CARE Act of 2003

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I commend Senators GRASSLEY and BAUCUS for bringing this important legislation to the floor, but I particularly commend and thank Senators SANTORUM and LIEBERMAN for their principled and tireless efforts to bring this legislation to the floor and for recognizing that original versions of this legislation contained elements that were, to say the least, controversial.

Senator Santorum particularly recognized the need to provide additional resources to faith-based organizations and other charitable organizations through new incentives in the tax code to encourage people to contribute to charities. All of these issues compelled him to make a very difficult choice, a very important choice, and I think a very statesmanlike choice to send to the floor today a version of the bill that I assume will get the unanimous approval of this Senate.

It recognizes our shared belief that the more resources we can direct to organizations that are committed to helping people, the better off we will be. The increase in the social service block grant is a tremendous step forward and is something I know I am proud of, but certainly the Senator from Pennsylvania has to be very proud of because he is the principal architect of this effort, and the new tax advantages also are very important.

Indeed, Senator Santorum and Senator Lieberman worked very hard to improve legislation that in the other body was submitted as the Community Solutions Act of 2001, known as H.R. 7 in the 107th Congress. That legislation contained a number of controversial and potentially unconstitutional provisions, but they worked very diligently, very carefully, very thoughtfully to eliminate those provisions from their bill and ultimately today to bring this legislation to the floor, which I think and believe will get, as I said, unanimous approval by this body. Certainly I approve of it.

The CARE Act is going to provide increased resources for needed social services, and it is going to do so without including at this juncture troubling provisions that were in the original House bill. I know the Senator from Pennsylvania reserves his right to engage again on this issue—in fact, I believe he will exercise his right in all forums, and that is the glory of this body, and we shall engage in more extended debate, I think, in the future. But this afternoon is an opportunity to commend him, thank him, and recognize his wise and statesmanlike conduct. I again thank Senator Santorum.

The debate about church and state in this land precedes, indeed, the Constitution of the United States. It has been ongoing since the early days of the American experience. Religion has been an important part of our national life throughout our history. Indeed, European immigration in large part was motivated by the search for an environment conducive to freedom of conscience and religious exercise unhampered by State involvement.

Today, in the year 2003, religion remains a vital force in our national life and religiously affiliated institutions play a critical role in the provision of social services. For example, in 1996, Federal, State, and local governments granted $1.3 billion to Catholic Charities USA, comprising 64 percent of its budget. In 1999, 53 percent of Catholic Charities' budget came from State and local governments, and an additional 9 percent came from the Federal Government.

In 2001, United Jewish Communities received a Federal grant of $59.8 million. If indirect payments were included—for example, Medicaid, Medicare, vouchers, or food stamps—the amount flowing through religious organizations would be significantly higher.

Both of these mission-driven, faith-based groups are independently or separately incorporated as nonprofits and both are able to distinguish their religious activities from their secular social services activities.

So an initial point we must recognize in the debate about faith-based initiatives is that it is not whether religious groups will or should play a role in the spiritual and temporal lives of Americans—they do, and they will continue to do so—nor is the question about whether the government discriminates against faith-based charitable groups. The question is how the important roles faith-based organizations play can continue to meet the constitutional requirement of separation between church and state, both as a matter of law and as wise public policy.

This constitutional standard has strengthened religion in America compared to other countries around the world. We can see on the nightly newscasts the effects of intolerance across the globe, of established religions battling other beliefs. In America, we have been spared much of that. I believe it is directly attributable to the wise condition included in the First Amendment.

My awareness and sensitivity to these issues might spring in large part from my roots growing up in Rhode Island. As a child, I learned the history of Roger Williams and the founding of the colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantation. Upon leaving the enforced orthodoxy of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, Roger Williams started a settlement that ultimately became Rhode Island. This settlement was founded on his belief, in his words: "that no man should be molested for his conscience."

The spirit of Roger Williams was captured by his contemporary, John Clarke, in the petition for a new royal charter by the people of Rhode Island in 1663. In his words, the people of Narragansett Bay:

have it much in their hearts, if they may be permitted, to hold forth a lively experiment, that a flourishing and civil state my stand, yea, and best be maintained. .    .    . with a full liberty in religious commitments.

As a result of this religious liberty, Rhode Island became a refuge for people persecuted for their religious beliefs elsewhere. And Anabaptists, Quakers, and Jews settled in Rhode Island because of its commitment to religious liberty and tolerance.

This lively experiment became a model for the Founding Fathers and helped lead to the drafting of the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

In explaining what the First Amendment meant to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802, Thomas Jefferson wrote that the combined effect of the establishment and free exercise clauses of the Constitution was a "wall of separation between church and state."

Jefferson's comments were not unique to him. Senator Durbin has already made a reference to President James Madison. President Madison what was meant by this separation of church and state extremely clear in several messages he delivered on Government funding of religious endeavors. In 1811, he vetoed a congressional bill granting the use of some Federal land to a church in the Mississippi territory. President Madison stated:

Because the bill in reserving a certain parcel of land in the United States for the use of said Baptist Church comprises a principle and precedent for the appropriation of funds to the United States for the use and support of religious societies, contrary to the article of the Constitution which declares that "Congress shall make no law respecting a religious establishment".    .    . Resolved. That the said bill does not pass.

Indeed, I find it interesting that conservatives would so cavalierly dismiss so much of the history of this country and disregard so many of the fundamental principles of the Founding Fathers. President Bush and his conservative followers want to transform the relationship between church and state by directly funding pervasively sectarian organizations. He has done this by regulation and by Executive order, since he has largely been unsuccessful in accomplishing these tasks through the legislative process.

Just consider some of the changes that he has advanced thus far. In a June 2001 Department of Justice memorandum, the Department of Justice took the legal position that faith-based organizations that are given Federal taxpayer dollars to run governmental programs should be able to engage in employment discrimination on the basis of religion. Subsequent to this memorandum, the President by Executive order overrode a rule first enunciated by President Franklin Roosevelt that the Federal Government should not give contracts to employers who engage in discrimination on the basis of religion. Thus, it is now the position of the White House that government contractors can discriminate.

The President believes the government should fund faith-based organizations who use proselytization and prayer to cure drug addiction and other social programs. In his State of the Union Address, President Bush cited one such program in Louisiana that expressly combats drug abuse with faith. The head of another often-cited religious program, Teen Challenge, boasted to Congress that he was not only able to get kids to stop using drugs, he converted Jews into Christians in the process.

In newly proposed HUD regulations, the Administration says that Federal funds can be used to construct a religious building used for religious activities if the building also can be used for a public purpose such as counseling or a food pantry. At least that is the proposal.

With these and other initiatives, the President is attempting to breach the wall the Founding Fathers set up between church and state. These initiatives are clearly designed to fund proselytization and to promote certain types of religion.

There are legal challenges being raised to many of these proposals. But the long and short of it is, we have an opportunity to debate and to decide these issues through the legislative process, and we have an obligation to do so. And when there is a more robust, more extensive attempt to legislatively condone or sanction these faith-based initiatives, I believe there are going to be three major areas we will need to address.

One area is effective restraints on proselytization with taxpayer funds. The second is compliance with local regulatory standards in the delivery of public programs. And the third is prohibiting the use of public funds in employment discrimination.

First, with respect to proselytization. If the separation of church and state means anything, then in my mind, it must mean that no American should be compelled to pass a sectarian test or participate in sectarian exercises to receive a public benefit. This principle should be included in legislation and not left to the more shifting sands of regulatory pronouncements.

Second, many advocates of faith-based initiatives argue that they simply want a level playing field. Let's take them at their word. If State licensing arrangements are appropriate and necessary to protect children in publicly funded programs, why should religious providers be exempt from such licensing requirements? If we consider this issue, we will need to look for the even application of local and state laws, particularly laws with respect to the protection of children and public health. This is what we will need to do in order to truly create an even playing field.

Finally, we must address the issue of employment discrimination. Title VII provides an exemption for religious groups in certain situations. In the Amos case, the Supreme Court held that a religious group using its own funds may claim the Title VII exemption. In the words of the Court, the purpose of the exemption was to alleviate "significant governmental interference with the ability of religious organizations to define and carry out their religious missions."

Today, with respect to the Administration's proposal, we must recognize that rather than seeking autonomy from governmental interference, religious groups are seeking taxpayer funds to carry out governmental responsibilities. Indeed, in the one unreported case that has ruled on the use of public funds in this way, the court, in this labor case, concluded that the title VII exception does not apply.

As James Madison said in 1785, in his "Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments," in opposition to a proposal by Patrick Henry that all Virginians be taxed to support teachers of the Christian religion:

If "all men are by nature equally free and independent," .    .    . above all are they to be considered as retaining an "equal title to the free exercise of Religion according to the dictates of conscience." Whilst we assert for ourselves a freedom to embrace, to profess and to observe the Religion which we believe to be of divine origin, we cannot deny an equal freedom to those whose minds have not yet yielded to the evidence which has convinced us. If this freedom be abused, it is an offense against God, not against man: To God, therefore, not to man, must an account be rendered.

All of this leads me to my final point. In the words of the New England poet, Robert Frost, "Good fences make good neighbors." What might be permissible under the law does not always guarantee the wisest policy.

We need to remember that as we debate the President's faith-based initiative, religion has thrived in America because few people confuse religion with government. Religion has been a citadel of conscience and a check on government because it draws its strength and its support from its adherents, not from bureaucratic patrons.

The religious communities of America that have been unequivocally supporting the President's attempts to allow discrimination with Federal dollars might be mindful of the old saying: Be careful of what you pray for.

As the House of Representatives has made clear, we are going to be discussing this issue in the upcoming months on welfare, SAMSHA, National Service, and other programs. It is my hope the Senate will undertake a more careful look at how the charitable choice provisions in these bills inhibit the free exercise of religion, rather than encourage it.

Again, I thank the sponsors and the chairman and ranking member of the Finance Committee for bringing this bill to the floor. This is something we will all support, and we will do so with the notion and the idea and the commitment to provide resources for people who want to help other people, and do so consistent with the spirit and the letter of the Constitution.

I yield the floor.