. Virtually no one in the House, other than maybe the conferees, some of them, knew it was in there. The second time we passed it was at about 1 o'clock in the morning. The third time was at about 12:30 in the morning with 2 or 3 Members on the floor. Every time we passed it Members would say, We already passed this before. People did not know it was in there.

So I think all of that is irrelevant.

The fundamental question is should an American citizen be discriminated against for a tax-funded job simply because he or she is exercising their deeply-felt personal religious faith. In my opinion, that kind of subsidized Federal bigotry based on religious faith is a prescription for disaster in this country. And President Clinton, when he signed this legislation and other legislation with charitable choice language in it, made it very clear he did not support that kind of discrimination, and he only signed the bill because of the other good things in it, and his administration had no intention of letting that kind of discrimination occur. With this administration, the present Bush administration, they have said no, it is okay to discriminate against someone based on their religion.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I appreciate the gentleman's honest comments. This is the kind of dialogue that this subject deserves. It is too important of an issue when we talk about religious freedom to be debated in a 10-minute debate at 1:30 a.m. So I appreciate the gentleman's willingness to have this honest debate.

I would conclude by saying, Mr. Speaker, that I strongly disagree with the notion that the 1964 Civil Rights Act clearly made it legal for faith-based groups in America to accept millions, and now in this case billions of Federal dollars, and say, We are not hiring you because you are Jewish or because you are Catholic, or because you are Baptist, or because you are Muslim. And I do not think we have to totally revisit the 1964 Civil Rights Act; I think we could just come here on the floor of the House and have an up-front debate.

It is very simple. It is, Do you believe that it is okay for groups to discriminate in job hiring using tax dollars, based on no other reason than that person's personal religious faith? I am confident that the vast majority of Americans do not like religious discrimination. They are appalled with religious bigotry, and while they understand, as I do, that Baptists and Methodists and Jews and Muslims should be able to hire people of their faith, using their own money, once they accept public tax dollars as a funding source, then they accept the obligation that in America, with tax dollars, you do not discriminate against your fellow citizens simply because of their deeply held religious faith.

Mr. Speaker, before I yield further, the gentlewoman from New York has been very gracious with time. I have appreciated this discussion. I see my colleague, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) on the floor.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), and I welcome a 3-person discussion of this question of religious discrimination and religious freedom in America.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner).

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time just for a moment, if the gentleman would check the full debate record, Senator Ervin also said at one point, ``After all, it is their money.''

Well, now we are not talking about ``after all, it is their money.'' We are talking about the people's money, the American tax dollar, and I think there is a huge difference there.

I am glad to yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) and then back to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner).

Mr. Speaker, let me tell the gentleman, I think the gentleman understands what this law would allow.

Going back several years ago, I do not know the present policy, but just a few years ago Bob Jones University made it very clear they did not hire Catholics or Jews. And under this language, you could literally put out a sign, paid for with tax dollars, in a faith-based group associated at that time with Bob Jones University, possibly today, that literally says, No Jews or Catholics need apply here for this federally funded education grant. I find that deeply offensive, especially when these are not religious jobs that we are paying for with tax dollars; these are social programs, education programs, job training programs, and other areas of government.

Why should someone's ability to help a 5-year-old get a head start in life through the Head Start program be denied a job? Why should an adult helping children be denied a job because they are Jewish, Catholic, or some other faith?

I think it is dead wrong. I do not think we have to look at other issues to just face the moral rightness or wrongness of that point. I think it is wrong to be discriminated against in a federally funded job simply because of my personal religious faith. I do not think the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) ought to have to pass my religious test to qualify for a job training program. I do not think the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) should have to pass the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner)'s 20-point religious test to qualify for an education job funded by the taxpayers. It is just right or wrong.