Segment 2 Of 2 Previous Hearing Segment(1)
SPEAKERS CONTENTS INSERTS
Page 49 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
STRENGTHENING AMERICA'S COMMUNITIES:
EXAMINING THE IMPACT OF FAITH-BASED
HOUSING PARTNERSHIPS—DAY 2
Monday, April 28, 2003
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Housing and
Community Opportunity,
Committee on Financial Services,
Washington, D.C.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 4:00 p.m., in Room 2220, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Robert W. Ney [chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Ney, Renzi, Watt and Frank (ex officio).
Chairman NEY. Today the subcommittee will hold a second day of hearings to examine the effect of faith-based housing partnerships, specifically HUD's January 6th, 2003, proposed regulation that would provide more opportunities for faith-based organizations to address the needs of the poor and also distressed neighborhoods.
Although enacted into law in four previous statutes, charitable choice has been the subject of persistent discussion and debate. President Bush's initiative in the 107th Congress to rally the armies of compassion elevated the debate into the national spotlight. As the President stated when he announced his faith-based initiative, the government has a solemn responsibility to help the needs of poor Americans in distressed neighborhoods but does not have a monopoly on compassion.
Earlier this month, the Senate passed Senate Bill 476, which is aimed at making it easier for religious groups to compete for Federal grants and be responsive to the needs of their communities. The measure calls for $12.7 billion over 10 years in new tax incentives for charitable giving and additional spending for social services.
Page 50 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
This legislative action follows in the wake of a series of initiatives announced by the Bush Administration which culminated in HUD's early January proposed rules change. The Department's proposed regulation would accomplish the following: A, permit the consideration of religion in employment practices by religious organizations; B, terminate the general requirement that provided services be free from religious influence; and, C, prohibit government consideration of applicant's religion when distributing funds.
When it comes to lessening the effects of poverty in addressing the needs of those who are suffering, some of the most creative and passionate volunteers are affiliated with faith-based organizations. It should come as no surprise that faith-based organizations have the experience and knowledge to meet the social needs of their communities in a more compassionate manner than the Federal Government itself in Washington. They know their communities, they know the families that need assistance, and they know what housing and services are available in their neighborhoods.
In an effort to craft more bipartisan legislation, the Bush Administration agreed to the Senate's removal to any mention of religion in the bill.
I appreciate the Administration's willingness to work with Congress and look forward to continued cooperation as we consider this important endeavor.
I would also like to thank the members of the subcommittee for their commitment and passion towards this issue. No matter where they are at on the issue, they have been obviously passionate and committed, as well as witnesses, you today, all of you for your time in coming here.
With us today to discuss the Administration's view is Mr. John Weicher, Assistant Secretary for Housing, an FHA Commissioner at HUD, also more famously known as a former Ohio State University professor; as well as HUD's Chief of Staff, Frank Jimenez; and Anthony Streeter, the Director of Faith-Based Programs for HUD.
Page 51 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Welcome, gentlemen. We look forward to your testimony today.
I would like to recognize the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Frank.
Mr. FRANK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your calling this hearing. There was a misunderstanding as to whether or not we had wanted HUD to testify in the first round of this, and I appreciate the agreement of everyone to move forward today.
I would say that the fact that there aren't more members here is not a sign of lack of interest. It is a sign of a lack of roll call votes on the floor of the House. Members make plans, sometimes in advance. This hearing came afterwards.
I am glad to be joined by my colleague from North Carolina. I appreciate the Chairman making a point of being here. Trying to fit hearings in is tough,and I wish this didn't have to be on a day when there weren't votes, but I have no complaint about that. I had agreed to it, because it is hard to fit them in. I appreciate having this much.
A couple of points, and I will be also outlining some of the questions I hope you will answer.
First, I want to stipulate that we agree that having faith-based groups involved in the provision of services is very important. The position of many of us is that that has been going on.
I will be submitting for the record, and I ask unanimous consent, Mr. Chairman——
Chairman NEY. Without objection.
Mr. FRANK. ——to put in a couple of statements, one of which I think is quite relevant, from the National Community Development Association, the people who administer at the local level the CDBG programs. They make the point that there are in fact now literally thousands of faith-based groups across the country that do participate through CDBG.
The question is not whether or not faith-based groups participate.
Page 52 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
[The following information can be found on page 131 in the appendix.]
Mr. FRANK. At our last hearing we also had people from the American Association of Homes and Services for the Aging, a majority of whom are religious-based.
And I was just invited, and couldn't make it because of scheduling, to an event honoring Monsignor Michael Groden who heads the Archdiocese Office on Housing in Boston.. They have been a superb user of Federal housing programs and have helped build a great deal of housing. This is the official archdiocese office.
So that is not the question. The question is, for many of us, do religious groups, to be able to participate, need to be able to discriminate with those Federal funds against nonmembers of their religion? That is a very critical question.
Another question has come up with regard specifically to the HUD rule, and that is the feasibility and advisability and maybe constitutionality of the commingling of funds, and that is one the things that I want to address here.
We are told that this program, as the President has announced it, assumes that people could get money and build a building that would be partly for religious purposes and partly for nonreligious purposes; and the amount that the building can be used in one way or the other would depend on the amount of money being put in.
Now, one question I have is, is that physical or temporal? That is, since some religious institutions only have worship 1 day a week, maybe 2 or 3 days a week, does that mean that you could take a building and build it, and if you prayed in it 1 day a week, then you could use the whole building 6 days a week for other purposes? Or is it a physical separation?
Another question is, how do we enforce some of these rules with regard to Community Development Block Grant entitlement communities? Frankly, some people have said that the Federal Government will be careful with the religious groups that it deals with, and that it won't deal with groups that might be problematic. But under the Community Development Block Grant I assume I understand correctly that an entitlement city under this rule could take the money and give it to any religious institution it wanted to. Does that mean that the Church of Scientology, the Nation of Islam and others would be eligible for the money and could then hire only its own members?
Page 53 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Finally, I was pleased to see Secretary Martinez say at a recent hearing here, actually, on the down payment assistance program, that he did not think that we were abridging anybody's civil rights. Well, I have some questions about that. We have an Executive Order, 11246, that goes back to Franklin Roosevelt and A. Philip Randolph that has been interpreted by people as applying to the Community Development Block Grant program, and the Executive Order here says it no longer does.
We also have this question: There is language in here that says the recipients will be independent from State and local governments. Does this purport to preempt or to say that State and local laws, we don't abide by them?
And then we have this issue: Congress could, by statute, preempt State and local laws. But is the Administration contending that the Executive Order—that the President, by himself, can affect the binding nature of State and local laws?
If we have State and local laws through which a grantee would ordinarily be subject, is it the position of the Administration that this Executive Order diminishes the force of those State and local laws? Because I think we run then into serious constitutional issues.
So those are the questions that I will be returning to.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman NEY. Thank you.
Mr. Watt.
Mr. WATT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I think every single one of the questions that my colleague from Massachusetts, Mr. Frank, has raised are important issues; and I certainly subscribe to them. But the ones I probably have the most serious concerns about have to do with the ability of religious organizations to discriminate in their employment practices and whether the effect of allowing them to discriminate on the basis of religion may, in effect, be a substitute for allowing them to discriminate on the basis of race.
Page 54 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
In my part of the country, 11 o'clock on Sunday morning unfortunately is still the most segregated hour in America; and if you say to particular religions that—or churches, for that matter, even within the same religion, that in the conduct of your nonprofit governmental function you have the capacity to discriminate on the basis of religion, the effect of that is to be saying to them that you have the ability to discriminate on the basis of race.
I personally and the people that I represent and the people that have marched and fought and struggled against that kind of discrimination for years and years and years cannot abide that result. It is that simple for me.
I am not an opponent of faith-based initiatives. In the 22 years of legal practice that I had before I was elected to Congress in 1992, I was probably regarded, certainly within the State of North Carolina, perhaps nationally, as one of the lawyers who did more religious representation of institutions, church litigation, church reconciliation—you name it, I did a little bit of it. There are still institutions throughout my Congressional District—housing developments, nonprofit developments, senior citizen developments, health care developments—all of which originated with a 501(c)(3) organization that emanated from a church.
It is not something that I am alien to. I think it is absolutely important and necessary. But in none of those situations did they have the capacity through their 501(c)(3) organization to discriminate, either on the basis of religion or race.
I just think—we have taken this faith-based initiative and made it—and it has become a hot button needlessly, because the capacity was already there to do everything that one could do that a religious-based organization through a 501(c)(3) could do except discriminate and accept commingled funds.
Those are the two components of this that I think are unnecessary and unwise and possibly unconstitutional, and I don't know why we have even got to get there to accomplish the governmental purpose that we have set out to accomplish, because we have been accomplishing it for all of these years.
Page 55 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
So I am concerned about that. I appreciate the chairman giving me the opportunity to make an opening statement, and I will be asking questions to try to clarify these gentlemen's position on that and HUD's position on that and, presumptively, this Administration's position on that.
Thank you.
Chairman NEY. Thank the gentleman.
We have also been joined by the gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Renzi.
I want to again thank all of the members for coming here today to have the hearing.
If there is no further request for statements, we will begin with Mr. Weicher. Welcome.
STATEMENT OF JOHN C. WEICHER, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR HOUSING, HUD, ACCOMPANIED BY FRANK R. JIMENEZ, CHIEF OF STAFF, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY, HUD, AND RYAN STREETER, DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR FAITH-BASED AND COMMUNITY INITIATIVES, HUD
Mr. WEICHER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Frank, Mr. Watt, Mr. Renzi, for the opportunity to join you this afternoon to discuss this major initiative of President Bush and Secretary Martinez. Because of our long history of partnering with faith-based and community organizations to provide housing and other important services, the initiative is especially relevant to HUD's work. I am here on behalf of the Department to present our views on the role of faith-based organizations.
With me are Ryan Streeter, Director of the HUD Center for Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, and HUD Chief of Staff Frank Jimenez, an alumnus of the University of Miami.
Page 56 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
With the committee's permission——
Chairman NEY. Is that Florida or Ohio?
Mr. WEICHER. Wrong one, sir.
Chairman NEY. Well, we beat them.
Mr. WEICHER. With the committee's permission, I will be referring many questions to them as the principal persons with the most detailed knowledge on this subject in the Department.
The Administration's goals are clear and achievable: to provide the best possible quality in government-funded service; to support the essential work of all charities, whether secular or religious, regardless of their size; and to ensure a level playing field for all groups and organizations that are working to transform lives.
These community caretakers fulfill a critical need in this country. As President Bush said in October of last year, an America without faith-based organizations caring for people in need is an America without hope.
One of the President's first official acts was to sign Executive Order 13199, which created the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. He directed the Office to lead a determined attack on need by strengthening and expanding the role of faith-based and community organizations in addressing the Nation's social problems. The Office reaches into every community of need, while giving special attention to homeless individuals, prisoners, at-risk youth, addicts, impoverished senior citizens and families moving from welfare to work.
Through Executive Order 13198, the President also created Centers for Faith-Based and Community Initiatives in several Federal agencies, including HUD. By order of the President, these agencies have conducted extensive reviews of regulations to identify barriers to participation by faith-based and other community organizations in our programs.
Page 57 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
The HUD Center coordinates the work of the Department as we seek to eliminate these barriers so that faith-based and other community groups can compete for Federal funds on an equal footing with other charities.
We have discovered a number of common obstacles, beginning with a prevailing perception among Federal officials that collaboration with religious organizations is legally suspect.
Also, some programs essentially bar religious organizations from applying for funding. For instance, HOME funds may not be granted to religious organizations, quote, ''for any activity including secular activities.''
Also, there are inappropriate and extensive restrictions on religious activities, creating another barrier that restricts faith-based organizations from receiving HUD funding. I discuss some examples in my prepared statement.
Both President Bush and Secretary Martinez are working to remove these barriers.
The President took decisive action when he signed Executive Order 13279 on December 12th of last year. The order sets out clear principles ensuring that all eligible social service organizations are able to compete on an equal footing for Federal financial assistance. Under the order, Federal programs must be implemented in such a way that they do not violate the establishment clause and the free exercise clause of the first amendment to the Constitution.
HUD is actively implementing the order to ensure that our policies and programs create a level playing field for faith-based organizations.
As a first step, Secretary Martinez is actively encouraging the participation of grassroots organizations in all grant applications. These organizations touch many lives on the local level, yet are frequently overshadowed in the grant-making process by their larger and more visible cousins.
Page 58 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Our SuperNOFA for 2003 clearly states that these faith-based and other community organizations are eligible to apply. We are conducting Webcasts specifically designed to educate these providers about the SuperNOFA and the application process. We have installed a toll-free telephone number to help them understand the application process, and we continue to make grant applications easier for potential new partners to understand.
Education is key to helping faith-based and other community organizations successfully navigate the grant-making process. To ensure that this message is heard, we have appointed faith-based and community liaisons in each of HUD's 10 regional offices and 81 field offices. Their job is to reach out to faith-based and other community groups that lack experience in working with HUD.
HUD is coupling educational outreach with administrative reforms that are removing the barriers to effective partnerships with America's community of faith.
We have reviewed each of HUD's major programs to determine the degree to which they comply with the requirements of Executive Order 13279.
To tie these efforts together, HUD issued a proposed rule on January 6th of this year that will revise our regulations for eight programs and remove unwarranted regulatory barriers to the equal participation of faith-based organizations. The intent of the proposed rule is to ensure that HUD programs are open to all qualified organizations, regardless of their religious character. The rule would also clearly establish the proper uses of grant funds.
The public comment period for the proposed rule closed March 6th. We are in the process of carefully reviewing the comments we have received.
No matter how big or small the organization, no matter its level of experience in competing for Federal grants, no matter its religious affiliation or secular nature, HUD wants every potential partner to have the opportunity to compete for Federal resources. If a faith-based or other community organization wants to work with us, and if they can do the job, then we will welcome them with open arms and do everything we can to help them succeed in their communities. In this way, we will provide the best possible service to those who suffer in poverty and despair; and we will help to expand society's capacity to respond with compassion to human need.
Page 59 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman NEY. I want to thank the gentleman for his testimony. The other two gentlemen are available if the members have questions of them.
[The prepared statement of John Weicher can be found on page 39 in the appendix.]
Chairman NEY. My questions are going to be centered on the process. Because HUD will be one of the first, obviously, of the agencies to be coming out with rules. So what will be the process in order to finalize this rule?
Mr. WEICHER. It is the normal rulemaking process, Mr. Chairman.
As I mentioned, we have received comments on the rule. The comment period closed a little less than 2 months ago. We are required to review the comments to consider how we might modify the rule in light of the comments; and I might say that in my experience at HUD there is—any proposed rule is going to be revised in final if there are comments. That is just the norm.
Chairman NEY. So you would expect some changes?
Mr. WEICHER. I would, because we always wind up having changes.
Then we will—the final rule—we will draft the final rule, and the preamble to the final rule will explain how we reacted to each of the major kinds of comments we received in the comment period.
That rule is then reviewed by OMB. The formal review period for OMB is 90 days, and after their approval it is submitted to the Federal Register and becomes final.
Page 60 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Chairman NEY. Do you have any anticipated guesstimate of when it will be finalized?
Mr. WEICHER. No, Mr. Chairman. I can't really give you an estimate on that. We certainly will be moving on it as expeditiously as we can, but I can't really give you a date on it.
Chairman NEY. Thank you.
Mr. Frank.
Mr. FRANK. Mr. Weicher, I know this is not your primary area of responsibility. I appreciate that we have a group that includes it.
Under the Community Development Block Grant statute, as it now exists, Section 109, states: No person in the U.S. shall, on the ground of race, color, national origin, religion or sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, CDBG.'' Now that is the statute.
As I read the Executive Order with CDBG, it says that you cannot be denied the benefit of a program, but it leaves out employment. Is it the Administration's intention to allow grantees to discriminate based on religion under the CDBG program, that is, to decline to hire someone not of their religion, if they choose to?
Mr. WEICHER. Mr. Frank, with your permission, I will refer that question to Mr. Jimenez.
Mr. JIMENEZ. Thank you, Mr. Congressman. We are actually grateful for this opportunity——
Mr. FRANK. We have 5 minutes. So what is the specific answer?
Mr. JIMENEZ. The answer is no. Nothing in the proposed regulation or in the Executive Order attempts to override the CDBG statute on the point of religious hiring.
Page 61 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. FRANK. Okay. So under the CDBG program, recipients could not discriminate in hiring based on religion, correct?
Mr. JIMENEZ. That is correct. That is because Congress has passed a more specific statute.
Mr. FRANK. Right. But in every other HUD program you could?
Mr. JIMENEZ. It is my understanding that there is one other specific statute governing the HOME program where Congress has in that specific statute, as with CDBG, revoked the freedom that it gave religious organizations in Title VII, the freedom to take religion into account when hiring.
Mr. FRANK. So the position of HUD then is that you recognize that where there is a statutory requirement that there be no discrimination based on religion, then there cannot be under this Executive Order, but in every other HUD program you could discriminate based on religion as a grantee?
Mr. JIMENEZ. Yes, sir. This proposed rule covers six other——
Mr. FRANK. So the answer is yes.
Secondly, with regard to preemption or diminution of State and local laws, what—there is language in here—it doesn't say specifically is that they don't apply. It says they will retain their independence from State and local laws. I must say that as we debated that, as I recall, a couple of years ago on the floor of the House and in committee the general understanding was that that probably meant that they wouldn't have to comply with them.
What is the effect? If there is a State or local law requiring nondiscrimination based on sexual orientation or marital status or religion, does that apply or not apply?
Mr. JIMENEZ. Neither the proposed regulation nor the Executive Order, as you indicated, specifically addresses the issue of preemption.
Page 62 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. FRANK. That is what I am asking you now. What do you think it means? How are you guys going to interpret it?
Mr. JIMENEZ. It is the Administration's position that—first of all, preemption questions are highly unlikely to arise because——
Mr. FRANK. They just did. Excuse me. I hate to contradict you. I just raised it.
Mr. JIMENEZ. In the real world outside of Congress.
Mr. FRANK. Let me just say that you are wrong. We have had this with regard to San Francisco. We have had it with regard to New York City. The notion that there won't be some conflict between local laws and Federal policy—in fact, we had a debate on the floor of the House about whether or not we would change the law because of a domestic partnership issue involving San Francisco. I think it was under some Federal program.
So I need to know the answer. What is your answer?
Mr. JIMENEZ. I believe you are correct. They will arise from time to time, just not regularly. But the answer is that preemption questions are to be decided be the courts on a case-by-case basis.
Mr. FRANK. They won't be decided by the courts unless someone gets them into the courts.
What is the Administration's position? You say the Administration is not going to take a position?
Mr. JIMENEZ. If a State or local ordinance specifically targets faith-based organizations——
Mr. FRANK. Mr. Jimenez, stop beating around the bush. You know better. If you don't want to answer the question, tell me. You are not here under subpoena. You can refuse to answer the question. But let's not waste time.
Page 63 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
We are not talking, as you know, about laws that specifically target religious groups. We are talking about an antidiscrimination law of general applicability at the State or local level that a religious organization may feel impinges on it. Is it the Administration's position that they cannot abide by that because of the language here about their independence from State and local governments?
Mr. JIMENEZ. Neither the proposed regulation nor the Executive Order take a position on that question.
Mr. FRANK. So the Administration has no position on it?
Mr. JIMENEZ. No, sir. Not at this time.
Mr. FRANK. Let me ask Mr. Weicher. If I am a Mayor of a city, I ask HUD: What does it mean? Or if I ask the general counsel, what would you tell me?
Mr. WEICHER. Mr. Frank, it will be—when the issue is raised, it would be addressed by the Department and by the Administration. It would not be addressed by my office, of course, but it would be addressed.
Mr. FRANK. You are here as HUD's representative.
Mr. WEICHER. Yes. But, as you know, I am not a lawyer.
Mr. FRANK. That is very disappointing. Let me give you the answer I don't think you want to give. The answer is, yes, you want it to be preempted, but you are a little bit unclear about the ability to preempt a State law by Executive Order. I must say, when this arose in the context of the statute, it was clear that that same language was intended to be preemptive. And, because you are now dealing with a situation where you can't preempt you are going to duck the question.
But I people ought to be clear that that is the—that was the intention, that is essentially what you have in mind.
Mr. JIMENEZ. Sir, if it were specifically intended to be preemptive, there would have been language to that effect.
Page 64 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. FRANK. No, because if you got too explicit you could run into some kinds of problems. It was specifically intended to be preemptive. But let me ask you, as a matter of policy, do you think it should or shouldn't be?
Mr. JIMENEZ. My personal opinion, I believe——
Mr. FRANK. No, not your personal opinion, HUD, the official Administration position. You are not here personally. You are here as a representative of the Administration.
Mr. JIMENEZ. As I said earlier, each case would have to be determined on the facts of each specific case. So we would make that determination on a case-by-case basis. We would look at the local or State ordinance in question, we would look at the terminology, the intended effect, the scope of the ordinance or the law, and then apply the law as we understand it at that time. But we don't see this rule or the Executive Order as having a blanket preemptive effect one way or the other.
Chairman NEY. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. Renzi.
Mr. FRANK. It is a waste of time. Go ahead.
Mr. RENZI. Thank you.
Thank you all for your testimony.
Maybe following up a little bit with the ranking member, we have got 501(c)(3) organizations out there who currently, under Title VII, are allowed to hire based upon religious preferences. But when they receive the Federal moneys they can't deny services, they can't deny providing their best efforts to any organization, so they cannot discriminate based on religion; is that correct?
Mr. JIMENEZ. The proposed regulation makes very clear that, for all eight of the grant programs covered by the regulation, the recipient of the funds cannot take religion into account when determining who receives their services. So beneficiaries must have access to that organization's services regardless of religious belief or practice.
Page 65 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. RENZI. So we are not going to discriminate on how the Federal monies are used. We are going to set up a law that allows them to use the money. Is there any oversight then that follows up a year or 2 years from now? Is there any kind of Federal accounting that says, okay, not only are we going to say you can't do that but we are going to come back later and make sure that you are not doing that?
Mr. JIMENEZ. The purpose and the intent of the regulation is to place faith-based organizations on an equal footing with secular organizations. HUD intends to treat faith-based organizations in the very same way that it treats secular organizations. That means that all grant recipients, secular and faith-based alike, will be required to sign general assurances of compliance with all applicable laws and regulations; and then, in addition, there will be the periodic compliance review that HUD performs on all grant recipients, not just secular or faith-based.
Mr. RENZI. So you will actually be able to know that up front, provide the language that says you can't do this, you are going to be able to do the oversight and watch how the monies are spent?
Mr. JIMENEZ. Yes, sir.
Mr. RENZI. So there really is no threat of discrimination here, particularly if we have that oversight feature?
Mr. JIMENEZ. Not at all, sir.
Mr. RENZI. Let me move to a question that I had. I was really privileged before I came to Congress to insure 1,700 non-profit organizations across the United States, insure more crisis centers for domestic violence against battered, abused women and children than any other insurance agent in the country; and I learned a lot from it.
When I would go to the conventions, in particular one in Seattle one year where the domestic violence center leaders were there, I saw a split as to whether or not there should be a reliance on Federal funding, nonprofit organizations getting on the Federal dole, maybe at times losing some of their—or losing, maybe not spending as much time or strength of effort in building their donor base, which is a lot of, I believe, if I am right, a lot of where these nonprofit organizations get their revenues from.
Page 66 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Is it—what is your feeling on—any of the panel—on setting up a Federal dole or setting up a Federal pipeline to help these organizations? Are there unintended consequences that they have become too reliant?
Mr. STREETER. That is really a decision that each of those organizations needs to make for itself. I think, for our purposes here, the interest we have is in—as Mr. Jimenez said, leveling the playing field for faith-based organizations.
We wanted to make sure that for all interested applicants it be as fair and open a competition as possible, and whether or not an organization would want to receive funding really depends on their willingness to compete.
Mr. RENZI. Well said.
Let me say this to you. The Habitat for Humanity has laid out a model that is exceptional. Our former President, Jimmy Carter, becoming one of the Nation's best leaders of Habitat for Humanity, a secular organization. If nonprofit 501(c)(3) organizations want to reflect that model, want to become those type of organizations in small communities that help build houses in 48 hours, these Federal funds will help them become mini Habitat for Humanities; am I right?
Mr. STREETER. Federal funds under the programs affected by this rule, you mean?
Mr. RENZI. Yes.
Mr. STREETER. Uh-huh.
Mr. RENZI. In other words, you could have non-government-based organizations, faith-based organizations become small Habitat for Humanities across the country where we could actually build more homes?
Mr. STREETER. That is right, as long as the organizations choose to build themselves that way. We are not designing any specific programs here for faith-based organizations. Rather, we are opening up the competition by changing the regulations so it is a level playing field.
Page 67 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. RENZI. What other areas—or how—what creative ideas have you seen that these moneys could be used for good work? Where is the—my example is neutral. Where is the good housing going to be put to work?
Mr. STREETER. Well, every day there are people doing great things with very small budgets in communities all across the country. They work in all kinds of fields, providing shelter for the homeless, providing shelter and stable housing for the elderly and the disabled; and often that is done by those who have deep roots in the communities where the people are that they are serving. Those are grassroots organizations who, for a number of reasons, both faith-based and secular groups, have not been in our networks, have been intimidated by the regulations as they currently stand on the books.
Mr. RENZI. Well said. So if we are able to get Federal funds to those organizations, we are going to build more houses, we are going to be able to home and provide safe areas, warm comfort for homeless, we are going to feed more people, we are going to reach out, to take better care on the street, with the needy.
Mr. STREETER. It is our view that by increasing the field of competitors that the end result is a better quality service for the people in need.
Mr. RENZI. Thank you, sir. Thank you.
Chairman NEY. Thank you.
Mr. Watt.
Mr. WATT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I neglected to say hello to my friend, Mr. Streeter. I met you in Charlotte. Good to see you again. I meant to say that when I first came in. I knew that I had seen you before, but it is great to see you again. I appreciate you all being here.
Let me just kind of get—I mean, I am reading something here that—and I wanted you all to maybe set me at ease that I shouldn't be concerned about what I am concerned about.
Page 68 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
It is not the discrimination in the recipients of a particular service. I presume that that is something that you can enforce. But, under HOPE III, under housing opportunities for persons with AIDS, under Emergency Shelter Grant programs, ESG, under shelter plus care, and under Supportive Housing Program, SHP, and under youth bill, the Federal Regulations 24 CFR and the particular sections that related to each of those programs had a provision which said: A primarily religious organization receiving funds under the program will not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment under the program on the basis of religion and will not limit employment or give preference in employment to persons on the basis of religion.
The proposed rules delete that language in 24 CFR. Now that may be because it was unnecessary because these organizations, religious organizations and all other organizations, can't discriminate in employment.
The problem is that religious organizations can discriminate in employment on the basis of religion. My concern—and all of black America's concern, to be honest with you—is that by eliminating those provisions you have invited churches to discriminate in their employment practices on the basis of religion; and the result of that is not only to allow them to discriminate on the basis of religion but that the result of their being able to discriminate on the basis of religion is synonymous, in 95 percent of religious America, with allowing them to discriminate on the basis of race.
Now the simple question I am raising is, should I not be concerned about that? Is that not the intent of this Administration or can religious organizations now discriminate under these proposed rules? If the proposed rules were adopted, would they be allowed to discriminate in the delivery of these services on the basis of religion? Would they be able to say, if you are not Jewish, you can't work here? We hire only Jewish employees because we are a Jewish church—in the delivery. Then what happens then if a nonJewish person happens to be the most qualified person?
Page 69 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Or if it is a white church—and in my area of the country, still, most of most churches are either black or white—can they say, we hire only Baptists who are members of our church and therefore we hire no black people?
That is the question I am—you know, if you can set me at ease about that question, you know, I don't have any problem with this program. Now, somebody please set me at ease about this. Is that what you are intending, or put—if not, why did you terminate these provisions?
Mr. JIMENEZ. Mr. Congressman, I would be happy to attempt to answer your question. I know that you know this already, but for those in attendance today who may not know this let me just state for the record that our rule is very clear that all faith-based organizations are subject to the parts of Title VII that prohibit discrimination on the basis of race as well as gender, national origin——
Mr. WATT. You are playing games with me, Mr. Jimenez. You are playing games with me now. That does not answer my question.
Mr. JIMENEZ. I didn't finish with my answer, sir.
Mr. WATT. Go ahead.
Mr. JIMENEZ. But I think that needs to be said for the record, to put the minds of people here at ease who may think that our rule directly allows discrimination on the basis of race. It does not.
On your question about whether or not the rule allows faith-based organizations to take religion into account when hiring——
Mr. WATT. To discriminate on the basis of religion.
Mr. JIMENEZ. To take religion into account——
Mr. WATT. To discriminate.
Mr. JIMENEZ. ——hiring decisions. HUD is not breaking new ground here. To lay out the groundwork, Congress in 1964 gave all faith-based organizations the right to take religion into account when hiring. Congress expanded that right in 1972. The Supreme Court upheld that right as constitutional in 1987.
Page 70 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. WATT. So you are saying now that you take what the Supreme Court said to extend all of the way over into building a house out there; and if I am not a member of your church, even if I am the most qualified employee out there to build that house, you can refuse to hire me.
Mr. JIMENEZ. Actually, we are not taking the Supreme Court's lead so much as we are following Congress' lead. This rule covers eight different grant programs. Congress said that faith-based organizations cannot take religion into account when hiring for two of these programs. For the remaining six, the ones that you named, Congress has had the opportunity, ample opportunity to take back from faith-based organizations their freedom to take religion——
Mr. WATT. Mr. Jimenez, if that is the official position of this Administration, I am saying point blank to you and this Administration that that is a racist position. It is, and that will be the result of it, and I can't be any more blunt than that.
Now if you want to be labeled with that, if HUD wants to be labeled with this, if this Administration wants to be labeled with that, then so be it. But what you just said to me is that you think it is okay. You think everything I just described to you is okay. I think you are making a serious, serious misjudgment; and I think this Administration is.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman NEY. What I will do is—the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. On my time here, I have got another question, but I will let you put your thoughts out.
Mr. JIMENEZ. Congressman Watt, just to be clear, any faith-based organization that uses its religious hiring freedom as a pretext for racial discrimination, in my opinion, in HUD's opinion, in this Administration's opinion, is doing something reprehensible and illegal. One cannot use the religious hiring freedom as a pretext for racial discrimination.
Page 71 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
But, more importantly, I don't think when Congress—with respect to six of these eight grant programs, when Congress allowed the faith-based recipients of those funds to take religion into account in hiring, I don't think Congress thought that it was performing a racist act; and this Administration certainly doesn't believe that either.
Chairman NEY. Let me ask you this—we will go another round of questioning. What is your—to get it clear in my mind—I don't know the legal history of this, but what you are saying is that this has existed for X number of years, 1964, 1972. Was there any change in the last 10 years on this or——
Mr. JIMENEZ. I would be happy to lay it out for you.
This CDBG statute was authorized by the Congress in 1974.
In 1990, Congress amended that statute and said that faith-based recipients of CDBG funds don't have religious hiring freedoms.
In 1990, Congress first authorized the HOME program and, at the same time, said that faith-based recipients of Home funds do not enjoy religious hiring freedoms.
That is the first two of the eight grant programs covered by this rule. There are six others. Two of them were passed or first authorized by Congress in 1987. The remaining four were first authorized by Congress in 1990. Congress knew how to tell faith-based organization that they did not have religious hiring freedoms and Congress demonstrated how with respect to the first two grant programs.
But Congress deliberately did not do the same with respect to the other six. We are simply following Congress' lead, and we think Congress——
Chairman NEY. This existed before President Bush?
Mr. JIMENEZ. That is correct.
Mr. FRANK. Before one President Bush, not before the other.
Mr. NEY. And after 41, then President Clinton. So this has been there.
Page 72 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. JIMENEZ. This has been the law.
Chairman NEY. Whether they were Democrat controlled or a Democrat or Republican President and they didn't change it?
Mr. JIMENEZ. Exactly.
Chairman NEY. So, therefore, would we consider them racist? I am trying to lay it out. Although people might want to change it. It might be the desire of Congress to change it.
Mr. JIMENEZ. If Congress wants to take some or all of the remaining six and say that faith-based organizations do not enjoy religious hiring freedoms, that is Congress' prerogative. I don't think the Administration is necessarily calling on Congress to do that, but Congress has that freedom if it wishes.
Chairman NEY. Let me ask the question—as this started, as I assume there were some barriers, that is why this issue came up. I think it came up like—I don't know, one of the Senators had supported this during the election process, and both sides of the aisle had come out with some type of idea to stop barriers, or groups just because they were of a certain religion, if I can recall on this issue.
What kind of barriers were out there? What kind of government—do you have any idea of what some of the government barriers were for these groups?
Mr. STREETER. I will be happy to answer that question, Mr. Chairman.
With respect to the proposed rule and the current regulations that are on the books, we had in seven of the eight programs here, for instance, prohibitions on anything bordering on religious influences. That generally tends to be implemented sort of at the lowest possible level. People would tend to shun faith-based organizations altogether if they have any doubt as to whether or not this organization was the kind of organization that should be funded under a given program. Two programs outright exclude faith-based organizations as a general rule.
Page 73 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Again, the way this translates on the street into a barrier is that a local official, whether it is a local CDBG official from a city or a HUD official in a field office, will be of the mind and have been of the mind that they ought to instruct faith-based organizations either not to apply or will tell others not to work with faith-based organizations. That has, in fact, happened. So that would be a barrier.
Overall, we just find that there is a problem with the tone in the regulations; and they make it very, very difficult for faith-based organizations to apply if there is any question. We have run into a number of cases where faith-based organizations have had problems on this front simply because they have been told they better not apply or, if they do, they need to completely strip their facilities of anything that looks religious and the like.
There are other barriers as well. I mean, there are barriers in the grants process, which doesn't necessarily apply to this proposed rule, but there are barriers as well in terms of the complexity of the documents that are required to file in terms of the application process as a whole and the documents that support it. We have been engaged in an effort to simplify that as well so that it is easier for smaller grass roots organizations to understand.
Chairman NEY. Thanks.
Mr. Frank.
Mr. FRANK. That part is not controversial. I note in the Executive Order in Part 3 it is repetitive. It applies to eight programs. The parts that say you can't be penalized for your religious character, which is in Part 1, the parts that say you shouldn't be penalized for religious name, those are noncontroversial. In fact, they are often not followed, and they should not have been followed, and they should have been changed.
So that is not controversial, much of what you said. What is controversial is what Mr. Watt mentioned.
Page 74 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Now, Mr. Jimenez, I know you just forgot—I am sure it was on your mind, but you forgot to mention that those six programs you talked about where you said Congress in fact did not include in discrimination language, but from almost the beginning regulations were promulgated, beginning with President Bush and then President Clinton, which did in fact say no religious discrimination.
So my sense has been here is that Congress didn't feel the need to do that because all of them did have that language in there. So two had it statutorily, but the other six programs you talk about have, from their beginning, had language promulgated by regulation which said you couldn't discriminate. That was President Bush and President Clinton.
And you didn't then answer Mr. Watt's question. You gave a history of it. But, in fact, previously, while they didn't have that—they weren't prohibited by statute from religious discrimination, they were prohibited by regulation.
Mr. JIMENEZ. That is absolutely correct.
Mr. FRANK. Thank you.
What then about the substantive question Mr. Watt asked?
Let me put it to you this way. Under CDBG, you are the experts in this program. A Mayor who decides to give the money to the Nation of Islam to protect housing authority security—that happened before, in fact. I remember a number of my Republican colleagues were quite exercised about it. Under these regulations, a Mayor who decides to give the Nation of Islam money to protect his or her housing tenants, that is perfectly okay, and the Nation of Islam may employ only its congregants; is that correct?
Mr. JIMENEZ. Well, it is a two-part question, as I hear it. The first part was whether or not they could give services or permit only adherents to be beneficiaries, and the answer is no.
Mr. FRANK. Not beneficiaries. We are talking only about employees. You know that, Mr. Jimenez. You are not being honest with us intellectually. I am disappointed in that. You know we are talking about employees. We are asking about whether a Mayor can give money to the Nation of Islam to provide security services and hire only congregants of the Nation of Islam? Is that——
Page 75 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. JIMENEZ. I am being completely honest. I thought I heard in your answer something about beneficiaries. However, as far as taking religion into account when hiring——
Mr. FRANK. No, answer the question. It is a simple question. The Nation of Islam, under these rules, are they an eligible grantee and can they then hire only people who are members of the Nation of Islam?
Mr. JIMENEZ. If the Nation of Islam is a legitimate religious organization. I don't know enough about the Nation of Islam to comment on that.
Mr. FRANK. I had hoped maybe you would answer a question honestly. I think you are not.
Next one. How about Scientology? Suppose a Mayor somewhere gives a grant to the Church of Scientology, which has been recognized as a religion. You say legitimate religion. I assume the test here is—let me ask. Is there a test other than the one we use, the IRS' tax exemption? Is there some other test that is going to be involved here as to whether you are a legitimate religion? That would make us very nervous. How do you decide?
Mr. JIMENEZ. The only test that this Administration applies is whether or not the services provided by the faith-based organization work.
Mr. FRANK. No, Mr. Jimenez, you are changing the subject, and you know it. You said you don't know if the Nation of Islam is a legitimate religion. I understood they were a legitimate religion by the applicable test: They got a tax exemption, and they are recognized by the IRS. Are you suggesting that there is some additional test as to whether or not you are a legitimate religion to qualify?
Mr. JIMENEZ. I don't know if there is something else about the Nation of Islam that could disqualify them from the program.
Mr. FRANK. I am asking you procedurally now. Your determination not to answer tough questions is impressive, but it doesn't get you away from the tough issues. In this program, it says faith-based organizations. We are talking now not about HUD but about the entitlement communities. I am the Mayor of an entitlement community. Under this program, if it is legally recognized as a religion by State and Federal law, are they then automatically eligible for grants under the CDBG faith-based program and can hire only their own?
Page 76 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. JIMENEZ. If there were no other disqualifying factors, any faith-based organization——
Mr. FRANK. What disqualifying factors would there be?
Mr. JIMENEZ. I am not familiar enough.
Mr. FRANK. I get it. I think the fact that you don't answer——
Mr. JIMENEZ. Sir, I will answer your question as directly as I can.
Mr. FRANK. What about Scientology?
Mr. JIMENEZ. If they have—sir, if they provide a service that fits within the HUD criteria of providing either services for the homeless——
Mr. FRANK. Not CDBG—but let me ask you another question. In terms of the money that goes to build the house of worship for dual purpose that can be partially a house of worship, is that measured physically or temporally? Can I say, okay, 22 percent of the building was built with public funds, and it can be used 22 percent of the time for religious purposes, or 22 percent of the building or 11 percent half of the time? I mean, what are the rules that apply? Can it be temporal? Can I say 22 percent of the money came from the Federal Government. The building can be used 78 percent of the time, the whole building, for religious purposes? Is that accurate?
Mr. JIMENEZ. Yes. That was our intention.
Mr. FRANK. Okay.
Mr. JIMENEZ. There is more here that I think that you would like to hear, with all due respect, Mr. Congressman. On that particular part of the HUD rule, it was never HUD's intent to subsidize, even partly, principal places of worship. Upon issuing the proposed rule and hearing comments about the rule——
Page 77 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. FRANK. You are changing it?
Mr. JIMENEZ. Well, we are closely considering all comments that have been received.
Mr. FRANK. I am glad you are closely considering all comments.
Mr. JIMENEZ. We are considering several options of amending the language.
Mr. FRANK. The part that says CDBG funds may be used for the acquisition, construction or rehabilitation of structures, where a structure is used for both eligible and inherently religious activities, they may not exceed the cost of those portions, et cetera, that is under serious consideration to be changed?
Mr. JIMENEZ. That is. We think that there is a way of clarifying our intent and easing some of the concerns about that language, and we are presently entertaining options.
Mr. FRANK. Last question.
Mr. FRANK. Last question, to go back to the point that Mr. Watt and I have been trying so hard to get an answer, the fact that the effect of religious-based hiring might be racially exclusionary, Orthodox Jews in Brooklyn, Mormons somewhere else, the Nation of Islam in Baltimore, is that, in and of itself, a disqualifying factor in your mind and in the minds of the Administration?
Mr. JIMENEZ. If racial discrimination is intended?
Mr. FRANK. No, not if it is intended. You know that we are not talking about intended. You are not being honest. You know that is not what we are talking about. We are talking about the fact that there aren't very many black Orthodox Jews. There aren't very many white members of the Nation of Islam. If the effect in this is to get a segregated impact, is that in any way a problem from the Administration standpoint?
Page 78 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. JIMENEZ. We agree with Congress that the freedom to take religion into account in hiring is a freedom that should generally——
Mr. FRANK. Would you answer my question? Does the fact that it might have a racially discriminatory or exclusionary aspect, is that troubling? I didn't ask you whether or not you agree.
Mr. JIMENEZ. I think it is troubling on a personal basis, but I think on a legal basis——
Mr. FRANK. On the Administration basis, from the Administration standpoint, is it irrelevant as a policy matter?
Mr. JIMENEZ. I think it is irrelevant as a legal matter. As a policy matter, I think it is relevant. But there are many things in this country that are troubling, and I think we should all as people——
Mr. FRANK. Are you doing anything about it, if it is troubling as a policy matter?
Mr. JIMENEZ. Is the question whether or not we are doing anything to end de facto segregation?
Mr. FRANK. That isn't what I asked.
Chairman NEY. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. Renzi.
Mr. RENZI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
When we talk about the true effect or the true intent here, isn't it really honorable though that what we are trying to do is that we have got faith-based organizations that are already established in the community, who have already proven themselves worthy of good deeds in the community, who currently, legally are allowed to discriminate based upon hiring practices as to faith? These are established Title VII freedoms. These organizations are now in a position where they can expand services or provide services and that those services, the populations that they will actually serve are the disadvantaged, are the most needy, are at times the Hispanics in Arizona. And so, if we are able to get the Federal funds to these organizations who are currently doing good with their work, then the most needy, the most disadvantaged of all races and colors and creeds and genders will be the ones who benefit. Isn't that really the honorable intent and not to discriminate as this discussion has been taking?
Page 79 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. JIMENEZ. All along this Administration has been very clear. The focus should be primarily the people in need, the people who are suffering, the people who need services.
We have found in our experience that many faith-based organizations themselves either represent a disproportionately minority population or serve a disproportionately minority clientele. These changes are going to make it easier for faith-based organizations to help the people all throughout America and especially in inner cities and other places.
Mr. RENZI. You mean to tell me, you actually have people of faith who are actually helping people of color, sir, in a disproportionate aspect as to the amount of white people who are working for them? You mean we actually have faith-based organizations who are, right now, disproportionate as to the numbers of employees? So if you were to take the number of employees that they have in the organization and you look at where their dollars are going, where the real help is going, you are seeing that they are actually helping people of color, people of need, people of poverty, is that what you are telling me?
Mr. JIMENEZ. Absolutely. And that is what we see in our experience everyday. And I might also add, the religious hiring freedom that was given by Congress when Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed, that freedom is not a controversial one. It was affirmed in '64, reaffirmed in '72 with broad, bipartisan support in Congress. It was unanimously upheld as constitutional by the Supreme Court in 1987.
This is not a controversial freedom.
Mr. RENZI. Thank you.
Chairman NEY. Mr. Watt?
Mr. WATT. Let me just direct this to Mr. Renzi, since he seems to be directing all his comments toward me.
Mr. RENZI. Not directed towards you, but directed towards the goodness of the programs.
Page 80 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. WATT. And just make it clear to you, from my perspective, the ends don't justify any means. When you fought as hard to eliminate discrimination and segregation and racism as I have, even sometimes when you get good ends, you've still got to look at the means through which that happens. And we will have that conversation in private if you would like, if you would like to pursue it, but let me get back to this.
Mr. Weicher, you have let them run your interference for you, and I don't mean that in any negative sense. But it is your statement that was the statement that we started with, and your statement on Page 2 says—describes the President's order of December 12, Executive Order 13279, that sets out clear principles, and I am quoting, ''Ensuring that all eligible social service organizations are able to compete on an equal footing for Federal financial assistance.'' and then the next paragraph, you say, ''HUD is simply''—well, you say, ''HUD''—I am quoting, ''HUD is actively implementing the order to ensure that our policies and programs create a level playing field for faith-based organizations.
Now, I take it that a level playing field would be a playing field that either allows discrimination or doesn't allow discrimination, Habitat for Humanity, none of the 501(c)(3)organizations have the ability to discriminate on the basis of race. How is it that giving churches, who are grant recipients, the right to discriminate on the basis of race or religion creates some level playing field? There is something unequal about that as far as I am concerned.
If I set up a 501(c)(3) organization, I am bound by the civil rights laws of this country. I can't discriminate on the basis of race or religion.
Mr. RENZI. Yes, you can. Sorry to interrupt you, sir. Yes, you can, but that is the point, under Title VII, you can discriminate.
Chairman NEY. Would the gentleman like to yield or not?
Mr. WATT. Why don't I just ask my questions to Mr. Renzi, since he knows so damn much about this. And I wouldn't like to be interrupted either.
Page 81 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Chairman NEY. You can continue.
Mr. WATT. Now, churches have the right to discriminate in their religious activities, 501(c)(3) organizations do not. Is that correct or not correct, Mr. Weicher?
Mr. WEICHER. Mr. Watt, as I was saying to Mr. Frank, I am not a lawyer, and I am not an expert.
Mr. WATT. Why did they send you over here to deliver this?
Mr. FRANK. Will the gentleman yield? I can answer that.
Because when we wrote the letter, we said that we would want someone at the assistant-secretary level or above, and Mr. Weicher seemed to be the only assistant secretary in town today.
Mr. WATT. Okay. At least there is some rational explanation.
Mr. FRANK. If the gentleman would let me yield further.
And they think the Administration was not interested in giving answers to some of these questions at a level where they might sort of have trouble backing away later.
Mr. WATT. All right, Mr. Jimenez.
Chairman NEY. Would the gentleman yield?
Go ahead.
Mr. WATT. I am stuck with you, although I can't get an answer out of anybody on this panel. I am just trying to get an answer. I am not adverse to you.
Mr. JIMENEZ. The question again is——
Mr. WATT. How does this create a level playing field, I guess, is the question that I started off asking, before I was so generously interrupted by my colleague.
Chairman NEY. We will generously give you some overtime.
Mr. JIMENEZ. The Administration feels strongly that faith-based organizations should have the same access to HUD grants.
Page 82 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. WATT. As do I.
Mr. JIMENEZ. Except that before this rule, faith-based organizations had to jump through hoops that secular organizations didn't have to.
Mr. WATT. And I don't think they should either, Mr. Jimenez. We are on the same side of that issue.
But the issue that we don't seem to be on the same side of is whether there can be discrimination in employment based on religion or—and, therefore, as a substitute based on race—in the use of Federal funds, not the—not in the pulpit.
I am the staunchest supporter you would like to have to not putting a Baptist minister in a Jewish synagogue. I mean, I wouldn't think of anything that ridiculous, which is why the religious exemption is in Title VII, but it never was in Title VII to allow churches to deliver services that are basically governmental services, social services, into the community: Housing, after school programs.
And for this Administration to somehow take the silence of Congress on that as a license to go into the community and tell churches that you can discriminate, is just unforgivable in my opinion.
Mr. JIMENEZ. Sir, I think I can answer your question.
It is not just the religious services that faith-based organizations provide. In 1972, Congress expanded the religious hiring freedom that faith-based organizations enjoy under Title VII. And they extended it to all employees of the faith-based organization, whether or not they perform inherently religious functions. And it was that expanded freedom that the Supreme Court upheld unanimously in 1987.
I might also add that Charitable Choice has been on the books since 1996 and it governs——
Mr. WATT. I am sure this is in response to a question I asked, Mr. Jimenez. I can't get a damn thing out of you all when I ask you a question, and you keep trying to give me stuff when I don't ask you a question. Everybody keeps trying to give me information when I don't ask a question. I can't get any answers out of anybody when I ask a question. I mean, I am disturbed by that.
Page 83 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
If this Administration would send somebody over here who can answer the questions and stand up for the Administration and say what their policy is, which is that they intend to encourage religious discrimination in these programs, which is very apparent from the three gentlemen that they sent over here, I think is an abomination. And I think it is going to backfire on you. I think it is going to backfire on you from a social perspective, and all of this stuff that you were doing in the community in advance of finalizing the regulations, which is just politics, trying to get into every black church in the country, that is going to backfire on you, too.
I yield back. I yield the rest of my time to Mr. Renzi.
Chairman NEY. And I will answer any question if you ask me one.
Mr. RENZI. Thank you, Mr. Watt.
Chairman NEY. Anybody else have any desire to ask a question?
Mr. WATT. I don't want to beat them up. I would like to get some answers.
Mr. JIMENEZ. I would be happy to answer a question.
Mr. FRANK. One statement.
Mr. Jimenez mentioned the 1972 Amendments, which did extend the freedom from religion. But those who cite that cite, to quote from Sam Ervin at the time, in which he says, ''The hands of Caesar have no place in the institution of God.'' Well, we are in a situation where the hands of Caesar are carrying money, and it is qualitatively different. It may be right or wrong.
But, in fact, to invoke Sam Ervin's quote when he said, ''The hands of Caesar have no place in the institution of God,'' when we have now decided that we are going to provide Federal money to carry out Federal purposes to these institutions, it is clearly not an automatic extension.
Page 84 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
So I would say that the invocation of the '72 Act does not meet the arguments that my colleague raised. And again the very justification that I see, citing Sam Ervin, it is a little bit different, I think a lot different, because once you have said—it is one thing to say we are doing this to give complete independence in the Federal Government. It is another to say, well, now the Federal Government is giving us money to tell us how to spend it.
Mr. JIMENEZ. This would not be the first time, sir.
Mr. FRANK. I am talking about the '72 Act. One thing on the '96, yes, that is true, that was done as part of the Welfare Bill. The Welfare Bill was very controversial. But it is also the case that when Bill Clinton signed it, he announced he was not going to enforce it. So it was not something that has, in fact, been in effect for very much time.
Chairman NEY. Any other questions of the witness?
I want to thank, again, the members for coming. And thank the witnesses for their interest and for coming here to the hearing today.
[Whereupon, at 5:15 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]