[Pages H3811-H3818]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

ENCOURAGING CORPORATIONS TO CONTRIBUTE TO FAITH-BASED ORGANIZATIONS

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to
the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 170) encouraging corporations
to contribute to faith-based organizations.
The Clerk read as follows:

H. Con. Res. 170

Whereas America's community of faith has long played a
leading role in dealing with difficult societal problems that
might otherwise have gone unaddressed;
Whereas President Bush has called upon Americans ``to
revive the spirit of citizenship . . . to marshal the
compassion of our people to meet the continuing needs of our
Nation'';
Whereas although the work of faith-based organizations
should not be used by government as an excuse for backing
away from its historic and rightful commitment to help those
who are disadvantaged and in need, such organizations can and
should be seen as a valuable partner with government in
meeting societal challenges;
Whereas every day faith-based organizations in the United
States help people recover from drug and alcohol addiction,
provide food and shelter for the homeless, rehabilitate
prison inmates so that they can break free from the cycle of
recidivism, and teach people job skills that will allow them
to move from poverty to productivity;
Whereas faith-based organizations are often more successful
in dealing with difficult societal problems than government
and non-sectarian organizations;
Whereas, as President Bush recently stated, ``It is not
sufficient to praise charities and community groups; we must
support them. And this is both a public obligation and a
personal responsibility.'';
Whereas corporate foundations contribute billions of
dollars each year to a variety of philanthropic causes;
Whereas according to a recent study produced by the Capital
Research Center, the 10 largest corporate foundations in the
United States contributed $1,900,000,000 to such causes;
Whereas according to the same study, faith-based
organizations only receive a small fraction of the
contributions made by corporations in the United States, and
6 of the 10 corporations that give the most to philanthropic
causes explicitly ban or restrict contributions to faith-
based organizations: Now, therefore, be it

[[Page H3812]]

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate
concurring), That--
(1) Congress calls on corporations in the United States, in
the words of the President, ``to give more and to give
better'' by making greater contributions to faith-based
organizations that are on the front lines battling some of
the great societal challenges of our day; and
(2) it is the sense of Congress that--
(A) corporations in the United States are important
partners with government in efforts to overcome difficult
societal problems; and
(B) no corporation in the United States should adopt
policies that prohibit the corporation from contributing to
an organization that is successfully advancing a
philanthropic cause merely because such organization is faith
based.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards)
each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield).

General Leave

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their
remarks on this legislation and to insert extraneous material on the
concurrent resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Kentucky?
There was no objection.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of House Concurrent
Resolution 170, which calls on America's corporations to increase their
support of faith-based charities.
In 1999, the last year in which facts were available, a total of
$190.16 billion were contributed to charities throughout America. Of
that amount, corporations contributed $11.02 billion to charities,
which is 5.8 percent of the total amount given to charities in America
came from corporations. Unfortunately, some of America's largest
corporations as a matter of policy explicitly discriminate against
faith-based organizations.
Now, there are many effective charitable groups throughout our
country. These organizations have developed effective programs to
assist people to recover from drug and alcohol addiction, provide food
and shelter for the homeless, rehabilitate prison inmates, and to teach
job skills that will allow individuals to move from poverty to
productivity, from dependence to independence.
Now, in this resolution, we are not encouraging faith-based groups to
do any proselytizing. As a matter of fact, they do not proselytize and
recommend their particular religion. They are there for one purpose and
one purpose only, and that is to provide assistance to people who need
assistance.
For example, charities like the Alpha Alternative Pregnancy Care
Center in my hometown of Hopkinsville, Kentucky. Alpha Alternative is a
place where women in an unwanted pregnancy situation can turn for
Christian compassion and help in a time of great personal crisis. They
minister to their clients with parenting skills, classes, material
assistance, and counseling. If this faith-based charity were to receive
more corporate support, perhaps Alpha Alternative could also expand its
services to include other medical diagnostic services and job training
programs. But with corporate policies banning support for worthwhile
faith-based charities, community groups like Alpha Alternative will
never reach their true potential.
I ask my colleagues today to join with me in voting for this
resolution calling on the conscience of America's largest companies not
to discriminate against an organization that is successfully advancing
philanthropic and human causes, and not to discriminate merely because
they happen to be faith based. As I said earlier, these groups are not
out proselytizing. They are not out trying to impose their religion on
anyone, and this legislation is not trying to impose religion on
anyone. This legislation simply asks corporate America to help
effective organizations, whether they be faith based or secular.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I am not sure exactly what role Congress should have in
trying to dictate to American families or American corporations how
they should contribute their charitable contributions and to whom they
should contribute those dollars, but I would point out that this
particular resolution has, in effect, no real legal teeth to it. Much
of it is a sense of Congress, and to the extent that the goal of this
resolution is to say to individuals and corporate leaders to take a
look at faith-based organizations in America, they are doing a lot of
good work addressing social problems, then I endorse that approach.
Were this resolution more than, in effect, a sense of Congress and
was actually going to dictate policy to corporate trusts, I certainly
would have thought it would have made sense for the House committees to
have met either the Committee on the Judiciary, or the Committee on
Commerce, to at least have a hearing on this to try and direct $1.9
billion in charitable giving. It is my understanding that there was no
House committee hearing of either the Committee on the Judiciary or the
Committee on Commerce on this measure. However, because this resolution
is basically a voluntary message to corporations to consider the good
work of many faith-based charities, I would not adamantly object to the
principal goal of this.
But what, Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment on today is why this
voluntary approach toward giving to faith-based charities is much more
acceptable to me and other Members of Congress and religious leaders
than the President's faith-based initiative. The President's faith-
based initiative in contrast to this has several fundamental flaws, and
if this bill had any of these flaws built into it in the essence of
law, I would oppose this resolution.
First of all, the President's faith-based initiative as exemplified
in H.R. 7 would, for the first time in our country's history, direct
Federal tax dollars going immediately into the coffers of our houses of
worship, our churches, our synagogues, and other houses of worship. I
think that approach to supporting faith-based charities is patently
unconstitutional. I think giving billions of Federal dollars directly
to faith-based organizations, tax dollars to faith-based organizations
would inevitably and absolutely lead to government regulation of
religion and our churches.
Thirdly, I think the administration approach toward faith-based
initiatives as exemplified in H.R. 7 would lead to religious strife, as
thousands of different faith-based groups would be coming to
Washington, D.C. competing for tens of billions of Federal tax dollars.
If one wants to write a prescription for religious strife in America,
Mr. Speaker, I could think of no better way to do it than to have
thousands of churches and houses of worship coming to our Nation's
capital and competing before Cabinet Members for tens of billions of
dollars of Federal money.
The fourth problem I have with the faith-based initiative and the
President's program in contrast to this resolution is that the
President's faith-based initiative would actually subsidize, subsidize
religious discrimination. It would actually take Federal tax dollars
and allow a faith-based group to put up a sign, paid for by our tax
dollars, that would say, no Jew, no Catholic, no Mormon, no Baptist
need apply here for a federally funded job. I think that type of
approach to helping charities is really a great retreat in our 40-year
march toward greater civil rights in America.
The fifth objection I have to the President's proposal on faith-based
initiatives versus this sense of Congress resolution is that the
President's proposal really puts Congress and faith-based groups into a
Catch-22. If we say that they cannot use Federal dollars to
proselytize, to push their religion and their faith upon others, then,
in effect, what we are doing is giving Federal dollars to faith-based
groups and saying that one cannot use their faith in carrying out one's
social mission. So in effect, the President's program, if implemented,
would actually take the faith out of faith-based organizations, the
very thing I would believe the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield)
and I would agree makes many faith-based organizations so special, the
fact that they can inject their faith into

[[Page H3813]]

their process of turning around people's lives and solving their
problems.

{time} 1430

So my point, Mr. Speaker, is this: I am not sure exactly whether this
should be a top priority today for Congress, and in fact a sense of
Congress resolution, to be telling corporate foundations how to spend
billions of dollars, but I do applaud the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr.
Whitfield) in what I interpret is his basic approach, to send a message
to America to say, look at the good work of faith-based organizations.
As a person of faith, I believe these organizations are doing
excellent work in many cases. Not in all cases, but in many cases, they
truly are changing people's lives in a positive manner.
But I think it is very important for Members to know that in
supporting this resolution today, they are not adopting the provisions
of H.R. 7 as proposed by the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Watts) and
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall) and others. We are not endorsing
those resolutions that would actually allow Federal tax dollars to go
directly to houses of worship. I would passionately oppose such a bill,
such a proposal, or such a resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Green), who was the author and primary sponsor of this
resolution.
Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend and colleague,
the gentleman from Kentucky, for yielding time to me, and for his kind
words.
Mr. Speaker, the seeds for this resolution come from a speech that
our President gave at the University of Notre Dame commencement
ceremony a few months ago. In that speech, President Bush laid out for
America a great challenge. In his words, that challenge ``was to revive
the spirit of citizenship, to marshall the compassion of our people to
meet the continuing needs of our Nation.''
He went on to remind us that, in his words, ``It is not sufficient to
praise charities and community groups. We must support them.'' This is
both a public obligation and a personal responsibility.
Mr. Speaker, unlike my friend and colleague, the gentleman from
Texas, I hope this body will take up H.R. 7, the Community Solutions
Act, and take it up soon. It will create enhanced incentives for
charitable giving, it will expand charitable choice, it will break down
the barriers that prevent charitable sectors from being greater
partners in the war on poverty.
I believe the debate on the faith-based initiative will be a great
and historic one, one that may help us turn the corner in the war on
poverty, so I am a strong and passionate supporter.
But in the meantime, this resolution that is before us today is
designed to nudge corporate America into providing even more immediate
reinforcements to faith-based organizations that are already taking up
the mission that the President has called for, organizations that have
heeded the President's call, and that of so many, many American leaders
that have gone before him.
This resolution seeks to draw attention to charitable efforts that
are already under way, that are already working so beautifully; more
importantly, to draw attention to the sad lack of support that these
groups have received, not from individuals but from America's
wealthiest foundations.
This resolution celebrates good news, and it points out tragic news.
First, the good news. As both of the previous speakers have noted,
each Member of this House can point with pride and with gratitude to
organizations in his or her community that are lifting lives and
healing neighborhoods and making a wonderful difference. These groups
are the conscience of our people. They are helping people recover from
drug and alcohol addiction. They are providing shelter, comfort, and
food for the homeless. They are rehabilitating prison inmates and
breaking the cycle of recidivism.
Hundreds of these organizations were represented recently at the
faith-based summit here in Washington. As a participant in that summit,
I can say there was more positive energy for poverty relief gathered
here in the Capital than at any time in decades.
There were wonderful organizations like Rawhide Boys Ranch from
northeastern Wisconsin. Established nearly four decades ago as a faith-
based alternative to juvenile detention, Rawhide accepts 100 troubled
boys each year without regard to race or religious belief or economic
background. These boys are counseled, given personal academic and
vocational training, and they are taught discipline and given love.
This program changes lives because it changes hearts.
There were organizations like Urban Hope, a faith-based ministry in
Green Bay, Wisconsin, committed to empowering and revitalizing people
and communities through entrepreneurship; yes, entrepreneurship. It
teaches credit and budgeting, entrepreneurial ideas, and has a
microloan program. In its brief time of existence, it has launched over
121 new businesses in the Green Bay area.
Of course, nearly every community in America has a Bureau of Catholic
Charities. There are over 1,400 agencies, institutions, and
organizations that make up Catholic Charities. Over 9\1/2\ million
people each year, people who are in need, turn to them for services
ranging from adoption to soup kitchens, child care to prison ministry,
disaster relief to refugee and immigration assistance.
In summary, these armies of compassion are fighting brush fires all
across this great land.
Now the sad news, the tragic news. According to the Capital Research
Center my colleague, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield) has
just mentioned, the 10 largest U.S. corporate foundations have given
out roughly $2 billion each year to charities, but a mere fraction of
that has gone to these very organizations that each of us have referred
to.
It has given little to them regardless of their effectiveness. In
fact, of the 10 largest corporations in America, six have specific
restrictions that either ban outright giving to faith-based
organizations, or greatly restricting it. In fact, of the 10 which have
provided enough information, not one of them has given 5 percent.
Mr. Speaker, according to that same Capital Research Center report,
the leading 1,000 foundations in America have targeted just 2.3 percent
of their grants to faith-based organizations. The top 100 foundations
have given just 1.5 percent.
I do not know if this is political correctness, I do not know if this
is a lack of awareness of what these great organizations are doing. I
am wondering if these organizations, these corporations, these
foundations, have become conscientious objectors in the battle against
poverty. I hope not. I am sure my colleagues share that sentiment.
Whatever the cause, whatever the reason, it is time for these
restrictions to fall. It is time for the reticence of corporate America
to end. It is time for corporate America, it is time for foundations
and American citizens everywhere, to take up the cause of these
organizations; to contribute, to give them what they can, whether it be
financial resources, tools, expertise, whatever they can give to help
them help us fight poverty and the consequences of poverty.
We are not asking these corporations to do any more than we should do
each as individuals to turn citizenship and civic responsibility from
an all too passive term to an activist philosophy, because it is only
when each of us and these foundations and these corporations take up
the fight, I believe it is only when that happens that we will make a
difference.
I urge my colleagues to support this resolution. It is a sense of the
Congress resolution, but it shines a spotlight on the wonderful work
that is being done, and it shines a spotlight on the sad tragedy that
too many corporations, too many foundations have not been there to
help. I think shining this spotlight is important, and I hope it will
make a difference.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out, not knowing the facts, since
there was not a committee hearing on this, that some of the
corporations whose charitable contributions are in effect

[[Page H3814]]

being criticized today might not want to give to some faith-based
groups because they do proselytize.
I know the gentleman from Kentucky talked about groups that do not
proselytize. There are many faith-based groups that provide soup
kitchens, alcohol and drug rehabilitation programs, and they do not
proselytize. But there are many other faith-based groups that part of
their very mission as a religious, pervasively sectarian entity is to
proselytize, to sell their faith to others to try to change their
lives.
So not knowing what the policy is, these corporations, that might be
one valid reason why many of these corporations choose not to give
their philanthropy to faith-based organizations.
Again, I commend the gentleman from Kentucky today for pointing out
the good work done by faith-based groups of many different religious
faiths across the country. But Mr. Speaker, as we begin this opening
chapter in the debate this summer on the role of government and faith-
based organizations, I think it is important that we keep in historical
perspective the reason why our Founding Fathers felt so strongly about
the separation of government and its ability to regulate religion.
Mr. Speaker, many Americans would be surprised that God is not
mentioned in America's governing document, our Constitution. Was this
an unintended omission? Did our Founding Fathers intend to show
disrespect toward God and faith? Did they not understand the importance
of religion in our country?
One could imagine modern-day politicians railing against this
``discrimination'' against religion shown by our Founding Fathers.
Worse yet, they could be attacked for beginning the Bill of Rights with
these words: ``Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment
of religion.''
Were Madison, Jefferson, and others guilty of anti-religious, anti-
faith discrimination? The truth is, our Founding Fathers did not
mention God in our Constitution not out of disrespect to God or
religion, but out of total reverence for religious liberty. They
believed human history proved that government involvement harmed rather
than helped religion.
Jefferson wrote reverently of the wall of separation between church
and State. Mr. Speaker, that wall of separation is not designed to keep
people of faith out of government, but rather, to keep government and
its regulations out of religion and our faith.
Were our Founding Fathers right or wrong in separating politics from
religion? Let us fast-forward to today's world. In Denmark, churches
are subsidized by taxes, and church attendance is extremely low. In
China, citizens are put in prison for their religious beliefs. In
Afghanistan, the government is taking religious minorities and forcing
them to wear identification symbols that evoke Nazi tactics. In the
Middle East and Sudan, religious differences have been the basis for
conflict and hatred and terrorism.
In contrast to those countries where government and religion are so
entwined, in the United States religious faith and freedom, tolerance,
and generosity are flourishing. The difference is that in the other
countries, government and religion are intertwined. But in the United
States, our Bill of Rights prohibits government from direct involvement
in our religion and our own personal faith.
Madison and Jefferson were not so anti-religion after all when they
created the wall of separation between church and State. As I said,
that wall is not intended to keep people of faith out of being involved
in government or having a voice in government, but rather, it was
clearly intended to keep government from being able to control
religion.
How wise they were in establishing that wall. Maybe our Founding
Fathers expressed true reverence in recognizing that faith should be a
matter only between an individual and God, with no need for government
interference.
Despite the wisdom of our Founding Fathers and all the lessons of
human history, I believe it should alarm Americans of all faiths that
the administration and some Members of Congress propose other
legislation, in contrast to this, that would allow the Federal
government to send billions of dollars directly to churches, synagogues
and houses of worship. This proposal, soon to be voted on in the House,
is known as charitable choice. Unlike this resolution, it would have
the teeth of law.
So-called charitable choice legislation is a bad choice. Direct
government funding of our houses of worship would inevitably lead to
government regulation of religion. Government simply cannot spend
billions of tax dollars without audits and regulations. Do we really
want Federal auditors and investigators digging through the financial
records of our churches, synagogues, and houses of worship? Do we
really want prosecutors going after pastors and rabbis who have not
handled their faith-based Federal money properly?
It would be also a huge step backwards in our march of civil rights
for charitable choice legislation to not only allow but to actually
subsidize religious discrimination. Under that bill, a religious group
using tax dollars could refuse to hire someone for a secular job simply
because of that person's sincere religious faith.
Do we really want government officials deciding which religions and
which houses of worship should receive billions of Federal tax dollars?
I could not think of a better cause or a better basis for religious
strife in America than to encourage the competition between churches,
synagogues, and mosques, causing them to compete for billions of
Federal dollars.
Even the short recent debate over the charitable choice issue has
already caused religious tension in our country as some religious
leaders have recently said they do not want other religions different
from their own to receive Federal tax dollars. The President even
several weeks ago accused those opposed to his faith-based initiatives
as being skeptics who do not understand the power of faith.

{time} 1445

Forgetting the fact that numerous religious leaders oppose the
President's proposals on church-State grounds, is it healthy to have a
President challenging citizens' religious faith because they differ
with him on a public policy issue? I think not.
In the face, Mr. Speaker, of religious strife throughout the world, I
would hope that Americans would understand that religious freedom and
tolerance, protected by the Bill of Rights, is the crown jewel of
America's experiment in democracy. We tamper with that freedom at our
own peril.
As a person of faith, I am willing to say that this resolution today
is well intended, is intended to voluntarily encourage corporations to
give their money to faith-based organizations if they believe those
organizations are doing good work for our country. But let us be very
clear in drawing the line between this voluntary-type Sense of Congress
Resolution and actually using the power of government to regulate and
fund our faith in our houses of worship.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Souder).
(Mr. SOUDER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, first I would like to thank the gentleman
from Wisconsin (Mr. Green) for his leadership in bringing this
resolution to the floor, his enthusiasm for the concept, as he has
battled through committee and defended the whole concept, but
particularly this in the private sector.
I would like to make a couple other comments here at the beginning as
well. Those in the gallery and those who have been here to the House
floor can see we are surrounded by lawgivers, all whose heads are
turned sideways, except for Moses, who looks straight down on the
Speaker of the House, or the acting Speaker; and it says ``In God We
Trust.'' Clearly, Congress has decided that what is wrong, and the
reason in the Constitution they decided what was wrong, was to use
government funds to proselytize for sectarian purposes. They did not
mean a total separation of church and State.
When the wall of separation line was developed, it was developed in
Virginia because they were paying even for the pastor's home and the
actual church in Virginia, and the Evangelicals objected to funding the
Anglicans. That is not

[[Page H3815]]

what the founding fathers intended. They did not want proselytization,
but they did not have a complete separation as long as there was no
proselytizing.
I also want to thank my friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Edwards). I appreciate his support of this resolution today and working
with me and others on tax alternatives. He has been consistent. We have
a disagreement on charitable choice and government funding, but we do
not oppose private funding. It is wrong for us to cast aspersions on
others who disagree with certain parts because we have an honest
disagreement about what this country should do and how we should
proceed. And we have had several good debates on that. This resolution
is not part of that debate.
This resolution should be unanimous because those who oppose public
funds also speak in favor of private funds, and this encourages more
private-sector funding. But if corporate private-sector funding does
not go to faith-based and is biased against faith-based organizations
as well, where do these resource-poor organizations go?
Many of our most effective poverty-fighting organizations are in the
country's poorest areas, in the poorest areas of my hometown of Fort
Wayne, of Milwaukee, of Chicago, of New York, of Boston, wherever you
go, they are people rich but resource poor. They are often struggling
to get through that day or that week. They often have volunteers who
work many, many hours and into the night. When government employees
often leave at 5 o'clock, we see these people volunteering, because
many of the problems in our toughest neighborhoods occur between 10 at
night and 4 in the morning; not often when government employees are
there. Often they work without health benefits or any other kind of
benefits. Also, the churches from which they rise often have no
financial resources.
We are not here talking about the church itself or the ministry.
Because I agree, if the money goes straight to the churches and gets
incorporated and they become dependent on that, we will wreck the
churches of America, like has happened to some degree, as the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Edwards) pointed out, around the world. But this is in
their outreach ministries. Can they, if they do not proselytize with
government funds, can they be included in faith-based organizations?
Now, the problem, as President Bush has pointed out and the Capital
Research Center and as previous speakers have previously pointed out,
many of our top organizations ban funding for faith-based
organizations. Number one, General Motors, says that contributions
generally are not provided to religious organizations. Number three,
the Ford Motor Company, says as a general policy they do not support
religious or sectarian programs. Number four, ExxonMobile, says we do
not provide funds for political or religious causes. Number six, IBM,
does not make corporate donations or grants from corporate
philanthropic funds to religious groups.
Where are they to turn? If the biggest funders deny them, if the
government denies them, if their churches are poor, and yet they are
the most effective, where do they turn?
In President Bush's Notre Dame commencement speech, and I am proud I
graduated from Notre Dame and I am thrilled he gave this speech at
Notre Dame, he quoted Knute Rockne, certainly the most famous football
coach in American history, next to our fellow congressman, the
gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne), Knute Rockne said, ``I have
found prayers work best when you have big players.'' Big players in
this case are the volunteers and also the dollars.
There has been a lot of misunderstanding about President Bush's
faith-based initiative. He has always said from the beginning that
private giving is first and foremost. The amount of private giving in
America far exceeds anything that the government will do in these
areas.
Number one are individual contributions, which are in this bill,
which would allow nonitemizers to tax deduct, as well as some other
incentives for individual giving and corporate giving; and, number two,
is to urge corporate foundations and corporate entities themselves to
give private donations. That is where the real dollars will come, and
that is where there is the least strings. At a minimum, this Congress
should not only pass this resolution today but the tax part of the
President's initiative.
His second most important part was the so-called compassion fund,
because even now faith-based organizations are eligible but they have
no idea where the grants are. They have no idea, a lot of times, what
the laws are on proselytizing, how to set up 501(c)(3)'s, how to have
an isolated fund so they do not get sued and so they do not get
intermingled. That compassion fund is a critical part of the
President's agenda. All the focus has been on number three, which we
have already passed through the House, which is already law in welfare
reform, and which is law in other areas, and that is the so-called
charitable choice provision. It is important. I strongly support it.
The bill that passed out of the committees just before we left for
the July 4th break made the differentiations that I believe are needed
to follow constitutional law, and I strongly support that. But it is
most important for us to remember that the key thing is to get the
dollars to where the resources, the people resources are. And that
starts first and foremost with individual giving and corporate giving.
Once again, I commend the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green) for
his resolution today, for our House leadership, for the gentleman from
Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield), and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards),
and others, for doing this. We are a diverse country. We need to
protect our diversity. But our multiple faiths in this country will
always be the anchor of our diversity.
Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the commencement speech the
President gave at Notre Dame, which I referred to earlier.

Remarks By The President In Commencement Address

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, Father Malloy. Thank you all for
that warm welcome. Chairman McCartan, Father Scully, Dr.
Hatch, Notre Dame trustees, members of the class of 2001.
(Applause.) It is a high privilege to receive this degree.
I'm particularly pleased that it bears the great name of
Notre Dame. My brother, Jeb, may be the Catholic in the
family--(laughter)--but between us, I'm the only Domer.
(Laughter and applause.)
I have spoken in this campus once before. It was in 1980,
the year my Dad ran for Vice President with Ronald Reagan. I
think I really won over the crowd that day. (Laughter). In
fact, I'm sure of it, because all six of them walked me to my
car. (Laughter.)
That was back when Father Hesburgh was president of this
university, during a tenure that in many ways defined the
reputation and values of Notre Dame. It's a real honor to be
with Father Hesburgh, and with Father Joyce. Between them,
these two good priests have given nearly a century of service
to Notre Dame. I'm told that Father Hesburgh now holds 146
honorary degrees. (Applause.) That's pretty darn impressive.
Father, but I'm gaining on you. (Laughter.) As of today, I'm
only 140 behind. (Laughter.)
Let me congratulate all the members of the class of 2001.
(Applause.) You made it, and we're all proud of you on this
big day. I also congratulate the parents, who, after these
years, are happy, proud--and broke. (Laughter and applause.)
I commend this fine faculty, for the years of work and
instruction that produced this outstanding class.
And I'm pleased to join my fellow honorees, as well. I'm in
incredibly distinguished company with authors, executives,
educators, church officials and an eminent scientist. We're
sharing a memorable day and a great honor, and I congratulate
you all. (Applause.)
Notre Dame, as a Catholic university, carries forward a
great tradition of social teaching. It calls on all of us,
Catholic and non-Catholic, to honor family, to protect life
in all its stages, to serve and uplift the poor. This
university is more than a community of scholars, it is a
community of conscience--and an ideal place to report on our
nation's commitment to the poor, and how we're keeping it.
In 1964, the year I started college, another President from
Texas delivered a commencement address talking about this
national commitment. In that speech, President Lyndon Johnson
issued a challenge. He said, ``This is the time for decision.
You are the generation which must decide. Will you decide to
leave the future a society where a man is condemned to
hopelessness because he was born poor? Or will you join to
wipe out poverty in this land?
In that speech, Lyndon Johnson advocated a War on Poverty
which has noble intentions and enduring success. Poor
families got basic health care; disadvantaged children were
given a head start in life. Yet, there were also some
consequences that no one wanted or intended. The welfare
entitlement became an enemy of personal effort and
responsibility, turning many recipients into dependents. The
War on Poverty also turned too

[[Page H3816]]

many citizens into bystanders, convinced that compassion had
become the work of government alone.
In 1996, welfare reform confronted the first of these
problems, with a five-year time limit on benefits, and a work
requirement to receive them. Instead of a way of life,
welfare became an officer of temporary help--not an
entitlement, but a transition. Thanks in large part of this
change, welfare rolls have been cut in half. Work and self-
respect have been returned to many lives. This is a tribute
to the Republicans and democrats we agreed on reform, and to
the President who signed it: President Bill Clinton.
(Applause.)
Our nation has confronted welfare dependency. But our work
is only half done. Now we must confront the second problem:
to revive the spirit of citizenship--to marshal the
compassion of our people to meet the continuing needs of our
nation. This is a challenge to my administration, and to each
one of you. We must meet that challenge--because it is right,
and because it is urgent.
Welfare as we knew it has ended, but poverty has not. When
over 12 million children live below the poverty line, we are
not a post-poverty America. Most states are seeing the first
wave of welfare recipients who have reached the law's five-
year time limit. The easy cases have already left the welfare
rolls. The hardest problems remain--people with far fewer
skills and greater barriers to work. People with complex
human problems, like illiteracy and addiction, abuse and
mental illness. We do not yet know what will happen to these
men and women, or to their children. But we cannot sit and
watch, leaving them to their own struggles and their own
fate.
There is a great deal at stake. In our attitudes and
actions, we are determining the character of our country.
When poverty is considered hopeless, America is condemned to
permanent social division, becoming a nation of caste and
class, divided by fences and gates and guards.
Our task is clear, and it's difficult: we must build our
country's unity by extending our country's blessings. We make
that commitment because we are Americans. Aspiration is the
essence of our country. We believe in social mobility, not
social Darwinism. We are the country of the second chance,
where failure is never final. And that dream has sometimes
been deferred. It must never be abandoned.
We are committed to compassion for practical reasons. When
men and women are lost to themselves, they are also lost to
our nation. When millions are hopeless, all of us are
diminished by the loss of their gifts.
And we're committed to compassion for moral reasons. Jewish
prophets and Catholic teaching both speak of God's special
concern for the poor. This is perhaps the most radical
teaching of faith--that the value of life is not contingent
on wealth or strength or skill. That value is a reflection of
God's image.
Much of today's poverty has more to do with troubled lives
than a troubled economy. And often when a life is broken, it
can only be restored by another caring, concerned human
being. The answer for an abandoned child is not a job
requirement--it is the loving presence of a mentor. The
answer to addiction is not a demand for self-sufficiency--it
is personal support on the hard road to recovery.
The hope we seek is found in safe havens for battered women
and children, in homeless shelters, in crisis pregnancy
centers, in programs that tutor and conduct job training and
help young people when they happen to be on parole. All these
efforts provide not just a benefit, but attention and
kindness, a touch of courtesy, a dose of grace.
Mother Teresa said that what the poor often need, even more
than shelter and food--though these are desperately needed,
as well--is to be wanted. And that sense of belonging is
within the power of each of us to provide. Many in this
community have shown what compassion can accomplish.
Notre Dame's own Lou Nanni is the former director of South
Bend's Center for the Homeless--an institution founded by two
Notre Dame professors. It provides guests with everything
from drug treatment to mental health service, to classes in
the Great Books, to preschool for young children. Discipline
is tough. Faith is encouraged, not required. Student
volunteers are committed and consistent and central to its
mission. Lou Nanni describes this mission as ``repairing the
fabric'' of society by letting people see the inherent
``worth and dignity and God-given potential'' of every human
being.
Compassion often works best on a small and human scale. It
is generally better when a call for help is local, not long
distance. Here at this university, you've heard that call and
responded. It is part of what makes Notre Dame a great
university.
This is my message today: there is no great society which
is not a caring society. And any effective war on poverty
must deploy what Dorothy Day called ``the weapons of
spirit.''
There is only one problem with groups like South Bend's
Center for the Homeless--there are not enough of them. It's
not sufficient to praise charities and community groups, we
must support them. And this is both a public obligation and a
personal responsibility.
The War on Poverty established a federal commitment to the
poor. The welfare reform legislation of 1996 made that
commitment more effective. For the task ahead, we must move
to the third stage of combating poverty in America. Our
society must enlist, equip and empower idealistic Americans
in the works of compassion that only they can provide.
Government has an important role. It will never be replaced
by charities. My administration increases funding for major
social welfare and poverty programs by 8 percent. Yet,
government must also do more to take the side of charities
and community healers, and support their work. We've had
enough of the stale debate between big government and
indifferent government. Government must be active enough to
fund services for the poor--and humble enough to let good
people in local communities provide those services.
So I have created a White House Office of Faith-based and
Community Initiatives. (Applause.) Through that office we are
working to ensure that local community helpers and healers
receive more federal dollars, greater private support and
face fewer bureaucratic barriers. We have proposed a
``compassion capital fund,'' that will match private giving
with federal dollars. (Applause.)
We have proposed allowing all taxpayers to deduct their
charitable contributions--including non-itemizers.
(Applause.) This could encourage almost $15 billion a year in
new charitable giving. My attitude is, everyone in America--
whether they are well-off or not--should have the same
incentive and reward for giving.
And we're in the process of implementing and expanding
``charitable choice''--the principle, already established in
federal law, that faith-based organizations should not suffer
discrimination when they compete for contracts to provide
social services. (Applause.) Government should never fund the
teaching of faith, but it should support the good works of
the faithful. (Applause.)
Some critics of this approach object to the idea of
government funding going to any group motivated by faith. But
they should take a look around them. Public money already
goes to groups like the Center for the Homeless and, on a
larger scale, to Catholic Charities. Do the critics really
want to cut them off? Medicaid and Medicare money currently
goes to religious hospitals. Should this practice be ended?
Child care vouchers for low income families are redeemed
every day at houses of worship across America. Should this be
prevented? Government loans send countless students to
religious colleges. Should that be banned? Of course not.
(Applause.)
America has a long tradition of accommodating and
encouraging religious institutions when they pursue public
goals. My administration did not create that tradition--but
we will expand it to confront some urgent problems.
Today, I am adding two initiatives to our agenda, in the
areas of housing and drug treatment. Owning a home is a
source of dignity for families and stability for
communities--and organizations like Habitat for Humanity
make that dream possible for many low income Americans.
Groups of this type currently receive some funding from
the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The
budget I submit to Congress next year will propose a
three-fold increase in this funding--which will expand
homeownership, and the hope and pride that come with it.
(Applause.)
And nothing is more likely to perpetuate poverty than a
life enslaved to drugs. So we've proposed $1.6 billion in new
funds to close what I call the treatment gap--the gap between
5 million Americans who need drug treatment, and the 2
million who currently receive it. We will also propose that
all these funds--all of them--be opened to equal competition
from faith-based and community groups.
The federal government should do all these things; but
others have responsibilities, as well--including corporate
America.
Many corporations in America do good work, in good causes.
But if we hope to substantially reduce poverty and suffering
in our country, corporate America needs to give more--and to
give better. (Applause.) Faith-based organizations receive
only a tiny percentage of overall corporate giving.
Currently, six of the 10 largest corporate givers in America
explicitly rule out or restrict donations to faith-based
groups, regardless of their effectiveness. The federal
government will not discriminate against faith-based
organizations, and neither should corporate America.
(Applause.)
In the same spirit, I hope America's foundations consider
ways they may devote more of their money to our nation's
neighborhood and their helpers and their healers. I will
convene a summit this fall, asking corporate and
philanthropic leaders throughout America to join me at the
White House to discuss ways they can provide more support to
community organizations--both secular and religious.
Ultimately, your country is counting on each of you. Knute
Rockne once said, ``I have found that prayers work best when
you have big players.'' (Laugher and applause.) We can pray
for the justice of our country, but you're the big players we
need to achieve it. Government can promote compassion,
corporations and foundations can fund it, but the citizens--
it's the citizens who provide it. A determined assault on
poverty will require both an active government, and active
citizens.
There is more to citizenship than voting--though I urge you
to do it. (Laughter.) There is more to citizenship than
paying your taxes--though I'd strongly advise you to pay
them. (Laughter.) Citizenship is empty without concern for
our fellow citizens, without

[[Page H3817]]

the ties that bind us to one another and build a common good.
If you already realize this and you're acting on it, I
thank you. If you haven't thought about it, I leave you with
this challenge: serve a neighbor in need. Because a life of
service is a life of significance. Because materialism,
ultimately, is boring, and consumerism can build a prison of
wants. Because a person who is not responsible for others is
a person who is truly alone. Because there are few better
ways to express our love for America than to care for other
Americans. And because the same God who endows us with
individual rights also calls us to social obligations.
So let me return to Lyndon Johnson's charge. You're the
generation that must decide. Will you ratify poverty and
division with your apathy--or will you build a common good
with your idealism? Will you be the spectator in the renewal
of your country--or a citizen?
The methods of the past may have been flawed, but the
idealism of the past was not an illusion. Your calling is not
easy, because you must do the acting and the caring. But
there is fulfillment in that sacrifice, which creates hope
for the rest of us. Every life you help proves that every
life might be helped. The actual proves the possible. And
hope is always the beginning of change.
Thank you for having me, and God bless. (Applause.)

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The gentleman from Kentucky
has 2 minutes remaining.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
I want to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green) for bringing
this important issue to the forefront. We have a lot of people in
America reaching out asking for a helping hand. We have a lot of
organizations who have programs in place that can assist those people.
This resolution today simply calls on corporate America to not
discriminate against a group simply because they are faith based.
I would also like to thank the gentleman from Texas for his remarks
today.
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I too rise in support of H. Con. Res. 170,
which calls for increased support of faith-based charities by U.S.
corporations.
The United States is blessed with an industrious people and great
wealth; we are the envy of the world. But a great and prosperous nation
can and must do better--each of us has a duty to alleviate the
suffering of the poor and oppressed in our own communities. Some of the
most effective organizations for meeting the needs of impoverished
Americans are faith-based, yet these are the very groups that face
discrimination by corporate America.
According to Leslie Lenkowsky in last month's edition of Commentary,
in 1998 only some 2 percent of the money donated by the nation's
largest foundations went to religiously affiliated institutions, and
much of that was earmarked for institutions like hospitals and
universities. The Capital Research Center found that six of the ten
largest companies in America explicitly ``ban or restrict'' donations
to faith-based charities.
Why would some of the greatest corporations in the country institute
policies that prevent funding of some of America's most effective
charities at a time when Congress has taken a leading role in knocking
down discriminatory barriers that prevent faith-based charities from
competing for government grants and contracts?
On a bipartisan basis, Congress first started the work of expanding
charitable choice in 1996 with welfare reform, and followed up with the
welfare-to-work grant program in 1997. In 1998, Congress added
charitable choice to the Community Services Block Grant Program and in
2000 we added charitable choice to substance abuse treatment and
prevention services under the Public Health Services Act.
We know that these programs work, and the States are also finding
great success. A study of Indiana's ``Faith Works'' program, which
allows welfare recipients to get assistance from faith-based charities
instead of secular providers, found that those opting for such
charities came from more distressed family situations and had deeper
personal crises than those opting for the secular alternative. The
study concluded that what these people found at faith-based charities
was more emotional and spiritual support than what could ever be
offered by a secular institution. In some personal situations, that
additional support might be the difference between life and death.
I predict that Congress will knock down more barriers against faith-
based charities in programs like the Community Health Centers program
this year, and many more next year. As Congress has already moved to
provide more access to faith-based charities by Americans in the
greatest need, I believe that Congress should call on American
corporations to give more even-handedly and generously to faith-based
charities.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition of H. Con. Res.
170, a Resolution Encouraging Corporations to Contribute to Faith-Based
Organizations.
I am a strong supporter of corporations increasing donations to
philanthropic organizations to help the most needy in our society. Even
with the strong economy over the past few years, many Americans have
not shared in this nation's prosperity. Thus, more corporate donations
are needed to help the many Americans living in poverty.
However, I do not support the government advocating corporate support
of one charitable organization over another. Our Founding Fathers
included the establishment clause in the United States Constitution to
ensure that the government did not play the role of endorsing religion.
This policy has given Americans the freedom to carry out their
religious worship in whichever manner they choose without fear of
government oppression. Today, this resolution takes the first step
toward the government playing the role of supporting religious
charitable organization over others and challenging the Founding
Fathers' wisdom to include the establishment clause in our
constitution.
Even more disturbing, it appears that this resolution is the first
step in the Bush Administration attempt to promote their faith-based
initiative that supports the ungodly action of promoting government
sponsored discrimination. it has been reported that the Bush
administration has agreed to create a regulation that would allow
religious charitable organizations to legally avoid hiring gay
employees because of their sexual orientation in exchange for these
groups' support for their faith-based initiative.
In the mid-20th century, many racial minorities, women and gays began
the long fight for equal rights in this nation. It is a fight that
still has a long way to go. The struggle of these groups to obtain
equality continues to inspire a nation to make America a better place
where all men and women are truly created equal.
If the reported allegation about the administration creating a
regulation to promote discrimination is true, then the Bush
Administration has signaled to the nation that it wants to return to
the dark days in this nation's history when our government sponsored
discrimination against certain groups. If today, the Bush
Administration is willing to support government sponsored
discrimination against homosexuals, then which group is next? Will it
be women? Will it be African Americans or Hispanics? Will it be
religious worshipers of Catholicism, Judaism or the Nation of Islam?
It is time that the leaders in this country stood up together and
stopped usurping the principles of separation of church and state and
the principle that all are created equal. These principles help to
create a nation that cherishes tolerance for all groups and should be
preserved.
I urge my colleagues to oppose H. Con. Res. 170 and say no to
discrimination.
Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Con. Res. 170,
which encourages corporations in the United States to increase their
support of faith-based organizations.
America is privileged materially, but there still remains poverty and
a lack of hope for some. Government has a duty to meet the needs of
poor Americans, but it does not have to do it alone. The indispensable
and gracious work of faith-based and other charitable service groups
must be encouraged as a means of people helping people--as a
significant addition to government service.
Faith has played an important role in America's handling of serious
social problems. Faith-based organizations in the United States help
people recover from drug and alcohol addiction, provide food and
shelter for the homeless, and teach people job skills that will allow
them to move from poverty to productivity. These organizations have
proven to be effective in solving some of society's troubles.
Corporations donate billions of dollars to philanthropic causes every
year. However, of these billions of dollars, faith-based organizations
receive only a small portion. In fact, many corporations specifically
ban or restrict contributions to faith-based organizations.
This legislation encourages them to make greater contributions to
faith-based organizations and recommends that they refrain from
policies that prohibit corporations from donating to faith-based
organizations. I urge my colleagues to support H. Con. Res. 170.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield) that the House suspend the
rules and agree to the concurrent resolution, H. Con. Res. 170.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds of
those present have voted in the affirmative.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

[[Page H3818]]

The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be
postponed.

____________________