Statement of the Hon. Tony P. Hall, a Representative in Congress from the State of Ohio

Testimony Before the Subcommittee on Human Resources and
Subcommittee on Select Revenue Measures
of the House Committee on Ways and Means

Hearing on H.R. 7, the "Community Solutions Act of 2001"

June 14, 2001

Chairmen Herger and McCrery, Ranking Members Cardin and McNulty: I appreciate your hosting this joint hearing on the Community Solutions Act. It is an honor to testify before your subcommittees today, and I look forward to a discussion of the challenges of serving Americans in need and of the ways this bill tries to meet those challenges. Unfortunately, there has been too much heat and not enough light in the public debate so far. I am hopeful that your work on this bill will right that imbalance.

I want to begin by thanking President Bush for his leadership on the faith-based and community initiative. His commitment to this has been remarkable, and it is a pleasure to assist him.

I also want to thank Congressman Watts, my co-sponsor, and Speaker Hastert, who has given us both the support and encouragement this initiative merits. I also want to acknowledge Congressman Bobby Scott, who is a good friend and colleague, despite our disagreements on this issue.

Vinton County, Ohio

I am involved with this issue because I am determined to see an end to hunger in America. I have spent most of my Congressional career focused on how to alleviate hunger and its related problems, at home and around the world. Serving as chairman of the Select Committee on Hunger remains one of my proudest accomplishments, and I am pleased that this initiative has revived some of the bi-partisan spirit that drove that Committee to its many successes.

Last summer, I toured Appalachian communities in Southeastern Ohio, Kentucky and West Virginia. In one of my state's poorest counties, I visited CARE United Methodist Outreach B an organization distributing food to more than 350 families (about one in 10 of Vinton County's people). In addition to food, this group provides household necessities, clothing, job assistance and almost anything else that a person might need. Reverend Mel Franklin works tirelessly to care for all of those in his parish, and often dips into his own shallow pockets to help those in need.

Anacostia, DC

A long way from Vinton County B but just a few minutes from where we sit today B Reverend Ricky Bolden, J.T. Musgrove and Reverend Steve Fitzhugh work at The House, an initiative that works with youth from Anacostia High School in one of the toughest neighborhoods in the District. These former athletes provide academic, athletic and artistic activities, as well as positive role models for many teenagers who don't have caring men in their lives. Their gumption is sobering: one of the teenagers they were working with was murdered two blocks away from their front door. But they have made progress: with their help, a gang leader has turned his life around and now works with other at-risk teens in The Houses' youth service corps.

These are just two of the thousands of examples of faith-based organizations around the country. Whether in rural Appalachia or inner-city DC, whether they are feeding people or tending to their other problems, these community-minded ministers are working where no one else wants to go. And, surprisingly often, they are achieving successes that no one else is even attempting. The truth is this: without groups like theirs, some of the people who need help most probably would not be served.

Hunger as an Example

My work on hunger has brought me face-to-face with everyday heroes like these men of God and with the men, women and children that they serve. In fact, almost three quarters of all community kitchens and food pantries across the country are run by churches, congregations or other faith-based organizations.

In my own district of Dayton, Ohio, a survey of 100 Miami Valley faith communities B ranging from Methodist to Muslim and Baptist to Baha'i B found that most of these congregations were providing food through pantries or kitchens, often in conjunction with other congregations or agencies.

With 31 million Americans hungry or threatened by hunger, there is no question that these groups are essential to the social fabric of our lives. With widespread reports that food pantries are seeing sharp increases in requests for their help, it is clear that more needs to be done to assist both these organizations and the people they serve. Hunger is just one of the issues that this bill would address.

Good Samaritan Tax Act

I want to draw your attention to one provision of the bill that will assist in the fight against hunger, before moving on to the charitable choice provisions. In recent years, I have repeatedly introduced a bill called "The Good Samaritan Tax Act." This would encourage donations of food from the private sector, by putting donations of food on the same tax footing as donations of other items. It will allow all businesses, instead of only corporations, a tax break for donating food and it would clear up a question about the actual value of donated food. In turn, this would encourage farmers, restaurants and others to be more generous in their donation of food to programs aimed at helping hungry Americans.

This year, Congressman Richard Baker of Louisiana, along with Representatives John Lewis, Jim Ramstad, Karen Thurman, Phil English and Charlie Rangel, have all joined me in introducing H.R. 990. I also am thankful to Amo Houghton who has been a strong champion of this idea, along with Senators Lugar and Leahy. I know they share my hope that this provision will increase the food that is donated to charities B many of them faith-based B that provide emergency food aid to the one in 10 Americans who turn to them for help. I am pleased that the provisions of H.R. 990 have been included in H.R. 7.

Need for Legislation

It is because of my work on hunger that I am supporting the President's initiative. I have been to inner-city neighborhoods; I have been to Native American reservations; I have been to our rural areas. I have seen people in need in our nation's richest communities, and in the shadow of our Capitol. I have seen people struggle to get their lives back together and to provide for their families.

And I have seen people of all kinds of faith B even if it is simply a faith in humankind B make tremendous differences in peoples' lives.

Simply put, our bill would allow religious organizations to compete on a level playing field with other groups in order to provide certain social services. This is not about rewarding certain denominations or favoring specific faith-based organizations. This is about finding the groups that will get the best results in caring for "the least, the last and the lost."

If a faith-based group can demonstrate that it does that better than a secular group, then it should receive the grant. A group should not receive any money simply because it is faith-based. Federal funds should be an investment that produces results. But if a faith-based group can get those results, it should not be barred from competing for Federal funds.

Reverend Luis Cortes, who you will hear from later, put it best. He told me that the Latino congregations he serves want nothing more than access to these resources that have been available to other groups for years. In their neighborhoods, the church is the only institution that the members of these congregations feel they control. Just as many African-American communities found, Hispanic empowerment and self-improvement are intertwined with the church.

Constitutional Questions

Some observers have raised concerns about the constitutionality of charitable choice and the potential erosion of the separation of church and state. I am not a Constitutional expert, but I do want to point out a number of the bill's provisions designed to address these concerns explicitly.

"Federal, state or local government funds that are received by a religious organization for the provision of services constitutes aid to individuals and families in need and not aid to the religious organization," the bill states in Section 201 (c) (2).

The bill continues, "the receipt by a religious organization of Federal, state or local government funds is not and should not be perceived as an endorsement by the government of religion or the organization's religious beliefs or practices."

The bill does allow religion to be a consideration in hiring decisions, but this simply continues the Title VII exemption of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. HR 7 does not change current civil rights law; in fact, it specifically states in Section 201 (e) (3), "nothing in this section alters the duty of a religious organization to comply with the nondiscrimination provisions Y prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race, color, and national originY or sex and visual impairment Y or disability Y or age."

Another important provision of the bill is its prohibition against proselytizing using government funds in Section 201 (I).: "No funds shall be expended for sectarian worship, instruction or proselytization. A certificate shall be signed by such organizations Y that gives assurance that the organization will comply."

Faith-based groups should provide services to the poor out of their love of God, not because they want to convert someone to their specific belief. They do this already, but this provision underscores that this is Congress' intent in this legislation.

Finally, nowhere bill does the bill state that a religious organization must apply for funding. If any organization is worried that government funds will corrupt its religious mission, or come with too many strings attached, or pose any other problem, it should not apply for Federal funds. If any organization thinks that the Federal government will be its savior and provide everything it needs, it should rethink its theology. The funds that this initiative aims to open to more organization are not meant for everybody. Those groups that are so infused with faith that there can be no separation between that faith and any service it provides probably should not apply for these funds.

Opponents of the Legislation

I know that many critics have voiced their opposition to this bill. I have met with some of these critics, including many who are friends with whom I work on other issues.

But there are also many organizations that do support The Community Solutions Act, including many that already are working on the front lines of the fight against poverty and misery.

This week, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops voiced their strong support for this bill. Its letter explained why this way: "the sad fact is that in many communities where disinvestment and discrimination exacerbate the problems of addiction, family disintegration, and violence, churches and community-based charities are often the only institutions still there and able to address the pervasive poverty of their neighbors. We have to find better ways to build the capacity and support the hard work of these community lifelines. This is why we support the Faith-Based and Community Initiatives proposal and will work with Congress to refine, improve and pass H.R. 7, the Community Solutions Act of 2001."

The Conference also specifically addresses the fears of employment discrimination: "it is worth noting that religious groups have been permitted to hire their own members under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act for over 35 years. The bishop's conference, which has long been a vigorous advocate and defender of America's civil rights laws, believes there is no conflict between strong civil rights protections and application of Title VII to faith-based and community initiatives under charitable choice."

The Salvation Army, which serves more than 37 million Americans in every ZIP code in the country, also supports this initiative. "We are grateful for the efforts being made in Congress to expand charitable giving... and we welcome the Community Solutions Act of 2001 (H.R. 7), which would expand these provisions to a greater number of federal programs. Both [provisions] would assist The Army in serving the neediest residents of our communities throughout America, while maintaining our religious identity... we believe that this piece of legislation can create a stronger and expanded social service network in this country. We also believe that the outcome will be more needed services to more of America's poor for many, many years to come."

Other respected organizations have endorsed the Community Solutions Act as well, including:

Conclusion

I want to conclude by lamenting that this initiative has gotten caught up in partisan politics. This should not be an issue that divides Democrats and Republicans, and I hope there will be room for compromise.

I think that we need to refocus on how we can best serve those in need. I support the bill in its current form, but I stand willing to work with people of good will on both sides to ensure that low-income individuals are better served. That is the bottom line of this bill and my support for this initiative.

For example, I wholeheartedly support the President's proposal to include a Compassion Capital fund that would provide federal funds to leverage money from the private sector. This fund would provide training and technical assistance to local congregations and other community-based groups, as well as meet certain social priorities, such as working with children of prisoners. We need additional resources to meet these challenges and this fund would be a step in the right direction. I strongly encourage the committee to add a provision to authorize this Compassion Capital Fund, as President Bush requested.

I want to give St. Francis, a Catholic saint, the last word. He said, "Preach the gospel at all times. If necessary, use words." Every faith tradition is filled with commandments to help the poor, the widows and the orphans. Our government should do everything we can to assist those who live their faith every day by following religious teachings that we should all care for the least among us.