COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS BILL THOMAS, California, Chairman
PHILIP M. CRANE, Illinois E. CLAY SHAW, Jr., Florida NANCY L. JOHNSON, Connecticut AMO HOUGHTON, New York WALLY HERGER, California JIM MCCRERY, Louisiana DAVE CAMP, Michigan JIM RAMSTAD, Minnesota JIM NUSSLE, Iowa SAM JOHNSON, Texas JENNIFER DUNN, Washington MAC COLLINS, Georgia ROB PORTMAN, Ohio PHIL ENGLISH, Pennsylvania WES WATKINS, Oklahoma J. D. HAYWORTH, Arizona JERRY WELLER, Illinois KENNY C. HULSHOF, Missouri SCOTT MCINNIS, Colorado RON LEWIS, Kentucky MARK FOLEY, Florida KEVIN BRADY, Texas PAUL RYAN, Wisconsin	CHARLES B. RANGEL, New York FORTNEY PETE STARK, California ROBERT T. MATSUI, California WILLIAM J. COYNE, Pennsylvania SANDER M. LEVIN, Michigan BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland JIM MCDERMOTT, Washington GERALD D. KLECZKA, Wisconsin JOHN LEWIS, Georgia RICHARD E. NEAL, Massachusetts MICHAEL R. MCNULTY, New York WILLIAM J. JEFFERSON, Louisiana JOHN S. TANNER, Tennessee XAVIER BECERRA, California KAREN L. THURMAN, Florida LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas EARL POMEROY, North Dakota
Allison Giles, Chief of Staff Janice Mays, Minority Chief Counsel SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AMO HOUGHTON, New York, Chairman
ROB PORTMAN, Ohio JERRY WELLER, Illinois KENNY C. HULSHOF, Missouri SCOTT MCINNIS, Colorado MARK FOLEY, Florida SAM JOHNSON, Texas JENNIFER DUNN, Washington	WILLIAM J. COYNE, Pennsylvania MICHAEL R. MCNULTY, New York JOHN LEWIS, Georgia KAREN L. THURMAN, Florida EARL POMEROY, North Dakota
Pursuant to clause 2(e)(4) of Rule XI of the Rules of the House, public hearing records of the Committee on Ways and Means are also published in electronic form. The printed hearing record remains the official version. Because electronic submissions are used to prepare both printed and electronic versions of the hearing record, the process of converting between various electronic formats may introduce unintentional errors or omissions. Such occurrences are inherent in the current  publication process and should diminish as the process is further refined.

Advisory of May 7, 2002, announcing the hearing

Internal Revenue Service, Steven T. Miller, Director, Exempt Organizations

Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Reverend Barry W. Lynn

American Center for Law & Justice, Colby M. May

Coral Ridge Ministries, D. James Kennedy

Hopkins, Bruce R., Polsinelli, Shalton & Welte

Interfaith Alliance, Reverend C. Welton Gaddy

National Council of Churches of Christ in the USA, Brenda Girton-Mitchell

New Bethel Baptist Church, Hon. Reverend Walter E. Fauntroy

Aiken, Bill, Soka Gakkai International-USA Buddhist Association, letter

REVIEW OF INTERNAL REVENUE CODE
SECTION 501 (c)(3) REQUIREMENTS FOR RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS

House of Representatives,
Committee on Ways and Means,
Subcommittee on Oversight,
Washington, DC.

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:00 p.m., in room 1100 Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Amo Houghton (Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding.

[The advisory announcing the hearing follows:]

Chairman HOUGHTON. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. We are delighted you are here. This ought to be a very interesting session.

I would like to make a few remarks, and I would like to suggest that Mr. Coyne make remarks if he wants to. Anybody else who would like to say something to begin the session, fine; and then we will turn it over to Mr. Miller and Mr. Hopkins.

So we are here today, as most of you know, to talk about an important issue, which is the proper role of religious groups in politics and lobbying. Section 501 (c)(3) of the Tax Code establishes requirements for charities, such as the United Way, museums, nonprofit hospitals, animal shelters, as well as churches, mosques, synagogues, and other religious groups. These groups are tax exempt. Donors who make contributions to these worthwhile organizations receive the benefit of having the contribution tax deductible.

Two Members of Congress, my good friend, Mr. Philip Crane, a Member of the Committee on Ways and Means, and Representative Walter Jones have introduced legislation to change the Tax Code. It would allow churches to engage in greater activity than is now currently permitted.

We will hear from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and one of the leading experts of tax-exempt organizations in a minute on what the law now requires and how it is enforced. Then we are going to hear from interested parties who represent a variety of different backgrounds and points of view on this issue.

The key issue at the moment is the right balance, and how does that balance measure with the Constitution. In other words, what activity should be permitted through one's place of worship.

I also look forward to what I am sure will be an important and enlightening discussion from the members of the panel.

So I am pleased now to yield to my great friend and Ranking Democrat, Mr. Coyne.

[The opening statement of Chairman Houghton follows:]

Mr. COYNE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome.

Today's hearing will provide a hearing record on the current law as it applies to political and lobbying activities by churches and charities. Specifically, we would review legislation that would change the current tax law in this particular area.

Two versions of this legislation have been proposed in this current Congress. The Tax Code prohibits section 501 (c)(3) organizations from engaging in any political campaign activities. The law also limits the amount of lobbying activities that these organizations can conduct. These tax rules have been in place for 25 years and have been substantially modified during this time.

I look forward to the witnesses' statements about the public interest served in restricting the activities of organizations receiving charitable donations as well as the concerns of churches about this policy.

The Oversight Subcommittee has a long tradition of reviewing tax-exempt issues and organizations and their issues. As we evaluate the issues before us this afternoon, I look forward to continued bipartisanship in this particular area.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The opening statement of Mr. Coyne follows:]

Chairman HOUGHTON. All right. I, too, Mr. Coyne. Thank you very much. Mr. Crane, would you like to make a statement?

Mr. CRANE. I simply want to express my appreciation to you, Mr.  Chairman, for permitting me, not a Member of this Subcommittee, to be here and to participate in this very important hearing.

I have introduced legislation on this subject going back several years, and it is something that we continue to push toward answering some of the questions, but this kind of a hearing is vitally important in doing that. So I just want to congratulate you for what you have done, and I look forward to today's hearing.

Chairman HOUGHTON. Thanks very much.

Mr. Weller, do you have a comment? No. Mr. Lewis?

Mr. LEWIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to thank you for holding this hearing. I look forward to hearing from the witnesses.

Chairman HOUGHTON. Thanks, Mr. Lewis. Ms. Dunn, would you like to make an opening statement? All right, gentlemen, you are on.

Chairman HOUGHTON. Mr. Miller, will you lead off?

STATEMENT OF STEVEN T. MILLER, DIRECTOR, EXEMPT ORGANIZATIONS, INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE

Mr. MILLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

In the time available, I will concentrate on the requirements for tax exemption as the rules apply to churches. I will also touch on our experience in administering this area.

I request that my written testimony be made a part of the record of this hearing.

Section 501 (c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code provides for tax exemption of certain organizations. It does not specifically mention churches. However, they qualify as entities organized and operated for religious purposes. While there are special rules applicable to churches under the Internal Revenue Code, the lobbying and campaign intervention rules apply not only to churches but to all section 501 (c)(3) organizations.

Let me spend a moment on lobbying restrictions. No substantial part of a section 501 (c)(3) organization's activities can be carrying on propaganda or otherwise attempting to influence legislation. Lobbying includes direct communications to members of legislatures, as well as indirect communications that are made through the general public.

Section 501 (c)(3) restricts lobbying. It does not prohibit it. Churches are subject to the restriction although, unlike other section 501 (c)(3) organizations, they are not eligible to file the election under section 501 (h). Section 501 (h) allows an organization to have its lobbying activity measured by expenditures.

Since some lobbying is acceptable under the law, it is fair to say that the IRS has not often identified situations in which information shows or even suggests that a church is engaged in sufficient lobbying to justify revocation of its status.

Let me move to the prohibition on political activity. Section 501 (c)(3) does not prohibit all activity that might be described as political within the common meaning of that term. Rather, it prohibits an exempt organization from directly or indirectly participating in or intervening in any political campaign on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate for public office.

On the other hand, unlike lobbying, when the section 501 (c)(3) limit on political campaign intervention applies, it is absolute. Like any other section 501 (c)(3) organization, a church not only jeopardizes its tax-exempt status for participating in a political campaign, it also becomes subject to excise tax under section 4955 on its political expenditures. This excise tax may be imposed in addition to or in lieu of revocation.

I would like to touch on one rule applicable only to churches. Under section 7611, the IRS is required to follow special procedures, both before and during the audit of an organization claiming to be a church.

First and foremost, the IRS may begin a church tax inquiry, the initial step of the church audit, only when a high-level official has a reasonable belief that the church may not be tax exempt or may have other certain liabilities under the Code. There are various other protections under section 7611 that are outlined in my written testimony.

Let me take a moment to highlight our outreach efforts in this area, because we take the approach that the most efficient means of assuring compliance is to educate the taxpayer.

We have made the church community aware of the tax law rules. We have disseminated to the church community and to the public a publication containing a discussion of the rules in this area. This publication has been widely available and widely discussed since it was issued in July 1994. We also remind churches and all other section 501 (c)(3) organizations each election cycle of their responsibilities in this area through news releases. Finally, we share information with leaders of the church community and persons who provide tax advice to churches through various outreach opportunities.

In the coming weeks, we will release a revised version of the above-referenced publication entitled Tax Guide for Churches and Other Religious Organizations. We will have an expanded discussion of the prohibition on political campaign activity. We are also considering what other guidance may be necessary in the area.

Moving on to a discussion of our experience in Administration, I would first note that we fully recognize the sensitive nature of the area. Our primary purpose here is to influence individuals and organizations to voluntarily comply with the law. We try to enhance voluntary compliance in as unobtrusive a manner as possible, recognizing that the less entanglement between the religious community and the Internal Revenue Service the better. Such an approach is in the best interest of both parties and is in keeping with the competing constitutional interests in this area.

Our experience in this area indicates that the issue of political intervention occurs infrequently in our examination program and does not often justify the revocation of a church's tax-exempt status.

From time to time, we find well-meaning individuals who act out of faith but not in conformance with the law. When we come upon this situation, we normally prefer to pursue the excise tax, if available, and correction rather than revocation. Correction means that the organization attempts, to the extent possible, to undo the error and creates and adheres to procedural safeguards to prevent the recurrence.

However, in rare and appropriate circumstances, the IRS has and will revoke the exempt status of a church or other organization for political activities. This is a challenging area for us to administer, made even more so because of issues specific to churches.

The Joint Committee on Taxation staff has commented upon the church tax procedures under section 7611 by stating that, while they provide important safeguards to the church community, they may result in unintended consequences. For example, in the church area we are most often left to use third-party referrals of information about potential noncompliance. In addition, there is a lack of information available to the IRS and the public in this area. Churches do not need to apply for a determination letter from the Internal Revenue Service, and they don't have to file annual reports either.

Other issues in administering the political campaign intervention prohibition exist not just for churches but for all section 501 (c)(3) organizations. These include determining whether the action of an individual may be attributed to the organization and whether a given pronouncement constitutes prohibited political campaign intervention.

Finally, the section 4955 excise tax on political activities available to us in lieu of revocation may not be effective in certain circumstances. That is because the tax is based on expenditures, and certain political activities are not readily measurable in that context.

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, could Mr. Miller use that mike to the right of him? Obviously, that one he has is not functioning properly.

Chairman HOUGHTON. It cuts in and out. Yes. Try that. Yes.

Mr. MILLER. All right.

Mr. CRANE. Thank you.

Mr. MILLER. A little better. Although timing is everything, I would just want to --

Chairman HOUGHTON. You take as much time as you want now.

Mr. MILLER. As I said, for the most part, churches are faced with the same requirements for exemption as other section 501 (c)(3) organizations, including the prohibition on campaign intervention. They are, however, afforded additional protections under section 7611 and have fewer public reporting requirements. It is a challenging area for us to administer.

Thank you, and I am available for comments.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Miller follows:]

Chairman HOUGHTON. All right. Thank you very much. I forgot to mention earlier that Mr. Miller is the Director of Exempt Organizations of the Internal Revenue Service.

I would like to introduce Mr. Hopkins, who is --

Ms. DUNN. Now yours is doing the same thing.

Chairman HOUGHTON. Is mine doing the same thing? Let me keep trying. Is it all right now? If I scream, is that all right? Okay.

But, anyway, Mr. Hopkins is of Counsel with Polsinelli, Shalton & Welte, Kansas City, Missouri. Mr. Hopkins, we are delighted to have you here. Let's see if your mike works any better than ours.

STATEMENT OF BRUCE R. HOPKINS, OF COUNSEL, POLSINELLI, SHALTON & WELTE, KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI

Mr. HOPKINS. Well, let me try.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and other Members of the Subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to be here today.

I am a lawyer in private practice. I have been practicing in the exempt organizations field for 33 years now. I have taught the course in two law schools and have written some books on the subject.

Mr. CRANE. Could you swap mikes?

Mr. HOPKINS. Does that help? Apparently, it does.

I have been asked to review the history of and the current requirements for tax exemption for public charities, with particular attention to churches. Mr. Miller has summarized the law in this area, making the distinctions between the rules concerning lobbying and the rules concerning political campaign activities, and so I will not repeat what he has said. Let me add some comments that I have in connection with this matter.

In the lobbying area, as Mr. Miller mentioned, there is a special set of rules, section 501 (h), that public charities are allowed to elect to measure permissible lobbying. This particular election is not available to churches and certain other religious organizations.

In addition to the tax law, of course, first amendment considerations affect this analysis, and government may not be involved in the establishment of religion. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that tax exemption for public charities is constitutional, even if exemption is extended to religious organizations. The Court has also ruled, however, that a tax exemption that is only for religious organizations is not constitutionally permissible.

The Supreme Court has further held that Congress has broad latitude in creating classifications and distinctions in tax statutes. This principle has been applied in the tax-exempt organization's context.

Congress has over the years enacted exempt organization rules uniquely beneficial only to churches and other religious organizations. Three of these are particularly notable. Mr. Miller mentioned a couple of these.

Churches and other religious organizations can be tax exempt without having to file an application for recognition of exemption with the Internal Revenue Service. Churches and other religious organizations are not required to file annual information returns with the Internal Revenue Service. As you mentioned, churches have been provided special rules by which audit of them is more difficult for the IRS.

In my view, Congress has the authority under the Constitution to permit political campaign activity by churches. I say this as a matter of classification for income tax exemption. Put another way, if this proposal is unconstitutional, then so, too, must be the other tax law benefits Congress has accorded churches.

I would like to make some comments about the pending bills. The Houses of Worship Political Speech Protection Act would introduce the standard of substantiality into the political area. This is the same standard that is used today in the lobbying context. All of the uncertainties as to what this word means would be imported into the political area. Pressure would mount for the equivalent of a section 501 (h) election in this context.

More importantly, in my view, a new approach to defining substantiality is required. Traditional definitions in terms of time or expenditures are no longer working. How does one value a clergyperson's endorsement of a candidate from the pulpit or a Web site communication? There may have to be a new definition, some sort of a facts and circumstances test, to capture this factor of influence.

Likewise, the Bright-Line Act does not address this problem. This is because it focuses only on expenditures. An expenditure for a political act may be minuscule but exert enormous influence. Also, political activities by volunteers would be disregarded.

I am also concerned about the section 4955 tax that Mr. Miller has referenced. The two bills address the matter of income tax exemption but not the political expenditures tax. If churches only were exempted from this tax, I believe that would amount to an unconstitutional sponsorship by the Federal Government of religion.

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I would be pleased to answer any questions that you may have.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hopkins follows:]

Chairman HOUGHTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Hopkins.

I am going to ask you and also Mr. Miller a question, and then I will turn this thing over to Mr. Coyne, and we will go on to the other participants.

What I am really interested in is what is the practical effect of passage of either the Jones or the Crane bills?

Mr. HOPKINS. Well, the practical impact of passage of the bill would be basically to engraft into the area of political campaign activities the type of law that is in the law today concerning lobbying. In other words, the limitation on a political campaign activity for churches and other public charities today is absolute. It is not permissible. In a lobbying context, there is a standard of insubstantiality. That standard in the lobbying setting would be imported into the political arena to allow a certain amount of political activity by churches.

Chairman HOUGHTON. Is that the practical impact or the technical impact?

Mr. HOPKINS. Well, maybe I misunderstood what you meant by the terms. I guess maybe that is more of a technical impact.

I suspect the practical impact would be twofold, if I understand what you mean by the word "practical." One, as we know, there are churches engaged in political activity today, so it would legitimize practices that are going on in any event. Secondly, it would probably generate more political campaign activity by churches than we have today.

Chairman HOUGHTON. Mr. Miller?

Mr. MILLER. I am somewhat limited in what I can say about the pending legislation, but I would echo Mr. Hopkins -- it is clear there are instances out there of pulpit comments and things of that nature that would seem to fall within the rules that are being discussed in the bills.

Chairman HOUGHTON. Well, but this is a hypothetical situation. It doesn't have anything to do with what Mr. Crane or Mr. Jones -- it is just a hypothetical.

Seriously, what do you think from the standpoint of the IRS the practical impact of this would be?

Mr. MILLER. Of the bills?

Chairman HOUGHTON. Yes.

Mr. MILLER. The only thing that I would point to in my testimony is we have outlined what our administrative impact is in the lobbying area; and because of the rules of section 7611 and the substantiality rules, we have a very limited enforcement role in lobbying with respect to churches.

Chairman HOUGHTON. All right. Thank you. Mr. Coyne.

Mr. COYNE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Miller, why is it improper to finance political campaign activities with tax-deductible charitable donations in the judgment of the IRS?

Mr. MILLER. On that issue actually I would defer to Congress. But there is an issue as to why you would be able to deduct something with a charitable deduction where you were not allowed otherwise to, so it would create some disparity.

Mr. COYNE. Well, are you saying that you judge it to be or you rule it to be improper as a result of the actions of Congress? Is that what you are saying?

Mr. MILLER. In some respects, yes. There is a line of rules in the Tax Code and in our regulations that talks about the earmarking of donations. A donation to a charitable organization that is used or earmarked for political purposes is not deductible under current law.

Mr. COYNE. Basically, it is the action of Congress that you respond to. Is that it?

Mr. MILLER. It certainly is.

Mr. COYNE. How many times have you revoked the tax-exempt status of a church for political activities?

Mr. MILLER. Let me preface my answer. Churches have a specific status under the Tax Code and a specific definition. According to our information, we have the exempt revoked status of two churches. We have revoked religious organizations or religious-affiliated organizations four or five times in the last 20 years.

Mr. COYNE. Last 20 years?

Mr. MILLER. It probably goes farther back than that, since -- the first one would be, I guess, Christian Echoes, which is a 1980 case. So farther back than that.

Mr. COYNE. How many times has the IRS imposed excise taxes on churches for political activities?

Mr. MILLER. I will go back and check our records on that. I am personally aware of at least twice that we have done that.

Mr. COYNE. Current law does not require churches to apply for tax-exempt status nor to file form(s) 990, the annual information returns, with the IRS. The documents are required for all other section 501 (c)(3) charities and are disclosable to the public. If the law was changed to allow churches to engage in political activities, isn't it correct that neither the IRS nor the public would have any information about the church's political activity -- that is, who funded the political campaign effort and how much money was spent?

Mr. MILLER. We would have the same information that is available today, which is we do not have an exemption application from churches, and they are not required to file annual returns.

Mr. COYNE. So you would have no information?

Mr. MILLER. We would have limited information.

Mr. COYNE. Wouldn't allowing political activities by churches create a large campaign finance loophole?

Mr. MILLER. I don't know about a large loophole. It certainly would create an additional player in the political arena.

Mr. COYNE. So it would be involving the churches and religious institutions in the political arena even more so than they currently are?

Mr. MILLER. Potentially.

Mr. COYNE. Thank you.

Chairman HOUGHTON. Thanks very much. Mr. Crane.

Mr. CRANE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Miller, is there a statutory or regulatory definition of the word "substantial" as it relates to the amount of activity a religious organization may engage in?

Mr. MILLER. I don't believe there is a -- and Bruce can correct me if I am wrong on this. I don't believe there is a statutory rule and probably not in the regulations either. There are revenue rulings, and there is some case law out there. Some of these do not involve religious organizations. Because the substantiality test applies across the board to all section 501 (c)(3) organizations, you can look to those cases as well. There is some guidance out there.

Mr. CRANE. Well, since this term remains undefined, are religious organizations simply supposed to wait until some enforcement action is taken by the IRS to find that line?

Mr. MILLER. Again, if we are talking about lobbying and the substantiality rules, we have not done a lot of enforcement in that area. We do not have information that would indicate that we should be more involved in this area.

Mr. CRANE. Well, could it be that there are so few enforcement actions that -- because churches totally refrain from political activity because they are afraid of running afoul of the IRS?

Mr. MILLER. I am not sure how to answer that one.

Again, substantiality applies only in the lobbying context, and there is an absolute bar in the political context. So the definition of substantiality would not flow over into political intervention unless your bill became law.

Mr. CRANE. What is the average cost for defending against an IRS enforcement action in court?

Mr. MILLER. That I do not have.

Mr. CRANE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.

Chairman HOUGHTON. Thank you. Mr. Lewis.

Mr. LEWIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Miller, is it conceivable that, with the campaign finance reform, that if you change the law, is it conceivable that the churches could become a conduit, that you would have individuals making large contributions to churches and then the churches engage in political activity? Is there some way the IRS can monitor that?

Mr. MILLER. That is, of course, a possibility. It is a possibility now as well.

Again, I don't believe the law that is being suggested would change the fact that earmarking of monies going into churches is not deductible or should not be deductible on a charitable basis. That is existing law, and there has been no suggestion that this would change. Again, as I have said, clearly, if the bill is passed, I think that you would have another player in the political arena that doesn't necessarily exist today, although to some extent obviously they do.

Mr. LEWIS. Let me come another way. As a rule, do you monitor the activities of churches during the political season?

Mr. MILLER. We do monitor churches. We are limited in how we do that by reason of section 7611 and because of the lack of information in the area because there is no annual filing. So our monitoring is mostly receipt of information from third parties who are looking.

Mr. LEWIS. But if you have a minister speaking from the pulpit on Sunday morning, maybe a rabbi from the synagogue or the temple, saying that he had been told by God about somebody, that somebody should be elected, somebody should be defeated, is that political activity?

Mr. MILLER. That would constitute political activity.

Again, most of these are based on facts and circumstances. It would be difficult for me to find circumstances in which that wouldn't be found to be a political campaign intervention. But, again, whether we would know about that would really depend on who was in the audience.

Mr. LEWIS. Do you have the ability or the capacity as an agency to monitor the activities of churches and other religious institutions?

Mr. MILLER. The only thing we can rely upon, again, is who would be in that audience to report it, and that presumably would continue under --

Mr. LEWIS. So you wait for someone to file a complaint against the institution or against the minister or against the rabbi or whoever?

Mr. MILLER. Again, as I mentioned, obviously, we do not have reporting from churches, and under section 7611 we cannot go out and survey churches. We cannot do audits unless we have a reasonable belief that there is an exemption or other tax issue out there. So there are some limitations.

Mr. LEWIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman HOUGHTON. Let me just ask you a quick question. Even if you did have reporting for the churches, would you still be able to determine whether somebody got up at a pulpit and suggested that a candidate be elected?

Mr. MILLER. In all likelihood, we would not. There is a question on the form 990 asking whether you engaged in political activities. Even assuming that they would check that box, that would obviously not be contemporaneous with the action.

Chairman HOUGHTON. Thank you. Mr. Weller.

Mr. WELLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First I want to commend you for conducting this hearing today. I also want to commend my colleagues, Mr. Jones and Mr. Crane, for their leadership on this issue.  

There are millions of Americans, because of their involvement and their strong religious faith, for them their temple, their synagogue, their church, their mosque is their center of community. They seek the opportunity to be involved, and they believe through their central community that they should have the opportunity to be more involved politically.

The question I have and I would like to direct to Mr. Miller is, just try and get a little more specific here and follow up on some of the questioning that the Chair and others have asked here. Mr. Miller, is the IRS -- are you proactive in communicating with churches and other religious organizations regarding political activity?

Mr. MILLER. We have tried, Congressman, and we will continue to try. I think we could do a better job.

One thing that we are doing in the coming weeks, we will reissue our church publication with a little more practical guidance in this particular area, and we will do additional outreach, I think.

Mr. WELLER. Do you work with any third party or private groups to communicate limitations on political involvement in churches or religious organizations?

Mr. MILLER. We certainly do outreach to whoever comes to us, and we do have a network of individuals from the religious community that we talk to.

One person on our advisory committee is, in fact, a representative of the religious community. We do have an outside advisory committee that speaks to us, and we bounce things off of and --

Mr. WELLER. Who is that?

Mr. MILLER. That is Deirdre Dessingue of the Catholic Conference.

Mr. WELLER. Let me ask some specific examples of activity that may or may not have occurred at churches and temples and synagogues and mosques, other religious institutions. But under current law can a church or a synagogue or a temple or a mosque, can they conduct a voter registration drive sponsored by the institution or on the institution's property?

Mr. MILLER. Yes. The short answer is, yes, provided they do not bias their registration activities towards one candidate over another. There is no prohibition.

Mr. WELLER. And can they offer a candidate debates or forums, invite candidates to come in and present themselves?

Mr. MILLER. The same general rules would apply.

Mr. WELLER. And what about paid political advertising in a church bulletin or a publication at the mosque or temple?

Mr. MILLER. There is no prohibition, provided that it is done on a fair market basis and that it is made available to whoever wants to use that space. So it has to be equally available to the candidate base.

Mr. WELLER. And can the minister say the following from the pulpit and not be in violation of the tax status, that candidate X is pro-life or candidate Y is pro-choice?

Mr. MILLER. That becomes more problematic, Congressman. The pastor, the minister, the rabbi can speak to issues of the day, but to the extent they start tying it to particular candidates and to a particular election, it begins to look more and more like either opposition to a particular candidate or favoring a particular candidate.

Mr. WELLER. And would the Crane and Jones legislation allow -- clarify the law to allow for that type of statement?

Mr. MILLER. I believe so. But Bruce might be able to answer that better than I.

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Hopkins, can you answer that?

Mr. HOPKINS. Most of the examples that you provided would not be political activity in the first place, as Steve indicated, so the legislation would not be needed. But if it were to go beyond that, say statements made by a member of the clergy from the pulpit and they were deemed to be political statements, which would be prohibited under current law, the two bills, within certain parameters, would allow that kind of activity to occur without the church losing its exemption.

Mr. WELLER. So just to follow up on that, say you have a candidate who is a guest speaker, was in a church speaking from the pulpit, concludes his or her remarks, and the minister walks up, puts his or her arm around that particular candidate and says, this is the right candidate. I urge you to support this candidate. That would be -- is that allowable under current law?

Mr. HOPKINS. No, that would not be allowable under current law. That would clearly be political campaign activity. It would be protected, however, under the two bills that are the specific subject of the hearing.

But as I said in my opening statement, the problem is in terms of computing how you stay within the boundaries, either of the 5 percent rule under one bill or the insubstantiality test under the other bill. That is, what monetary value do you assign to that kind of activity?

Mr. WELLER. Just a last question. You know, also on Election Day sometimes it is alleged that churches or synagogues, temples or mosques may use what we call the church bus to transport voters to the polls. Is that allowable under current law?

Mr. MILLER. That is. It is allowable, again, with the restriction that they cannot bias towards one candidate versus another, but get out the vote is a permissible activity of churches.

Mr. WELLER. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I see my time is expired. Thank you.

Chairman HOUGHTON. Thank you, Mr. Weller. Mrs. Thurman?

Mrs. THURMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

In the same idea, what about handing out voting guides? Is that considered to be a political activity, and -- either in the church or is it different if it is outside of the church?

Mr. MILLER. The voter guide issue is one that we are presented with often. There is nothing per se wrong with voter's guides if they are done in a way that includes all candidates in a fair and impartial manner, and, includes a wide array of issues.

Mrs. THURMAN. One other question, and I -- or a couple of other questions. It is my understanding that today under the churches and being organized under a section 501 (c)(3), they cannot do any kind of political issue campaigning. Is that correct?

Mr. MILLER. They cannot do specific advocacy of a particular candidate or advocating the defeat of another candidate.

Mrs. THURMAN. Okay. Is there -- and it is my understanding there is a way for them, in fact, to be involved in political campaigns by setting up a section 501 (c)(4), is that correct?

Mr. MILLER. They can have affiliated organizations, provided that the resources of the church don't find their way there and are not used for improper purposes. We do see the ability -- and perhaps, Bruce, you want to speak to this as well -- of an organization creating a section 501 (c)(4). Again, any section 501 (c)(3) organization, could create a section 501 (c)(4) organization. For that matter, a political action committee could be attached to that section 501 (c)(4) organization.

Mrs. THURMAN. So they are not then being -- I mean, they have an ability to do that if they choose. Are their churches, synagogues, mosques, others that do that today?

Mr. MILLER. I am not familiar with any, but I am not sure I would be.

Mrs. THURMAN. Mr. Hopkins?

Mr. HOPKINS. Well, first of all, let me say, as to your first question, the problem -- and Steve indicated this -- is not just a matter of setting up a related entity. It is a question of getting it funded, and that often is a problem. Because, as he said, the church resources can't flow over to the section 501 (c)(4). So the section 501 (c)(4) has got to find independent funding, and often that is difficult because contributions to them are not deductible. But, aside from that, it is not, in my experience, terribly common for a church to have a related section 501 (c)(4). It is far more common for other types of religious organizations to do that. I have seen churches do it, but, in my experience, it is quite uncommon and in large part because of this funding aspect.

Mrs. THURMAN. I guess my point is that there is a legal way for them to be involved in the political activities if they choose to do that.

Aside from their -- you know, issue that you bring up as funding, if a church and its parishioners wanted to be involved and used that church and/or -- for the ability to persuade their congregation, they have an ability to do that?

Mr. HOPKINS. That is true, although I would point out that while social welfare organizations -- these are section 501 (c)(4)s -- are not limited as to lobbying, they are limited as to political campaign activity. They can only expend an insubstantial part of their funding on political campaign activities. So that outlet is of limited utility in the political campaign activity context.

Mrs. THURMAN. But you bring up a good point, because that means that there is a lot of these organizations out there other than just in the religious area that would have the same restrictions unless they did some very similar things that -- and I don't know if in this piece of legislation are those also being considered, or is it just religious organizations? I mean, do we say to one, you have a freedom, but the others you don't unless you abide by the rules that are already set in place?

Mr. HOPKINS. Well, it is very common to have the section 501 (c)(3), section 501 (c)(4) in-tandem relationship across the public charities spectrum, very common. I confess to having set those up many times over the course of my practice.

Mrs. THURMAN. But didn't you just say they were limited in what they could do?

Mr. HOPKINS. As far as political activity.

Mrs. THURMAN. Even the section 501 (c)(4) --

Mr. HOPKINS. But they are unlimited as to lobbying activity.

Mr. COYNE. Would the gentlewoman yield?

Mrs. THURMAN. I would yield to Mr. Coyne.

Mr. COYNE. Just to follow up on Mrs. Thurman's question as about the section 501 (c)(4) and section 501 (c)(3), it is your experience that people are willing to contribute to the church under the section 501 (c)(3), but they are not willing -- not very willing, anyway, to take up the section 501 (c)(4) option? Is that it? Is that your experience?

Mr. HOPKINS. Are you speaking to me?

Mr. COYNE. Yes.

Mr. HOPKINS. Yes, it is. Donors are reluctant to donate if they do not receive a charitable contribution deduction. It does occur, but it is uncommon.

Mr. COYNE. Thank you.

Chairman HOUGHTON. Mr. Foley.

Mr. FOLEY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman; and let me join Mr. Weller in commending our colleagues, Mr. Jones and Mr. Crane, and such stalwarts as Lee Sheldon for their leadership in this issue. This has been a very complicated issue, and I think one that desperately needs clarity.

It is interesting, in the schools, you can't have a Bible study, but you can have any number of other groups. In the churches, you can invite a candidate. A preacher may be able to invoke that that particular person, be it the President of the United States, is a phenomenal leader and deserves to return to office. Yet a small church who may not be able to accord the arrival or the visit of a President has a small-town local elected official, and somehow they are in jeopardy of losing tax status or, in fact, could be crippled, if you will, by the IRS.

Mr. Miller, you suggested, which is interesting, that this was a recent area that the Christian Coalition found themselves in on voter's guides. And the voter's guides you suggested would be okay if they provide a wide-array discussion. So, if you could, could you define for me what a wide array would be considered? Is it 10 issues, 20 issues, five candidates?

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Foley, I apologize, but we are in litigation with the Christian Coalition over that very issue, and I don't think I am authorized to speak in great detail on that one.

Mr. FOLEY. Okay. Hence the confusion. Okay.

The other question I have, while I enjoy both of these bills and I think they would bring some clarity, my concern always is, when government gets more meddlesome and more involved by staking out percentages or other issues, will the IRS need the churches to maintain more detailed records such as direct expenses, logs or tapes of political campaigns, time sheets, overhead and administrative allocation? Would these bills actually invite more government and IRS interference?

Mr. MILLER. Once again, I would point to our experience in the lobbying area. Again, because of section 7611, our involvement would be limited because we need a reasonable belief that exemption is an issue. And if you have the typical example of a pulpit pronouncement, that generally might not be sufficient to initiate a church inquiry under section 7611. If we were auditing the organization, then, yes, it is conceivable that we would require recordkeeping, as we would with other section 501 (c)(3) organizations.

Mr. FOLEY. I guess the question always for me has been the churches, synagogues have long been the mainstay of American society, and many of the works that they pronounce from the pulpits are works that government is involved in -- feeding and clothing the poor, cleaning up inner-city neighborhoods, dealing with spousal problems and spousal abuse. It seems to me if the minister or rabbi wants to continue and make that a cause for their church to expand those opportunities, engaged in a dialogue with their parishioners whose parishioners attend voluntarily, if they were to advocate for someone who, in fact, espoused those same virtues or were at least on the same thought pattern, it seems that it restricts the churches from a continuation of their good work, and I guess I don't understand where the politics comes in.

If -- Dr. Kennedy is here from Fort Lauderdale -- and I am delighted he is here -- he will preach about the things necessary to bring a community together, to bring it whole and holistic, if you will. Yet if he treads slightly over to suggesting that some of those individuals who may in fact bring those changes to government, then he could be in serious jeopardy and conflict with the IRS, which seems to me a difficult standard.

Mr. MILLER. I guess I would respond in a couple of fashions.

First, I think that there is nothing in the statute that prevents the clergy from speaking to the issues of the day. It is when they tie those issues to a particular election campaign that there is even an issue.

As I mentioned in our testimony, our experience is where there has been the kind of foot fault that you are speaking of, we have talked to the church to ensure that they understand what the rules are. We have not revoked generally. We have spoken to them about what the rules are and gotten their agreement that they understand the rules and will establish some procedures as to how they will operate so that we don't have to come back and intervene again.

Mr. FOLEY. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman HOUGHTON. Thank you very much. Unless there are any other questions, we appreciate very much your being here. You have helped us a great deal.

Now we will move on to the second panel. What I would like to do is to call the second panel, Mr. Colby May, Senior Counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice in Alexandria, Virginia; the Reverend Dr. C. Welton Gaddy, Ph.D., Executive Director of the Interfaith Alliance; the Honorable Reverend Walter Fauntroy -- Walter, great to have you back here -- Pastor of the Bethel Baptist Church; the Reverend Barry Lynn, Executive Director, Americans United for Separation of Church and State; Brenda Girton-Mitchell, Associate General Secretary for Public Policy with the National Council of Churches (NCC).

And Mr. Foley is going to introduce Dr. Kennedy.

Mr. FOLEY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you again for holding the hearing.

However opinions may vary, this issue is critically important to the countless religious institutions across our country, and I appreciate the Chairman's decision to allow us to consider it.

I also want to -- I appreciate all the witnesses for being here today. In particular, I would like to recognize among our panelists today Dr. James Kennedy of my home State of Florida. Dr. Kennedy's Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church is located in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, near my district and that of the district of our colleague on the Committee on Ways and Means, Clay Shaw, and has a membership of nearly 10,000 members. Moreover, his Coral Ridge ministries is a vibrant television, radio, and print outreach ministry that reaches millions both here and abroad.

I know the Chairman has an abundance of people who all wanted to testify here, so I am pleased that Dr. Kennedy was able to join the panel. We need to look at this issue clearly, and again I applaud and welcome Dr. Kennedy to our hearing today.

Chairman HOUGHTON. Thanks very much, Mr. Foley.

Chairman HOUGHTON. Well, ladies and gentlemen, I think we should proceed. Mr. May, will you take the first cut at this?

STATEMENT OF COLBY M. MAY, DIRECTOR, AMERICAN CENTER FOR LAW & JUSTICE, ALEXANDRIA, VIRGINIA

Mr. MAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. How is this mike working? Is it okay?

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for extending to me the invitation to be here today. I am and was Legal Counsel for the Church at Pierce Creek in Binghamton, New York, which in 1992 had its exemption revoked for a single violation of this portion of the Tax Code.

Until 1954, all houses of worship were afforded the full and clear opportunity to act and speak as their conscience and leadership may direct, even in the political area. Today, houses of worship do not, however, enjoy that freedom because of the Johnson amendment which was inserted into the Tax Code in 1954 without a debate or a hearing. Then-Senator Johnson was angry because two Texas charitable organizations had taken a position contrary to him during his then-current primary bid.

The law under the Johnson amendment now provides that churches and exempt organizations may engage in an insubstantial amount of lobbying activities, as you have heard from the IRS panel, but they are banned from doing anything that may be regarded as participating or intervening in a political campaign. Now the law is so intrusive and incomprehensible that the IRS has actually taken the position -- and I was curious to note that they did not mention this during their testimony, but they have taken the position that there is coded language that may be used which would violate the political prohibition.

In its publication, Election Year Issues, the IRS explains that the concerns that an exempt organization may support or oppose a particular candidate without specifically naming the candidate by using code words to substitute for the candidate's name and its message -- code words such as conservative or liberal, pro-life or pro-choice or anti-choice, or even Republican or Democrat.

Now, making matters worse, the IRS doesn't know whether the intent behind the message matters. Did the organization intend to actually endorse or not?

Adding further inscrutability, the IRS has also said the same message can be both permissible for an exempt organization to make if it is an educational or religious message, but it may nevertheless violate the political intervention ban.

Now, what a Catch-22. Code language violates the ban, but maybe it doesn't. Intent matters, but it doesn't. And the same message is okay, but it isn't.

Now, those opposing the bill have insisted that replacing the absolute ban on political intervention with the no substantial part test currently used in the lobbying context would create a loophole in the Nation's campaign finance system. Such an assertion, however, is unfounded. Under the new bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act of 2002 which amends the Nation's Federal election campaign laws, all corporations, and including tax-exempt nonprofit corporations, are barred from making hard money contributions or any direct or indirect disbursements for electioneering communications.

In the Act, the phrase "electioneering communications" means any communication by means of any broadcast, cable or satellite communication, newspaper or magazine, outdoor advertising facility, mass mailing, telephone banks to the general public or any other form of general public policy advertising. These restrictions apply right now and will continue to apply regardless of any changes that you may make to the Tax Code with passage of either of the bills that are before you today.

Since the beginning of the Tax Code, churches and houses of worship have been exempt from income taxes because they provide services and promote the general welfare, saving those costs to the government. That fundamental relationship will not change if you abandon the absolute political intervention ban and replace it with a no substantial part test as you currently have in the lobbying area.

The passage of H.R. 2357, for example, the House of Worship Political Free Speech Act, will not require houses of worship to affirmatively do anything or fundamentally change their functions. Houses of worship will continue to serve the basic needs of their congregations and their local communities, preserving the historic balance between church and State and fulfilling the purpose for tax exemption, even if they incidentally or occasionally speak out concerning candidates and issues.

Now, you have heard also from the IRS panel that they believe it is constitutional because there isn't a great disparity in its application between groups of exempt organizations.

I would just note that in the 1983 Supreme Court decision of Reagan versus Taxation With Representation, the courts upheld Congress's constitutional powers to treat different speakers differently in the context of the Tax Code. In the Reagan case, the lobbying limits for exempt organizations are upheld against a constitutional challenge as to the lobbying limits, even though there were different standards for different types of exempt organizations.

Now, I conclude my introductory remarks by simply noting that, whatever this standard is, it certainly isn't applied in a very consistent or even-handed manner. I hold up for the Subcommittee's consideration a recent front page from the Montgomery Advertiser in Montgomery, Alabama, noting that a Democratic senatorial candidate has put on his staff a clergy coordinator for the sole and exclusive purpose to make sure he gets around to all the churches in the area to receive the appropriate endorsements.

Now, Members of the Subcommittee, I think that is okay. I frankly believe it should be appropriate for churches to be able to take a stand. I believe when Reverend Walter Fauntroy speaks, he will also speak to that issue from his life's experience in this matter.

I end with the irony that if this were 1953, we would not need this hearing, because churches were able to do this without concern or fear that the Federal Government was going to come and revoke their tax exemption. Can you imagine if you are the pastor of a church where your whole mission is to serve the needy, feed the hungry, and take care of the widows and children? Well, if you think there is any ambiguity and confusion in this area, I don't believe for 1 minute you would speak out on an issue that you may otherwise believe is important for your congregation to hear about. Why? Because your real primary mission will be shut down by the IRS, because they do not know exactly what it means to violate the absolute ban on political speech. They will take you out of business. Take it from me. I represented the Church at Pierce Creek, and they lost their tax exemption.

If there are any questions, I would be glad to talk about them later.

Chairman HOUGHTON. Thanks very much, Mr. May.

[The prepared statement of Mr. May follows:]

Chairman HOUGHTON. Dr. Gaddy?

STATEMENT OF REVEREND C. WELTON GADDY, PH.D., EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, INTERFAITH ALLIANCE

Reverend GADDY. Yes. Thank you, Chairman Houghton and Members of the Subcommittee on Oversight. I appreciate the opportunity to share with you concerns about the two bills pending before this Committee.

My name is C. Welton Gaddy. I serve as Executive Director of the Interfaith Alliance, a faith-based, nonpartisan, grassroots organization dedicated to promoting the positive and healing role of religion in public life, and challenging those who employ religion to promote intolerance. The Interfaith Alliance is supported by more than 150,000 members drawn from over 50 different religious traditions, local alliances in 38 States, and a national network of religious leaders.

I also serve as Pastor for preaching and worship at Northminster Baptist Church in Monroe, Louisiana.

Profound constitutional issues are at stake in these two legislative proposals. Adoption of this legislation would alter the whole landscape of church-State relations in this Nation. Current law protects the integrity of houses of worship and prevents government entanglement in the affairs of houses of worship. With the lifting of the absolute prohibition on political activities comes an invitation to the government to regulate the practices and affairs of a house of worship.

However, even if, by some stretch of the imagination, one could conceive that the bills before this Subcommittee today present no constitutional problems, I would oppose them. I would oppose them as a pastor who has worked in congregational ministry for more than 40 years, as well as the Executive Director of a national interfaith organization that values the importance of religious congregations. I can think of few ways to compromise the integrity of religious congregations and to blunt the vitality of religion in our land more than by the passage of either one of these bills.

First of all, neither the Houses of Worship Political Speech Protection Act nor the Bright-Line Act of 2001 is wanted or needed by most religious people in this land. A recent Gallup/Interfaith Alliance foundation poll of religious leaders found that 77 percent of clergy believe they should not endorse political candidates. Of those participating in this poll, 59 percent identified themselves as evangelicals. It is ironic that these results show that the very people whom these bills are supposedly intended to empower are people who adamantly resist even the premise on which the bills are based.

Second, these bills have the potential to compromise religious leaders' ministries of compassion and even to silence the prophetic voice of communities of faith in this land. Passage of either of these bills would turn pastors, imams, rabbis, and other would-be prophets into political operatives to be lobbied by candidates for public office and used as endorsers of partisan campaigns.

To saddle religious leaders with the skepticism commonly associated with politics would erode the reverence accorded to religious offices and leave congregations devoid of clergy functioning with an authority rooted in spirituality. When pulpits, bimahs, and other sacred desks from which the Scriptures and oral traditions of various religions are read and interpreted become stumps on which ministers stand to deliver political speeches and hand out political endorsements, the prophetic voice of the religious community, arguably religion's most important contribution to this Nation, will be silenced.

I also have grave concerns about the health of religious congregations. Lifting the absolute ban on politicking is sure to create a rift between the leadership of a house of worship and the congregants. A religious leader in a congregation must be able to serve all of the people in that congregation.

More than once in a single day, I have conducted funerals for people of competing political persuasions and blessed babies born to parents who wanted nothing to do with the political process. In each instance the families involved sought the ministry of a clergyperson, not a politician. Taking on the role of a political power broker would jeopardize beyond measure the acceptance and effectiveness of a minister within a congregation, who must be able to serve all members of that congregation.

Then there is the issue of money. When people of faith give money to their congregations as an act of devotion to God, they should not have to worry about a portion of that money going to politicians. To turn offerings given in the name of God as acts of worship into political contributions devoted to the support of partisan politicians is a sacrilege.

Needless to say, people of faith are not monolithic in their political ideology. Passage of this legislation will divide religious communities dramatically and literally reconfigure congregational life in this Nation.

Supporters of these two bills call for their support under the guise of assuring freedom for houses of worship. Make no mistake about it, at this very moment houses of worship are free to endorse candidates for political offices and to give monies to those candidates' campaigns. They just cannot do that politicking with funding that is tax-deductible. Every house of worship is free to forfeit the privacy of its identity as a spiritual body and to function as a political entity governed by all of the IRS regulations and State and Federal laws that apply to political institutions.

Mr. Chairman, I hope that each of these proposed pieces of legislation, which represents as serious a threat to the integrity and vitality of religion in this Nation as it does to the continuation of religious liberties guaranteed by the Constitution, will be stopped at this moment in this Committee. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Reverend Gaddy follows:]

Chairman HOUGHTON. Thank you very much, Dr. Gaddy. Chairman HOUGHTON. Reverend Fauntroy.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. REVEREND WALTER E. FAUNTROY, PASTOR, NEW BETHEL BAPTIST CHURCH, AND FORMER MEMBER OF CONGRESS

Reverend FAUNTROY. Chairman Houghton and Members of the Subcommittee, my name is Walter Fauntroy. I am an experienced politician and a well-trained Minister. I am in my 43rd year as Pastor of New Bethel Baptist Church here in our Nation's Capital. Over the course of those years, I have had the privilege of being at the core of every major change in public policy affecting people of African descent in this country.

In the decade of the 1960s, I served as Director of the Washington Bureau of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s Southern Christian Leadership Conference, and in that capacity I coordinated our activities for both the historic march on Washington in 1963 and the voting rights march from Selma-Montgomery in 1965.

I was Dr. King's chief lobbyist for the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. In the decades of the 1970s and 1980s, I served as a Member of this august body as the District of Columbia's first Delegate to the Congress in 200 years, and during my 20-year tenure as a Member of the House Banking, Finance, and Urban Affairs Committee of the House, I had the privilege of being Chairman of the Subcommittee on Domestic Monetary Policy, which oversaw our participation through the Federal Reserve, the quasi-public Federal Reserve Board, on the distribution and management of money in the country. Then I served as Subcommittee Chairman on the Subcommittee on International Development, Finance, Trade, and Monetary Policy.

I do not want you to think as a Minister I believe money is everything, but I have learned it is so far ahead of whatever is second best when it comes to declaring good news to the least of these that we have to manage to see to it that it happens.

What I have learned as a Pastor, as a civil rights activist, and as a Member of Congress over these years has led me to appear before you today in support of H.R. 2357, the Houses of Worship Political action Protection Act. In the 5 minutes allowed me, I want to share with you two definitions of politics upon which I have acted over these years as Pastor, as a civil rights activist, and as a Member of Congress.

The first definition is that politics is the means by which we in a democracy translate what we believe into public policy and practice. That is, we go to the polls and vote for people who, if elected, promise to translate what we believe into public policy and practice.

That right to vote is so precious to me because, as an African American, I am painfully aware of how racist white voters in the Southland, by denying my people the right to vote, were able to translate what they believed into public policy and practice. They believed that black people, for example, should not be allowed to drink water from the same public fountains used by white people, and they translated that into public policy and practice.

Now, the second definition of politics upon which I have always relied is that politics is the process of determining who gets how much of what, when, and where, in five areas: Who gets how much income, who gets how much education, who gets how much health care, housing, and justice?

In fact, during my 20-year tenure in this Congress, I became thoroughly conversant with our Nation's 14 Cabinet-level agencies and their counterparts in the standing committees of the U.S. House and Senate that determined who gets how much of what, when, and where in agriculture, in commerce, in labor, in housing, in health and human services. That is what I have learned as a politician.

Let me tell you what I have learned as a thoroughly trained Pastor. I have learned from the prophet Isaiah that the basic tenet of our Judeo-Christian-Muslim heritage is that we are "anointed of God to declare good news to the poor, to bind up the broken-hearted, and to set at liberty them that are bound."

You can understand, therefore, that as a citizen who has a right to vote, to translate what he believes into public policy and practice, and as a man of faith who is anointed to declare good news in terms of access to income, education, health care, housing, and justice to the least of these, I have never and I will never allow anyone to deny me the right to vote my beliefs at the polls. I have not and I will not allow anyone to deny me the right to try to persuade as many people as I can to vote good news for the poor.

We enter our houses to worship, and we depart to serve. If we are to serve, the question will not be whether you are Baptist or white or black or Muslim or Jew or atheist. The question is, when I was hungry, did you feed me?

In my view, therefore, there is no election, local, State, or national, where I think the plight of the least of these is at stake that I do not endorse a candidate of my choice to the members of my church and try to influence them to vote the values that we embrace as serious people of faith. That is my right, both as a citizen and as a man of faith, and I will defend that right, even for those people of faith with whom I vehemently disagree on how income, education, health care, and housing should be distributed.

Now, I must tell you that it is not in my best interests nor is it in the interests of the people I serve that certain people who call themselves religious benefit from the passage of this bill. That is because it has been my experience that people often use religion and race as an excuse to deny others the income, education, health care, and housing and justice that they covet for themselves. And that is what we define as sin, the arrogance and self-seeking of many. Mr. Chairman, take it from someone who knows: People who call themselves religious, when it comes to their greed and opportunism, will often talk east and walk west on matters of public policies. They say one thing and do another. Jesus called such people false prophets who come to you in sheep's clothing, and yet in their hearts are ravenous wolves.

Ku Klux Klansmen are false prophets who use Christianity as an excuse to deny black people and other minorities access to those five things. Muslim extremists, like Osama bin Laden, are false prophets who use Islam as an excuse to kill other people, to deny them access to those five things, and in the process, they distort Islam, and they blaspheme Allah. Jewish extremists are false prophets who use Judaism as an excuse to take from others what they have coveted for themselves. They all come up with cute excuses for their ungodly actions, but they are not correct. They may appear to be sincere, but they are sincerely wrong.

The right thing for all Jews, all Christians, all Muslims, and all people who are of good will in this country to do is recorded in Micah, the Sixth chapter, and all agree with it because it is in their literature: He hath shown thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the Lord require of thee, but to do three things, to do justice, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God. Don't just talk the talk, walk the walk to the polls.

Mr. Chairman, I know it is not in my interest nor the people whom I serve that everybody who calls themselves religious be able to do what I do in my pulpit. But like Voltaire, I may disagree with them vehemently, but I will defend to the death their right to be wrong and their right to participate in an orderly effort that democracy afforced us to translate what we believe into public policy and practice.

I support this because I must not be selfish and, therefore, sinful. I must not demand for myself what I would deny others. I believe that he who would save his life shall lose it, and he that will lose his life for my sake will find it. That is why I support this bill.

[The prepared statement of Reverend Fauntroy follows:]

Chairman HOUGHTON. Thank you very much, Walter. Great to have you here. Reverend Lynn?

STATEMENT OF REVEREND BARRY W. LYNN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AMERICANS UNITED FOR SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE

Reverend LYNN. Thank you very much.

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, my name is Barry Lynn. I serve as the Executive Director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State. I am also an ordained Minister in the United Church of Christ, and an attorney, and I have had a long interest in the issues that we are discussing here today.

America's policy of separating religion and government has given us here in the United States more religious freedom than any Nation in the history of the world. When it comes to the relationship between houses of worship and politics, we had struck, in our view, precisely the right balance, creating an environment that works to the benefit of all religious organizations, their members, and our democracy. We change it at our peril.

The bills before you would scrap a time-tested system and substitute a reckless experiment in mixing religion with partisan politics. Make no mistake, these bills are not about free speech; instead, they would promote the corruption of the church and the corruption of the political process.

No freedom of speech of any American pastor, priest, imam, or rabbi is endangered today by the United States Tax Code. Religious leaders are as free today as any time in American history to expose moral evils, to propose ethical solutions, and to hold our leaders to the highest standards. In fact, the only thing that our tax laws prohibit is use of resources or personnel of a tax-exempt group to promote the campaigns of specific candidates for public office. Frankly, this is a small price to pay for the enormous dual benefit of an organizational tax exemption and the right of contributors to gain a tax deduction for their contributions.

Pastors are not gagged, churches are not shuttered by the fear of the IRS. This is a nonsensical caricature by those who are trying to scare religious leaders by misrepresenting current law.

So if these proposals are not about free speech, and America's religious leaders already enjoy the right to speak out on the moral issues of the day, then what precisely are these bills about? Let me be blunt. I believe it is simple. There are television preachers and special interest groups who would like to turn America's churches into a powerful political machine. They would also like to undermine the principles of separation of church and State.

Lawyers for Pat Robertson are out here, including on this panel, pushing this legislation. Dr. D. James Kennedy, also here today to express support for the bill, has repeatedly said that he believes church-State separation is, in his words, a lie, and that he wants to reclaim America for Christ. If these activists are politically successful, in part by passing these bills, the consequences would be devastating for the Nation's tradition of religious pluralism and genuine religious freedom.

For example, these bills would allow money to go straight from the collection plate of a church to buying campaign bumper stickers or attack ads for someone's favorite politician. That is a vision that is to me as morally repugnant as it is politically unhealthy.

Moreover, these bills would actually create an unlevel playing field in which religious groups get special rights to endorse candidates while thousands of secular charities, from the American Cancer Society to the Red Cross to the local birdwatching group, are still denied that power. Such a special privilege for religious groups over secular ones is, without question, an unconstitutional promotion of religion under the first amendment to the Constitution.

But the legislation does more. It opens a Pandora's box of new opportunities for mischief through abuse of the Nation's campaign finance system. Supporters of a candidate could make tax-deductible contributions to a church, and the church could then use an equivalent amount on behalf of that donor's favorite candidate.

The motive could be crass, an effort to curry favor with politicians for future gain, or it might well be quite noble, a well-intentioned effort to fund those leaders who are deemed morally superior. But frankly, either way, this amounts to nothing short of clerical money-laundering, and it is wrong to introduce it into this system.

According to a poll this year, 70 percent of Americans disapprove of the idea of churches endorsing political candidates, and little wonder. Most parishioners want the church board to debate expenditures on aid to the homeless and hungry in their communities, not wrangle over which politicians will be favored with the grace of 5 percent or 10 percent of the revenues from the collection plate. Few pastors themselves even want to serve their flocks as both a spiritual leader and a political boss.

The practical magnitude of these bills is staggering. They would permit some denominations to spend literally $1 million a year or more on electioneering. We should not try to add churches to the dazzling array of other organizations that can be formed to campaign for political leaders.

The moral authority of the church has always been highest when it played no partisan favorites and spoke its truth to government without fear of reprisal or the specter of special privilege. A taint, a deep taint, grows on that prophetic voice when there is even the appearance of buying favor with political leaders by any mechanism, from a sermon endorsement to a cash transfer.

Ultimately, these proposals to change Federal tax law offer a solution to a problem that does not exist. These bills would create a so-called "benefit" that America's religious community does not need, does not want, and has not even requested. I therefore urge this Subcommittee to reject both of these proposals.

[The prepared statement of Reverend Lynn follows:]

Chairman HOUGHTON. Thanks very much, Reverend Lynn. Dr. Kennedy.

STATEMENT OF D. JAMES KENNEDY, PH.D., PRESIDENT, CORAL RIDGE MINISTRIES, FORT LAUDERDALE, FLORIDA

Reverend KENNEDY. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, and ladies and gentlemen, it is a pleasure for me to be here to have an opportunity to speak to you, especially after what I have just been listening to. I hardly recognized the Nation that we are talking about in a previous discussion. It is certainly nothing that I would be in favor of.

May we simply remind ourselves of the history of this matter. Up until July 2, 1954, when this Nation and its churches had been active for 334 years with the kind of freedom that this bill would grant, it did not create the kind of monstrosity that we just heard about, nor do I believe it would in the future.

What is new and what is radical is this bill, which, as you know, was introduced on the floor on July 2 as Members were leaving for summer by LBJ, by Lyndon Baines Johnson, who was very upset that a couple of anti-Communist groups in Texas had been giving him a very difficult time in the election, and he decided to do what often has been decided to be done by people in power that did not like the things that had been said about them. He decided to silence them, so he added on the floor, without debate, the amendment that took away from churches and ministers what they had enjoyed for 334 years; that is, the right to say whatever they felt their consciences and the Scriptures were teaching them, and that they did not need to be afraid of what the government would do if they said certain things that the government disallowed.

I have traveled all through this Nation. I have talked to thousands, over 100,000 ministers on this subject. I have noticed several things. One of them, if you ask any 100 of them what this says, we probably would get almost 100 different answers. It is very confusing. I think that was seen when we heard the experts talk about it earlier today. It is not something that is easily understood, and I have talked to many ministers who would not say anything on any moral issue or any other issue that might be perceived as being unacceptable because they were afraid that the IRS would come down upon them, open a new file on their church, and that they would experience repercussions because of that. Therefore, they have abstained from saying anything.

Most people in America today believe that anything that is legal is right, and anything that is illegal by definition is wrong. Therefore, they feel that it is wrong to speak on these issues today, especially if there is any kind of election that is forthcoming in the near future, because they believe that this is illegal.

They are not sure what it is that is illegal, because it is, indeed, confusing and obscure, in many aspects. And when you question them about that, it is very clear that they do not know exactly what is or what is not legal for them to say and when they can say it.

I think this needs to be done away with, and I have talked, again, to a great many Christians who believe that their pastors do not say anything about these issues simply because of the fact that they are afraid of the consequences. This is what the people believe is the motivation behind that, rightly or wrongly, but I have heard this said numbers of times.

I believe that what we have in this country here is something that has contributed in the freedom we had for 334 years, has contributed markedly to the moral and spiritual advantage of this country, and if we selectively silence those who have the greatest vested interest in trying to maintain the moral law of God, we are inevitably going to see a decline in the moral status of the Nation. And what have we seen in the last 48 years other than just precisely that, indeed?

And, therefore, I think that this unfair and ill-understood concept needs to be abandoned, and we should go back not to some advanced radical new view that somebody might come up with now, but rather we should go back to what the founders of this country and Americans in general for over 300 years believed was the proper thing to do.

It was said by a great historian in the 19th century that the moral force of this country came from the Puritan pulpits of New England, and without that, we probably never would even have obtained our freedom. And what would the IRS have to say about things like what Martin Luther King did, or those that fought against slavery? Would these be construed to be political matters if they were spoken of shortly before an election? I believe they would. What would have been the result in our Nation if that were true?

I believe, ladies and gentlemen, that it is time for us to get rid of this inequitable, unfair, and ambiguous law that was attached without any debate. I thank God that 48 years later, finally, the Congress is getting that debate.

Thank you for your time.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Kennedy follows:]

Chairman HOUGHTON. Thank you, Dr. Kennedy. Ms. Girton-Mitchell.

STATEMENT OF BRENDA GIRTON-MITCHELL, ASSOCIATE GENERAL SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC POLICY, AND DIRECTOR, WASHINGTON OFFICE, NATIONAL COUNCIL OF CHURCHES OF CHRIST IN THE USA

Ms. GIRTON-MITCHELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee. My name is Brenda Girton-Mitchell. I am Associate General Secretary for Public Policy and Director of the Washington office for the National Council of Churches of Christ in the USA. For the record, I am also the Chair of the Board of Trustees of the Metropolitan Baptist Church here in the Nation's Capital, a divinity student at Wesley Theological Seminary, and a former staff of the other body.

Thank you for the opportunity to present testimony on behalf of the National Council of Churches, which is the Nation's leading organization in the movement for Christian unity. The council brings together 36 Protestant, Anglican, and Orthodox communions, which have an average membership of some 50 million U.S. Christians and more than 140,000 congregations in communities across the Nation. A list of our member communions/denominations is attached for the record.

While I cannot presume to speak for all of those individuals I represent, I do speak for the general assembly of the National Council of Churches. The assembly is a representative body of some 270 persons chosen by the member communions, which sets policy for the council and commends policy to the churches.

Since our founding in 1950, the council has a long and proud record of witnessing for the religious freedom of all Americans. My predecessors on the council staff have often found themselves where I find myself today, testifying before a congressional committee regarding our deep conviction about the religious and civil liberties that we and all Americans treasure.

We are not bashful about speaking out on public policy, because we are bound by our sense of mission and our obedience to God. God requires us to speak out on issues that are designed to help the common good. We welcomed Dr. Martin Luther King as our keynote speaker to the council in 1957. We sent a youth director by the name of Andrew Young to work with Dr. King, and he later became a Member of this body. We and our members have preached, written, marched, applauded, protested, and even prayed for Congress and for legislation, and have found that this current legal system serves us well.

It is against this backdrop of a proud heritage and with a continuing concern for religious liberty that I come to you today to say that while H.R. 2357 and H.R. 2931 are purported to protect the political speech of churches, they are, in fact, unnecessary, they are unwise, and they are unwanted by our member communions of the National Council of Churches and many other faith groups that have been represented today.

These bills are unnecessary because the views of the church have not been muzzled. Houses of worship already enjoy the right and the responsibility to speak out on any and all political issues. The system is not broken. We believe that separation of church and State, which has served our Nation so well for more than two centuries, applies to the institutions of church and State. However, the separation of church and State does not mean that religion and politics will never intersect. Everything that affects the well-being of human beings is of direct interest to churches, and churches are compelled to proclaim what they believe to be right and moral forces for this whole society, not just for the church and its members.

My pastor often says, for a religion to truly be relevant, a preacher must come to the pulpit with his Bible, his or her Bible in one hand, and the newspaper in the other. We know what we are called to do as we heed the words of Amos: to establish justice in the gate.

This legislation is unwise because the measures in these bills would corrupt our prophetic voices. Pastors know what their callings require and are free to speak on any issue. Churches are already allowed to engage in citizen education, voter registration, nonpartisan political forums. However, the National Council of Churches believes that to allow churches to explicitly endorse and support political candidates crosses the line that has served us well and puts us in dangerous territory.

The churches could not effectively play this role if they were to become enmeshed in partisan politics. By encouraging churches to do so, these bills pose a great threat to the free and prophetic voice of churches. A church that backs a particular candidate for office and that promotes one political party over another has forfeited the critical distance that allows the church to critique the stands taken by the candidate and the party.

This legislation is unwanted. It threatens the church in ways that have been noted today. Allowing churches to use tax-deductible dollars to support or oppose candidates for public office often will damage our system of government in yet another way. We are deeply concerned that, if enacted, these bills will undermine the progress we have made as a Nation in the area of campaign finance reform. The NCC strongly supports campaign finance reform as a way to level the playing field, maintain fairness, and build confidence in our political system.

In closing, I would like to share a quote with you from our former counsel for religious liberty, the Reverend Oliver Thomas, who was trained as a Baptist Minister and a lawyer. The wisdom he shared with the congregation sums up many of our objections to these bills. He said, and I quote, "even if there were no prohibition on electioneering in the Tax Code, churches would do well to avoid such partisan political activity. Rarely, if ever, can a particular candidate or party be identified as God's choice. The misguided use of Christ's church for secular and political purposes not only creates dissension within the household of faith, but also, inevitably, diminishes the churches' witness and credibility on moral concerns. In most cases, good theology and good tax advice go hand in hand."

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Girton-Mitchell follows:]

Chairman HOUGHTON. Thank you very much, Ms. Girton-Mitchell. Mr. Coyne, would you like to inquire?

Mr. COYNE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Dr. Kennedy, Mr. Miller earlier in the other panel testified that there already is a vehicle by which religious organizations can channel money into political activities by forming a section 501 (c)(4), and I wondered if you took advantage of that particular path.

Reverend KENNEDY. I am sorry, you wonder if I could --

Mr. COYNE. I wonder if you are currently taking advantage of that provision in the IRS Code?

Reverend KENNEDY. Yes, sir. At one of our ministries, we are.

Mr. COYNE. So why, then, is it necessary to channel money or support legislation that would channel money from the collection plate into political activities when you have this section 501 (c)(4) option?

Reverend KENNEDY. Because actually this bill does not really address any other religious organizations, but simply houses of worship. This other ministry I am referring to is not a church. It is not a house of worship, so it really has nothing to do with this.

Mr. COYNE. Thank you.

Chairman HOUGHTON. Mr. Lewis?

Mr. LEWIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for inviting the witnesses to be here, and I want to thank all of the witnesses for appearing.

I don't know exactly where to start, but I have noticed certain names and church groups and organizations have been thrown around. I don't know where to start, but let's see.

Mr. May, in the beginning you made the point that the church should be allowed to take care of the sick, feed the hungry, clothe the naked, visit those in prison, and maybe, Mr. Fauntroy went on to say to others, to preach the good news. There is nothing that prevents the church from doing any of these things, is there?

Mr. MAY. There is nothing that says they cannot feed the hungry and clothe the naked. What happens, however, is that a minister may believe, for the same reason he is called to feed the hungry and clothe the naked, that he needs to speak out on an issue, as Mr. Fauntroy has already indicated he has done his whole life, because it is a matter of conviction and justice. In those instances, they are frozen off of the field, because if they do so, they compromise their ability to, in fact, clothe the naked and feed the hungry.

Mr. LEWIS. Reverend Fauntroy, am I missing something here? Tell me. Help me out, here. I have a list of members of the National Council of Churches, and almost every major Protestant denomination, Methodist, Baptist, Orthodox Christian, Christian Methodist Episcopal, CME, Church of the Brethren, the Baptists, Presbyterian, all types, oppose this legislation.

Now, your church is a member of the National Council of Churches, right?

Reverend FAUNTROY. That is right.

Mr. LEWIS. In the Baptist tradition we believe in a democracy, but how did you break with the National Council of Churches? How did you break with the national Baptists or the progressive Baptists?

Reverend FAUNTROY. I break with all of them on the basis of the fact that I am an experienced Pastor who heads a house of worship.

Mr. LEWIS. Are you saying these other religious leaders are not experienced as pastors?

Reverend FAUNTROY. You said, break with the body. I would say, with my church. I am an experienced Pastor, and I am an experienced politician. I know that politics is about who gets how much of what, when, and where in five areas. For 20 years I watched and participated with this Congress in the decision as to who got how much of what of the Commerce budget of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and so forth. So that is one reason I speak, out of the authority of my experience as Pastor.

Secondly, I beg to differ with some here who stated, and if I am incorrect, help me to understand this, that this bill would authorize churches out of their budgets to pay staff for political campaigns. Help me out, somebody.

Mr. MAY. In fact, no. I think I stated and my testimony outlined for you where in the Federal campaign laws this activity is specifically precluded now, whether this bill ever gets out of Committee or not.

Reverend FAUNTROY. All right. Secondly, someone has suggested that a person may make a tax-deductible contribution to the church to free up money to carry out its budget responsibilities. In 43 years of ministry, I have thought that it has always been unlawful for people to designate where the money they give to the church goes. Our church and most churches I know develop a budget to carry out the worship and service ministries.

I must tell you as a Minister and Pastor of a church, I did not dare ask the church to put my campaign in the budget. But I will tell you one thing, when the Tuesday before the Sunday came, when politicians show up at a place where they know they have motivated people, I made it clear that having listened to all the candidates and assessed the issues as they affect income in our neighborhood, education for our children, health care for our sick, housing, and justice, that I recommend to you that you vote for this person or that. If you had shown up in the 1960s on that, the 1970s, 1980s, or now, and put me in jail, I would go to jail on that.

All I am saying is, and I said at the end, that I recognize that people who talk east and walk west on income, education, health care, and housing for the least of these may use this idea that we cannot speak, but they ought to be able to use it under the kinds of fairness and equity that I think exists now. It does not include some rich person trying to support a politician who is going to cut the cake of the income, education, housing for his people and to the exclusion of the least of these; who can give his money and have it covered like that, no. When members contributed to my campaigns, they had to go through the usual process.

Mr. LEWIS. Mr. Chairman, may I have another moment or so, since the witness used so much of my time?

Reverend FAUNTROY. Please forgive me, Congressman Lewis.

Mr. LEWIS. Let me say, Congressman Fauntroy, I appreciate the contribution you have made to the cause of civil rights and the religious community. I appreciate it very much.

But I wonder whether Dr. Gaddy or Reverend Lynn, Ms. Girton-Mitchell, would have something to say about the need to plant this strong, solid wall, the separation of church and State.

I want to make another little point here, Mr. Chairman. We could be dealing with some other issues here in this Congress. I know this is dealing with political activities coming to the churches. Many of these big churches are competing with Wal-Mart and K-Mart. You are not only engaged in political activity, but some of you in certain communities around the country, certain churches, are known as the Republican church, a Democratic church. It is known. But in some places you are selling books, tapes, T-shirts, the Bible, and everything. I know we are not dealing with that today, we are dealing with political activity.

Some of you have mentioned Martin Luther King, Jr. I knew him; he was a friend of mine. He was my leader. I first met him in 1958 when I was 18 years old. He never, to my knowledge, never endorsed a political candidate. You can preach the good news and tell the story, but you cannot use the church as a political platform. I think that is in violation of the law.

Dr. Gaddy? Reverend Lynn? Ms. Girton-Mitchell?

Reverend GADDY. Congressman Lewis, thank you very much for the observation. I just have two points to make quickly for the sake of time.

I must live in a different world from that of Dr. Kennedy. I also have traveled the Nation. I also have talked to lots of ministers. I have never met a minister worth his or her salt that was refusing to talk about moral issues. I don't know how one ministers without talking about moral issues.

The legislation that we are talking about today does not discourage talking about moral issues. It does not prohibit that. It does prohibit the endorsement of a candidate for political office.

I have admired the ministry of Walter Fauntroy for a long time, I once, long ago, asked him to speak to a session that he probably does not remember now. But instead of pursuing the proclamation of good news in the five arenas that he has talked about so eloquently by endorsing a candidate for office from the pulpit, I think it is much more in order to encourage the people in the congregation to think out of their orientation to the good news, and to work in both political parties and among Independents to accomplish the goals.

I don't ever want to live in a Nation that has come to identify political integrity by a spiritual definition, or that defines spiritual authenticity by a political identification.

Reverend LYNN. If I might add to that, and to clarify the record on this important issue about whether this allows the transfer of funds directly from a religious institution, a church or an association of churches, all those organizations covered by the Tax Code. Congressman Crane's bill is called the Bright-Line Act because he wants to permit up to 5 percent of the revenues of a church to be utilized for these purposes. That is more than a casual comment, that is an extraordinary amount, a large amount from a megachurch with a budget of $2 million or $3 million which, as Congressman Lewis points out, exist all over these the United States. So this is not just a comment here or there that we are talking about, but the direct ability of organizations to transfer from the collection plate, literally or figuratively, hundreds of thousands of dollars for the benefit of political persons that they believe, rightly or wrongly, for the best of reasons or the worst of reasons, will somehow move along their agenda.

I think that is absolutely the most dangerous, retrograde direction we can go when we think about both the integrity of the church and the integrity of the political process, which we are all concerned about cleaning up on a day-to-day basis.

Chairman HOUGHTON. We have some other questioners here. Mr. Foley?

Mr. FOLEY. Thank you very much.

Mr. Lynn, you advocate for, obviously, separation of church and State. Do you quarrel with what is, in essence, a Federal subsidy to churches through tax-exempt status?

Reverend LYNN. The members of Americans United for Separation of Church and State are not monolithic in their answer to that question. The last time we did a survey of our own members, about half of them said, do away with tax exemptions for churches. The other half said, no, keep them, they are important, as long as you give a similar tax exemption to other charities. That is why we are not actively advocating on this or other occasions about that issue.

Mr. FOLEY. Let me further the conversation earlier, because you mentioned, why don't we give the right to the American Cancer Association and others to be politically active? But I sense there is a little bit of a difference, because in the churches, truly, you do discuss a multitude of areas where there is a need for involvement. Reverend Fauntroy mentioned it himself. Don't you at least allow that that preacher, rabbi, has some significant stake in the outcome of an election? You can have these great moral discussions in church all day long, but if you end up electing the wrong person who has no interest in any of these issues, and you have allowed it to happen, don't you by some sense fail your congregation?

Reverend LYNN. I think you may overstate the case about the church and understate it for charities, because I think you can say of any major organization that is tax-exempt, that they have an interest, in the broadest sense, in the outcome of elections.

But I do think it is a good idea to have a class of organizations, tax-exempt charities, religious and otherwise, which are trying to effect social change through the work that they do day to day, through the advocacy and the educational work, without getting involved in the issue of choosing the best political candidate in every election. The equation is exactly the same for all those other charities.

Believe me, as you well know as Members of this body, people who are advocates for more funding for cancer and those who are advocates for more funding for Parkinson's disease both have an interest in the outcome of elections.

Mr. FOLEY. Granted.

Let me suggest to you that I am called to speak by the Alzheimer's Association, the cancer groups. All these groups ask me to speak to them two or three times a year. During each presentation, they go on to tell their members how strong I am on these issues: "Mark Foley wrote a letter for these, Mark Foley did this." Ultimately, their influence is achieving the same thing that this basic ruling is suggesting that they are not capable of doing.

Reverend LYNN. They are capable of doing the same. In fact, many churches would invite you and other Members of this and other political bodies to come to their churches, and they would thank you for the good work that you did.

They would not, however, put out campaign leaflets explaining why you are literally God's gift to the country. They would not endorse you from the pulpit. Those would be steps that they would not be allowed to take under current law. They should not take those under current law now, just as those medical organizations should not be able to pass out your campaign literature at their conventions, or invite you to speak and not acknowledge that you have someone running against you. That would be as wrong for a secular charity as it would be for a church.

Mr. FOLEY. But they do.

Reverend LYNN. Maybe somebody should form a group and look into that, because it is not my experience that charities, or churches, by the way, are looking to break the law. I think most charities want to obey the law. They like the bright-line test we have now, which is no political endorsement.

"No" does not mean a little bit, it does not mean 5 percent, 20 percent, or 19 percent. It just means no intervention in a political campaign. I think it is simple to understand. I think it has served us well, and I think we should keep it.

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. May, maybe you can help us. Have you talked to other church groups about the legislation, both versions, Mr. Crane's and Mr. Jones', relative to their support for the legislation?

Mr. MAY. I have. In Congressman Jones' measure, H.R. 2357 has polled the largest area of support. I would emphasize that what this measure will ultimately do is simply remove the anxiety and uncertainty, because it is very obvious, either from Mr. Fauntroy's testimony or from the nearly 60 examples I have provided in pages 18 through 22 of my testimony, that this measure is not abided by by a whole bunch of churches in America. I don't think we intend for those churches to be regarded as criminals or somehow acting outside the law.

We know Jesse Jackson, for example, has preached in churches, been endorsed in churches, raised money in churches. This is not about creating some great fear that we are going to change the nature of our democracy. Remember, until 1954, churches did this all the time, and our democracy was not otherwise fractured or fissured off in 100 directions.

The bottom line is that we want to make sure that the occasional, the incidental endorsement, particularly from the pulpit itself, does not mean that you lose your tax exemption.

Then I want to add one thing. Barry Lynn keeps saying that somehow this permits the actual transfer of monies from the U.S. Department of the Treasury or from the donation plate of the church. I have looked through the campaign finance reform law. I defy him to show me a section of that law which makes this legal and permissible. It is not there. It cannot be done.

Mr. FOLEY. Let me just ask quickly, Dr. Kennedy, do you think that prohibiting ministers from speaking from the pulpit on political issues and their candidates unfairly limits them in carrying out their vocation?

Reverend KENNEDY. Yes, I do. For example, we talk about moral issues. I have, as thousands of other clergymen have, spoken at times about abortion, feeling that this is not right and should not be done. But should I, 90 days before an election, speak on that same issue and indicate some candidate that may be against it or for it, I am in great jeopardy of losing; or I do not lose anything, it is the congregation, the people who lose it. I do not lose the money, it goes to the church. But the people who give it lose their tax exemption, which is something that they have now.

Mr. FOLEY. Thank you.

Chairman HOUGHTON. Thank you. Ms. Girton-Mitchell, I think we cut you off at one point. Would you like to make a statement?

Ms. GIRTON-MITCHELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was simply going to say that on behalf of the National Council of Churches, we believe that this legislation is unnecessary, unwise, and unwanted. With the present statutes, the clergy is able to do what is needed to be done.

Our primary focus is that of helping society in general. Ministers are able to speak out on issues. We have very knowledgeable congregations today who, with the right educational opportunities, are able to make their decision on political candidates without direct endorsements from the pulpit.

Chairman HOUGHTON. Thank you very much. Mrs. Thurman?

Mrs. THURMAN. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Pomeroy has a 4:00, and if I could, I would like to go ahead and let him have my time.

Chairman HOUGHTON. All right. Go ahead, sir.

Mr. POMEROY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Congresswoman Thurman.

I must say that I am somewhat surprised at the testimony that I have heard. One would conclude from some on the panel that the church has been utterly silent on the moral issues of our time for the last 50 years, ever since 1954.

Now, I think if we look back, my recollection of the church's role during this period of time is as a significant source of activism and leadership against segregation policies, a major bulwark of the movement for civil rights, and certainly raising the four questions, the important questions that needed to be asked about the Vietnam War.

If some would think church activism and moral issues only come from the left, look at the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, the tremendous activism marshaled in congregations against abortion, and the tremendous political force that has come from there. So it certainly is not as though the churches have been constricted or leaders of churches have been constricted from speaking out about the moral issues of our time.

Really what this legislation is about is not at all, not one little bit, about a fear that some kind of nuanced slip from the pulpit might cross the line.

There are a couple of items I wish to put in the record on this hearing. First is a copy of the ad that provoked the court case in the Pierce Creek case that revoked their tax exemption. This is a full-page newspaper ad that cites Scriptures: "The Bible warns us not to follow another man into sin, nor help him promote sin, lest God chasten us. How then can we vote for Bill Clinton?" And it says by way of disclaimer, "This advertisement is cosponsored by the Church at Pierce Creek. Tax-deductible donations for this advertisement are gladly accepted." This is not some nuanced thing from the pulpit.

[The information follows:]

USA Today
October 1992

CHRISTIAN
BEWARE

Do not put the economy ahead of the Ten Commandments.

• Supports abortion on demand? (Violates Exo. 20:13, Lev, 20:1-5)
• Supports the homosexual lifestyle, and wants homosexuals to have special rights? (Violates Exo. 20:14, Lev. 20:13. See also Rom. 1:26,27)
• Promotes giving condoms to teenagers in public schools? (Violates Exo. 20:12, Col. 3:5. See also Rom. 1:28-32)

Bill Clinton is promoting policies that are in rebellion to God's Laws. In our desire for change, do we really want as a president and a role model for our children a man of this character who supports this type of behavior?

But what about the economy?

Yes, we are in tough economic times but if God forbid that we sell out our most sacred beliefs in a vain hope of financial gain. How can we expect God to bless our economy if we plunge down a path of immorality? (Deur. 28)

The Bible warns us to not follow another man in his sin, nor help him promote sin--lest God chasten us. (See Deut. 13, Jer. 23, Prov. 4:14; 11:21; 16:5, 1 Tim. 5:22)

How then can we vote for Bill Clinton?

This advertisement was co-sponsored by The Church at Pierce Creek, Daniel J. Little, Senior Pastor, and by churches and concerned Christians nationwide. Tax deductible donations for this advertisement gladly accepted. Make donation to: The Church at Pierce Creek. Mail to: PO Box 132 SVS, Binghamton, NY 13903-0132

This advertisement was not authorized by any political candidate or candidate committees.

Mr. POMEROY. What worries me about this is that we are going to have almost an Elmer Gantry model, someone with an agenda that is not their best effort at understanding their lord's agenda, God's agenda, but their agenda, trying to enlist and inflame the congregation so they might contribute funds that church leadership could directly funnel into campaigns with utterly no disclosure about where those dollars are individually coming from.

Now, you say, no way, religious leaders would not be prone to overstate. Let me read to you from an ad that I will also put into the record of this hearing, a mailing: "Stop IRS intimidation of churches and ministries. Please help my church and my pastor so we can," and this is the response, "Yes, help us. Fight for us. Please help my church and pastor so we can speak out on moral issues of national importance. I stand behind you to support all the work" of a certain ministry. And it goes on to say in the petition itself, "Please give your full support to passage of legislation that would restore freedom of speech to America's houses of worship."

[The information is being retained in the Committee files.]

Mr. POMEROY. Well, in my opinion, that does not in any way represent an effort to capture for the parishioner the issue before us. In fact, I think it is a perfect example of what we are worried about, a religious leader leveraging the confidence and faith of their congregation to drive a personal agenda by funneling cash directly into the political system. A lot has changed since 1954, Mr. May.

In fact, in 1954, I think we would have one cycle where there was the initial effort of television advertising. The technological revolution undergirding the campaign since that time has been a complete revolution, completely expanding the influence of money in campaigns and enhancing the danger of those that would purport to speak on behalf of God interpreting very narrow political agendas.

I will quote from the testimony of Dr. Kennedy, where he talks about we need this bill because present law selectively silences those who have the greatest vested interest in upholding the moral law of God. Well, Dr. Kennedy, there are a whole host of churches on the other side of this question from now. I go to one of those churches, the Presbyterian church, and when we pray the Lord's prayer in my church, we pray that God's will be done on Earth like it is in heaven, and we really mean it.

We don't think you mean it any more than we mean it. We mean it, too. We couldn't be more sincere and devout as we try to bring this about. So, I must say I not only take exception, but I take some offense that you purport to have a greater vested interest than we do in trying to bring about the Lord's work on Earth. And let me just tell you that that is exactly the kind of attitude that makes me so fearful of a church leader being able to use, really almost misappropriate the funds of the trusting parishioners for crass direct entry into the political system, again, without any accountability in terms of where those dollars are coming from.

I have used my time, Mr. Chairman. I thank you for letting me speak my piece on this important legislation.

Reverend KENNEDY. Mr. Chairman, having been mentioned by name --

Mr. POMEROY. Go ahead, Doctor.

Reverend KENNEDY. I would like to respond. Sir, you totally misunderstand what that statement means. I, in making that statement, was referring to the clergy in general in this country, that if the clergy are silenced, since it is the God-given function of the clergy to try to maintain decency and order and morality in a Nation. As we have seen one historian said, it was from the Puritan pulpit that the moral force of America was borne and strengthened. Therefore, I am saying if the Congress, or anybody, were to silence clergy on crucial issues, then they would have been, indeed, hampering the moral ongoing of decency in America, and that I say is what precisely has happened.

Mr. POMEROY. Dr. Kennedy, I would just respond by saying that this country was founded on very important religious values. They continue to be the bedrock of what distinguishes our Nation and represent the hope for our future, but it does not take a 30-second ad funded by parishioners to establish moral leadership from the churches. And in fact, the moral leadership of the churches during the period of time that you say we have been silenced, I think, speaks so powerfully for historical evidence that indeed the present balance has allowed the church plenty of room to offer their ongoing vital contribution to this country. I believe this legislation tipped that over in very dangerous ways.

Mr. MAY. Mr. Chairman, since my name was mentioned as well, might I have a moment to respond?

Chairman HOUGHTON. Absolutely.

Mr. MAY. I would just say, again, on page 1 of my testimony, I explain why under the new campaign finance laws and the current campaign finance laws, there is no such thing as taking out a 30-second ad by the parishioners with use of the church money. It can't happen. The second thing is that you have expressed, I think, a balanced revulsion towards the idea that churches may get so involved in political matters. But the truth is, there is a gigantic portion of the churches in America who do this, and either we have laws that are evenhanded and apply across the board or not. We have had testimony from Mr. Fauntroy, who has made it clear that he has endorsed from the pulpit. The IRS expert panelist said that clearly is political intervention in violation of the Tax Code. I don't believe it is the intent of Congress for our pastors and our moral leaders to be able to say to their congregations, I have an understanding about what I believe is right in terms of justice and indeed what the call of God is on my life and my congregation's life. And therefore, I believe that so and so does better in the public sphere to recognize and to fulfill those things than such and such. Please support and vote for so and so.

And when you do that incidentally or occasionally, I don't believe the republic comes crashing down. We did it before 1954, and this measure simply provides that same sense of balance back into what we are doing today.

Mr. POMEROY. Again, it is not as though the churches have been missing from the landscape of debate on these issues since 1954. They have been at the heart of debate on one moral issue after another. Dr. Gaddy, as long as everyone else is jumping in with the other side, do you feel or do you, the ministers your organization speaks for, feel as though they are somehow constrained and muted about their ability to participate in national debate relative to moral issues?

Reverend GADDY. I am completely baffled by that observation. I don't know what ministers are talking about in the pulpit if they are not talking about the way religion impacts life in all of its complexity and need. What is at stake here, as I understand it, is not a prohibition against any minister talking about issues that have moral dimensions to them. What is at stake here is saying to ministers that you should not use the sacred desk and claim the authority of God to endorse a candidate for public office. And I have a hard time, I must admit, understanding why ministers resist that.

The fact is that if we went that route, perhaps there would be mobilized some political movements that would be satisfying to the supporters of these proposed bills. You might accomplish that, but you would lose your congregations. Can you imagine what happens to people in a congregation who have fundamental spiritual needs of grief or family counseling or whatever, and they find themselves in a congregation in which they, on the basis of their conscience, disagree with the endorsement of the president of the congregation or of the pastor or the rabbi or the imam? Where do they go for help? And, so you reconfigure the whole religious landscape so that people are looking for ministers whom they can trust for spiritual counsel on the basis of the political identity of that congregation. People don't deserve that, and this Nation doesn't need that.

Mr. POMEROY. You think indeed that there might be, with this legislation, more of an inducement for those to take advantage of a minister position to drive a political agenda, either personal or very personally entwined with the ideological advocacy in an election?

Reverend GADDY. It is an invitation to do that as I see it. To pass the legislation would say we are encouraging ministers to become political power brokers and to endorse candidates from the pulpit. Ministers are a cross-section of the population, and sometimes ministers, like everyone else, use their religion rather than letting their religion use them. It is very possible, under the passage of a bill like this, that someone could mistake indigestion or a political preference as the revelation of God. In a hierarchical congregation in particular, if the minister says this is God's man or woman for this position, people in that congregation have a religious responsibility to pay attention to that authority. I think it is a blatant misuse of religious authority.

Reverend FAUNTROY. May I respond to two issues?

Chairman HOUGHTON. We have got to move along here, Walter. But please go ahead, and then we will --

Reverend FAUNTROY. Well, first of all, if I thought that this bill authorized the laundering of money for political purposes to the churches, I would be opposed to it. And secondly, I do take issue with those who say the church has spoken out over the last 30 or 40 years. And most of the times they have spoken out the wrong way, as far as I am concerned. You ought to read Martin Luther King's letter from a Birmingham jail to get an idea of what some churches thought needed to be done to endorse the status quo.

And you need -- I teach my people, at least in my church, that I am not God, that God is not a Democrat or a Republican, God is not a white or a black, God is not a Muslim, Catholic, or a Jew. God is the one who rewards those who diligently seek him in the care of the least of these. And it is not enough to talk that talk generally. You have got to take the newspaper in the pulpit, at least what they are reading, and help them to interpret the word of God.

And I would hope that this bill would not authorize people to claim they speak in the name of God. They speak in a name of a world that is consistent across every major religion in the world. Take it from somebody who has studied comparative religion, that God requires you to do justly, love mercy, and walk humbly with God and not just talk it, but walk it.

Chairman HOUGHTON. Thank you. Mrs. Thurman.

Mrs. THURMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I need to ask a question. How many churches are there in this country? I am just curious. I have no clue what that number is. Anybody know?

Reverend KENNEDY. There are about 300,000 Protestant churches. I know that.

Mr. MAY. I was just going to add there must be at least 280,000 because Barry Lynn mails to them to make sure that churches don't do this sort of thing.

Reverend FAUNTROY. I can tell you the statistics for -- the 1990 Census show there were 40,000 African American churches across seven denominations that convened 24 million people a week.

Mrs. THURMAN. So, Mr. May, when you said that this law was intrusive, let me just give you some facts that we have, that there has only been two churches that have lost their exemptions. There have been only four to five religious groups that have lost their exemption. And it is my understanding there are only two that have led or have had to pay an excise tax. So I would say, after asking that question and the response I get, that is a very small percentage. I certainly can appreciate and understand, you know, the issue and why you are in favor of this, but I certainly am not one to believe that we have been so intrusive of this government into our churches and our places or worship that this, you know, has caused a problem.

You know, I am somewhat offended in some ways for those that might be for this piece of legislation. I know that sounds a little curse, but I have to tell you. You know, I am a thinking person. I go to a church to get my moral stability, to hear the teachings, to have an understanding of the word. I don't go for somebody to interpret for me how and what I should believe, how I should think, and how I should vote. I would be offended and am offended if that happens. That is my right to decide that, and I do worry about that retribution if I, in fact, voiced a different opinion as to either part of my congregation or to my pastor. You know, what kind of retribution is put on me as a person that has a different thought?

I mean, we see that now all across our country where that can happen. I mean, you know, I have people that come up to me all the time and say I am such and such, but I just don't believe, you know, this part of what they are teaching. And to come down and feel like -- I mean, I have to tell you, I mean, I would like to believe that we should not take something that we think is very precious to our democracy away from people, and that is, the ability to think and clearly decide, based on what you have taught them. I mean, you also need to understand that you have been giving them what you believe is the right way to live your life.

And certainly through those teachings, you know, Dr. Kennedy and others, you would be imparting that information onto them. Do we have such little faith in those folks that listen to us that not to make the right decision, but that we would have to be told what decision were made because we don't get it? I mean, I just -- I am very confused that we would go in that direction.

And maybe the opposite I guess could be made that, you know, maybe you should be able to do that and we should still have the right to have that decision, but I -- just as a person who would do that -- and especially because there is an ability for you to already do that under section 501 (c)(4). If people believed that you ought to be involved in those activities, they have a way of giving those monies, just like people who give money to me for my campaign. They don't get tax deductions for that, and they give me the opportunity to spread my word, and people have the right to hear it and make a decision.

So I just -- if you want to comment on it, fine. I just kind of --

Reverend LYNN. I would like to comment on it also. I think Congresswoman Thurman, you raise a good point about what brings 70 percent of Americans in the latest poll to opposing this idea of allowing churches to contribute. Churches do, in fact, make important civic contributions by the educational process they use. Even a tax exempt church is invited to have -- certainly may invite all the candidates for the school board or the local congressional race to come to their church. If he or she chooses not to come, that is the decision by the candidate. There are also kinds of civic responsibilities that churches can take, including nonpartisan get-out-the-vote campaigns, as the representatives on the first panel made clear.

So it is not like those of us who are actively engaged in the church cannot help educate people, but ultimately the education ought to stop at the polling place curtain. I think that is exactly where ministers, priests, imams, and rabbis should not be. And this is a bill that would take them a lot closer than they ought to get.

Reverend KENNEDY. May I say that I certainly agree with you that intelligent people have the right to think. If this bill were in any way trying to limit that, I would definitely oppose it. I certainly believe that I have the right to think. I believe my congregation has the right to think. Our congregation happens to be of a certain economic level, but most of those people are very well educated. We have many doctors, lawyers, professors of this sort in our congregation.

I have never once ever told them to vote for anyone or against anyone. Why? It is against the law. I try to keep the law. Nor the idea that I as a clergyman am going to go inside the curtain when they pull their levers and cast their votes, I mean, that is just too preposterous even to comment on. But the thing is, if it is true that many, many people would hear a pastor speaking and may recommend a candidate, if they didn't like that, they would go somewhere else, and let me say this, ministers are not utterly stupid. They are not going to do things from the pulpit that are going to drive their congregation away. I can't imagine that they would be that foolish.

And so, you know, there is a fact, a man has his own conscience, his own mind, and he is going to indeed keep in mind the congregation he is dealing with. And the ideas that have been bounced around by several Congresspersons today to me are just beyond comprehension that any minister would do something as foolish as that.

Mr. MAY. Could I just comment that all this measure -- Congressman Jones' measure is intended to do, is, for the same reasons, apparently Congress is comfortable with, an insubstantial amount of lobbying activity from churches and exempt organizations. They are going to accept the same sort of thing from churches, and part of the reason is it is already happening. You know it is happening. I know it is happening. But we are talking about direct endorsements now. Again, I refer you to the 60 examples I provided in my testimony, just from a Lexus-Nexus search. It is real clear that many pastors in America, in fact, believe for the reasons that Mr. Fauntroy, who has communicated here today, that he believes may be part of his responsibility to let his flock know how he feels about these issues. There is nothing improper or immoral about it.

I don't believe he insults his congregation when he does it, and I am sure they are filled with thinking people just like your congregation is. But he believes it is important to do it, and it is part of the democratic pluralistic system we have. And when you know that many churches may do it, but others, for the reasons that Dr. Kennedy just articulated, he won't break the law, you have got yourself this dual-standard kind of a system.

Now, that is not what anybody really is trying to get here, so all we do for the same reasons that you trust them to be able to engage in lobbying, a very important activity for a free people, likewise they could do the same thing.

Now incidentally or occasionally, not a lot of it, insubstantial is the phrase -- no 5 percent Bright-Line. We are not here to support Congressman Crane's measure in that context, but Congressman Jones' we are for the reasons we expressed. We do believe it is a liberty issue, which is why we are very comfortable in suggesting that, in fact, it is a necessary change for the law.

Mrs. THURMAN. But let me say something to you, though. Every day we are going to have a piece of legislation on the floor this week, and my guess is that there will be a group of organizations that will be supporting the welfare reform or not supporting it. It will have the interfaith alliance. It will have the Catholic church charities. It will have, I don't know how many more. We get that lobbying all the time. We hear from those people all the time. It is not against anything. It is not, you know, so you are still given that opportunity in your participation of government.

Mr. MAY. And you don't believe it threatens democracy and freedom, of course. That's right. It is perfectly good to have that exchange.

Mrs. THURMAN. And I don't disagree, but I think from, maybe from the pulpit or from or ways without going through the proper channels, I mean, I think, you know what? We just disagree.

Mr. MAY. Will you just acknowledge for me that, in fact, it happens and it does happen a lot in a lot of churches in America right now today, and either the IRS has decided because it was articulated in its panel that it is against the current law, and yet they do it and the IRS goes, oops, I didn't see that, but now and again, they may decide there it is; I am going to make sure this person gets penalized. And that is the reason I think you have to change it, to make it fair and right for all players in the game for the reasons that --

Mrs. THURMAN. Well, it just seems odd to me, as I mentioned the statistics that I have, that two or three churches have been the ones that have been penalized when there are hundreds of thousands of other churches out there. One or two didn't play. One or two didn't get caught. I don't know what the reasons are, but it seem to me some chose to go a little step further than those who have tried to play by the rules. And I think that is the issue here.

Reverend LYNN. You know, I do know what the answer to some of this is, because we were involved in distributing information to the Internal Revenue Service about that outrageous ad that Congressman Pomeroy indicated. It had been placed in USA Today at a cost of $44,000. The pastor of that church, who Mr. May represented, said repeatedly, including to the courts and to the IRS, you know, God told me what to do and I don't really care what the Congress says or the courts say or the IRS. I am going to keep doing it. Compare that to your former colleague here, Congressman Floyd Flake. Congressman Flake endorsed Al Gore over Bill Bradley in the New York primary in the last presidential race. That was considered a pulpit endorsement. The IRS visited him. He said, you know, I did the wrong thing. I am not going to do it again.

So obviously the treatment that the IRS gives to someone who says I made a mistake and I am not going to do it again ought to be different from that of a man who says, God told me to do it, I don't care what the secular law requires, and I am going to keep doing it again. That is a distinction that makes a difference in law enforcement across the board.

Reverend FAUNTROY. Mr. Chairman, may I please ask for clarity on three things. I read 2357, and I did not think it, I did not interpret it as authorizing churches to monitor money for political candidates.

Mr. MAY. It does not.

Reverend FAUNTROY. Secondly, I did not consider it a means by which a church could meet and, by a binding vote, commit the church to vote for somebody. That is not true, is it?

Mr. MAY. No.

Reverend FAUNTROY. All right. Now, third, my view is that the responsibility of leadership is to lead, and I will not abandon that responsibility. And I don't want to see ministers like Floyd Flake who have got people who are wanting in income, in education, health care, housing, and justice, to many ministers every day who have a stake in the election, not to know what he is committed to learn as a leader, to share with them, not a binding vote, but simply to say, look, I have looked at this. You all have been pushing pots and pans in somebody's scrub kitchens all week.

I have been reading, and I have been studying these things, and I think consistent with our mission, I am going to vote this way, and I hope you will. Is anything wrong with that? And why would Floyd Flake feel upset about looking at --

Reverend GADDY. I do see something wrong with it.

Reverend FAUNTROY. Tell me.

Reverend GADDY. Okay. Because the authority of the person behind the pulpit is a derived authority. When you become a religious person, you don't become perfect in all understanding. Ordination doesn't carry with it a guarantee of infallibility. The authority is a derived authority based on the scriptures and oral traditions, and the nature of the God that you serve. People listen to you when you work with that authority saying "We need to feed the poor, we need to clothe those who are naked" and so forth, but the leap from speaking with that authority to saying "and the best way for you to do that is to vote for this candidate" that is not a legitimate use of spiritual authority. Then you are speaking of your personal judgment.

Reverend FAUNTROY. Sir, you need to come to my church and  be a part of my --

Reverend GADDY. I can't. I have to preach in my church.

Reverend FAUNTROY. They do not consider me God. You hear me? And a lot of people in the congregation --

Chairman HOUGHTON. We will accept that as fact, Walter.

Reverend FAUNTROY. No, they really don't. And you can trust people to make their own judgments, but they want to know from their spiritual leader, and spirituality has little to do with a pie in the sky. It has to do with these five things I have been talking about, and they want to know how you feel.

Reverend GADDY. But you are using a spiritual judgment, in your words, using a spiritual judgment to commend a political decision.

Reverend FAUNTROY. And politics is about who gets how much, what, when, and where. I understand that and --

Chairman HOUGHTON. All right. I would like to ask Mr. Lewis for a comment.

Mr. LEWIS. Mr. Chairman, I think Dr. Gaddy said it all, and I don't want to get into a battle between these two religious leaders here. Walter, all of that may be well and good, maybe perfect in your understanding. No one is asking people to violate their conscience, their religious conviction, but if you violate the law, then you are prepared to pay the consequences, and that is very much in keeping with the philosophy of nonviolence, with the philosophy of David Thoreau in Civil Disobedience. So if you go down that road, then all the rest will be -- you know, the law is the law.

Reverend FAUNTROY. That's right.

Mr. LEWIS. And the church is not necessarily -- the activity -- political activity, cannot secede the law.

Chairman HOUGHTON. Thanks very much.

Mr. LEWIS. I guess we can say amen to that, huh?

Reverend FAUNTROY. Yeah. I have done it all my life. Unjust laws are not to be obeyed. Ask Thoreau. Ask Martin Luther King, Jr.

Chairman HOUGHTON. Well, usually the Chairman has to step in and stir things up. I didn't have to do that today. It has been an extraordinary day. I certainly appreciate this, and if there are no other questions, this Subcommittee hearing is adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 4:27 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
[Submissions for the record follow:]

Aiken, Bill, Soka Gakkai International-USA Buddhist Association, letter