Federal News Service - Press Stakeout with Senator Richard Durbin (D-IL) and Senator Jack Reed (D-RI)

SECTION: PRESS CONFERENCE OR SPEECH

HEADLINE: PRESS STAKEOUT WITH SENATOR RICHARD DURBIN (D-IL) AND SENATOR JACK REED (D-RI)
 
LOCATION: THE OHIO CLOCK CORRIDOR, THE CAPITOL, WASHINGTON, D.C.

BODY:
SEN. DURBIN: This afternoon, the Senate is taking up the CARE Act. The CARE Act is a provision in law which will allow people to make larger charitable contributions, it will provide some assistance in decision-making by individuals to support faith-based charities and it will also increase the amount of money that is available to those charities. It will not contain the elements of the president's proposal which Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island and I find worthy of debate. In fact, we believe that if the president's proposal were to come this afternoon to the United States Senate, that several amendments should be offered and we are prepared, if it did come, to offer them.

I don't have any objection to the current situation where our federal government provides resources to faith-based charities which provide social services. It is an existing program, existing policy, existing law, with little or no controversy. What the White House has proposed is a step beyond that, to something new—a new relationship between the government and religious-based charities in America. This has been dismissed by senators sponsoring it and the White House as inconsequential, not that serious, not that big and not that important. I think it is. And I believe Senator Reed agrees that what we're dealing with here in this situation is a very complicated and momentous decision about the relationship between church and state in America. It is seldom, in my congressional career, that we have ever addressed this issue.

And frankly, if the president's bill on faith-based initiatives comes before us, I think some important amendments need to be offered; amendments relative to discrimination in hiring for those who receive federal funds; discrimination in providing services to those who are receiving these federal funds; the use of federal funds for proselytization; a question about whether there will be a separate accountable entity under law that can be audited when it receives federal funds; whether there will be a conformance with state and local laws; and perhaps some other amendments.

But the decision has been reached, an agreement has been made; the controversial part of the president's proposal will not be brought to the floor this afternoon. We expect this to pass with limited amendments on the Democratic side, and perhaps come to a final vote later this afternoon.

Senator Reed?

SEN. REED: I believe it was a very wise decision that was made by Senator Santorum and Senator Frist to limit this legislation to what we all agree with, which is essentially increase the social service block grants, provide further tax incentives for charitable donations; to give charitable organizations throughout this country more resources to do an important job, which we are glad they're doing.

One of the real dangers, though, that has been introduced by the president's proposal, and that's the danger that it's not just the delivery of social services, but it's proselytization. And I can't think of anything to me that is more challenging to what I believe America is about, is to suggest that someone has to agree to some sectarian notion before they get a public benefit. I think we're in the business of delivering public benefits. We can look at—and charities do this every day, they do a good job of it, but they do it, we like to think, without a sectarian condition. The condition of people who need help in America should be a very simple one—they qualify for these benefits because they're citizens of this country or they're legally here in this country.

This is one of the issues which was raised by the proposal the president made. And I'm glad today that we're moving forward on a much more principled approach, simply providing resources in the form that we're used to today, which is, generally speaking, religious organizations have formed some type of affiliate, subsidiary organization. These organizations get these benefits, these public programs, runs them well, and helps American citizens. And I hope we can proceed along those lines.

If the issue comes up again, Senator Durbin and I are prepared to fight these fights because they're important fights. And I come from New England, and there's a saying up there: Good fences make good neighbors. Actually, Robert Frost said it. And I believe in this case it's very true. We need to have the wall between church and state that was established with Jefferson and Madison and many, many others, and we can't breach that wall.

Today we're not going to do that. We're going to provide more resources to use in an appropriate way by faith-based organizations and other charities throughout the country.

Q Senator Durbin, on the Owen nomination, do you expect a long debate on the part of your Democratic colleagues?

SEN. DURBIN: Well, I can tell you that as a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee who voted against Priscilla Owen's nomination twice, that she was rejected by the previous Congress, and I feel that she should be rejected by this Congress. It is virtually unprecedented for a rejected nominee to be brought again before a subsequent Congress. And I believe that many members of the Democratic Caucus believe that her nomination is so wanting that she should not receive the approval of the Senate.

The procedural approach to be used by the Democrats I will leave to Senator Daschle to announce.

Q Senators, I wonder how both of you—each of you or both of you feel about what are going to be postwar plans for Iraq? There's the concern about Congress not having been consulted enough and concerns about how the money is being spent, how the administration wants to spend it and also about the choice of who ultimately—and how democracy is nurtured.

SEN. REED: Well, I think that initially, of course, our military forces are on the ground, so they'll have a role. But I would hope that there would be a quick transition to not only State Department but also to a more internationally represented authority in Iraq.

One reason I, as a member of the Armed Services Committee—our military forces will have to refurbish themselves quite quickly. They've been in a tough fight, they've done a magnificent job, but they've got to get back and get ready to protect us in the future. So as a result, I hope we can make a quick transition, which is—should be run by our traditional agencies, the State Department, and internationally.

Q General Jay Garner --

SEN. DURBIN: I would just—let me just add, if I can, critics of the United States' policy in Iraq today say that we are there for territory or treasure, or because we are opposed to a religion. I think the best way to disprove that is, after the military operations, to put in place an international force—and I hope it includes representatives of Arab states and Islamic cultures—that will demonstrate to the world that those are not our goals. Our goals are to bring self-government, a stronger economy and a better future for the people of Iraq.

Q But they have that Pentagon general, General Jay Garner. Does that diminish that effort to have an international face to this?

SEN. REED: It shouldn't diminish it. Again, I hope, as quickly as possible, we can move from a DOD-oriented approach to the postwar reconstruction of Iraq to one that is both reflective of traditional agencies, like AID, State Department, and, as Senator Durbin said, has an international component, for the reasons he outlined very well.

We don't—we want to make sure that people do not misread our motives and assume that we're there for self-interest. We want to make sure that they understand we're there for the interest of the Iraqi people.

Q There's a clash now, apparently, between the Defense Department, supported by the administration to deal with the funding, and the State Department—you clearly said the State Department there, and Republicans on the House side have said that, too. So there's a clash with the administration through the supplemental appropriations. Who's going to win that fight? Which way is it going to go?

SEN. REED: Well, I hope ultimately that the—in the long term, the State Department prevails on that clash. That's traditionally how we conduct diplomacy, international relations, foreign aid; it's not the Department of Defense. The Department of Defense, as they've demonstrated, has great expertise. And I think they should focus in on that expertise. And again, I think what we'll see quite quickly after the battle's concluded is that our troops want to come home and we want them to back here (sic) not only to greet them, but also to allow them to prepare and reequip themselves.

Q Thank you.

Q (Off mike) -- Owen nomination, was there discussion in your caucus meeting today about blocking that nomination? And would you support a filibuster?

SEN. DURBIN: There was a discussion about the strategy that the Democrats will follow. And I will leave it to Senator Daschle to announce our strategy.

Q Would you support a filibuster?

SEN. DURBIN: I personally believe that she should not be on the 5th Circuit. And I will be voting against her. But I'll leave the floor strategy to my leader.

SEN. REED: Thank you.

Q Thank you.