based upon vision and mission not because we need money-our vision drives everything that we do.

I know that there is great debate over whether or not churches should accept money from the government. However, we answered the question for ourselves over four years ago when we received our first contract. We faced great debate even amongst the volunteers who began working with Exodus, and who, when they were challenged to live the life rather than preach it, were very frustrated and worried that we had sold out. However, we believe that it is very easy to preach at individuals than it is to live your life every day so that there is a marked difference in you as a Christian. When people see the difference they will ask the important questions. We adopted that stance three and a half years ago and we have seen success that meets to our contractor's approval as well as to our Chief Executive Officer (God).

Jireh believes that success lies not in how many individuals you pray for, or in how many individuals accept Christ as their Lord and Savior. We believe that we are called to plant seeds of truth, hope, and character. Every farmer approaches planting from a different point of view depending on what they are trying to grow, the region, the market, and the soil. I believe that it was Mother Theresa who said, "Plant the act, reap the habits, plant the habits, reap the virtue, plant the virtue, reap the character, plant the character, reap the destiny." We are planting expecting to reap character, destiny, and success in the lives of the individuals we serve. We settled long ago that Christianity is our faith, it is what we live, breathe and practice. However, it our lifestyle not to be thrust upon the people that we are called to serve. Therefore we do not have bible study as a part of our curriculum. Prayer is available for those who request it before or after classes. Our staff is diverse culturally, racially, in gender and in faith. There are individuals on board who are single parents as well as persons who are part of a two-parent household. One of our primary strengths is the heart of the individuals who serve our participants. They love them and accept them for who they are, but at the same time they see the potential for greatness that lies within everyone. We serve persons who are struggling with drug and alcohol addictions, persons with felony convictions, individuals with little to no work history, persons who have been on welfare all of their lives, generational welfare recipients, persons who have dropped out of high school, with no hope, no dreams, no inspiration, and no understanding of the wealth of promise that this country holds for them.

Do I personally believe that the state and faith-based agencies can work together to provide services to the community? Emphatically I do. It was the church that originally served as the light within the community by providing assistance to the fatherless, the widows, and the stranger before welfare became the responsibility of the government in 1935. However, I believe that it is a question that each agency has to ask and answer for itself based upon its vision and mission. What works for Exodus might not necessarily work for every other faith-based organization and the government is going to be hard-pressed to develop a model that will fit and satisfy

everyone.

During our last four years we have met the critics as we bid for contracts at prices that were at a third of what the "big dogs" were charging. When I say "big dogs" I refer to those agencies who have been in the pockets of the government for years, but who have delivered next to nothing for the dollars they have received. We have been slandered, criticized and refused based solely upon our commitment to perform our services at a competitive and a fair price. However, we have also been commended, praised, and congratulated on our performance and our courage to step outside of the box.

We were faith-based before it was okay to define yourself as such to the community at-large. Bishop Dantley testified before the State Budget Committee on Welfare Reform in June of 1997 before the state's definition of welfare reform was decided upon. His testimony contributed to the state adopting HB403. Individuals were given 36 months of TANF, with a 12-month hiatus and the option of returning for a final 24 months. This was much better than the lifetime limit of 24 months that they were originally considering.

I personally believe that The Exodus Program is an excellent example of how faith-based organizations and government can work together to achieve a common goal. However, it will take commitment and flexibility on the part of all involved to see this thing work.

I want to thank you for the opportunity to share with the committee.

Mr. CHABOT. And our final witness will be Reverend Walker. Welcome.

STATEMENT OF REVEREND J. BRENT WALKER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BAPTIST JOINT COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC AFFAIRS Reverend WALKER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Subcommittee for this opportunity to speak on a very important matter. The Baptist Joint Committee serves 14 different Baptist bodies focusing on public policy issues concerning religious liberty and its essential constitutional_corollary, the separation of church and state. For 65 years the Baptist Joint Committee has adopted a well-balanced and sensibly centrist approach to church/ state issues. We take seriously both religion clauses in the first amendment, no establishment and free exercise, as essential guarantors of our God-given religious liberty.

We join others in applauding President Bush's recognition of religion's vital role in addressing social ills, but we believe that religion will be harmed, not helped, by charitable choice-redirecting billions of government money to fund pervasively religious enterprises such as houses of worship. So we oppose charitable choice not because we are against faith-based social ministries, but because of our desire to protect religious freedom.

The problems with charitable choice are many. First, charitable choice is unconstitutional. It promotes religion in ways that breach the wall of separation between church and state. The Supreme Court has long said that governmental financial aid to pervasively religious organizations, even for ostensibly secular purposes, violates the no-establishment clause in the first amendment.

Second, charitable choice results in excessive entanglement between religion and government. It is an iron law of American politics that government regulates what it funds. And normally that is good. We should have accountability for the funds that the government spends. But it raises serious concerns when government becomes entangled in religious affairs and concerns. This is what a Virginia pastor friend of mine meant, I think, when he asked government not to give us any pats on the back, for all too often a friendly pat on the back by Uncle Sam turns into a hostile shove by Big Brother. Some of the regulation is outlined in the charitable choice provision itself. Other Federal and State laws and regulations are triggered by the expenditure of Federal tax money.

Third, charitable choice dampens religion's prophetic witness and voice. Religion has historically stood outside of government's control serving as a constant critic of government. Accepting government funding creates a dependency on government that will have the effect of silencing the prophetic witness. How can religion raise a prophet's fist against government when it has the other hand open for a handout? It simply can't do both at the same time.

Fourth, charitable choice authorizes religious discrimination in employment. It explicitly allows religious organizations to retain their title VII exemption, even in a program substantially funded by government money. Allowing religious organizations to discriminate in the private sector is a welcomed accommodation of religion. But to subsidize religious discrimination with tax dollars is an unconscionable advancement that simultaneously turns back the clock on civil rights in this country.

Fifth, charitable choice encourages unhealthful rivalry among religious groups. We enjoy peace and harmony in this country despite

our dizzying diversity for the most part, because government has stayed out of religion. I heard your colleague Chet Edwards say on several occasions that if he maliciously wanted to try to harm a religion in America, he could think of no better way to do it than to put a pot of money out there and let churches fight over it with government picking and choosing which religions will get the money. I agree with Representative Edwards. It is a recipe for religious conflict.

Simply put, charitable choice is the wrong way to do right. Thankfully, there are right ways to do right. There is a better way. Government and religion may cooperate in the provision of social services in many ways that are good for government, good for religion, good for the taxpayers and good for the people served.

First, houses of worship may continue to pay for social service ministries the old-fashioned way with tithes and offerings and funds from other private sources, and government may and actually should encourage increased private giving through, for example, expanding the deductibility rules for charitable gifts for the 70 million Americans that do not currently itemize on their taxes.

Second, houses of worship may spin off religiously affiliated organizations to accept tax funds and to provide social service ministries much in the way that Mr. Clingman's operation does. Religiously affiliated organizations can minister out of religious motivation and even make available some privately funded and separately offered religious activities as long as they do not proselytize or require religious worship or instruction or discriminate on the basis of religion in hiring or in providing services.

Third, government should lift onerous restrictions on houses of worship that unreasonably interfere with their ministries. Congress, to its credit, has already taken the lead in passing the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act last fall, which protects religious organizations from burdensome zoning laws.

And finally, government and religious organizations, even pervasively religious ones, may carefully cooperate in creative non-financial ways.

These illustrations are just some of the ways in which we are able to forge, I think, a win-win situation. Social services can be delivered by religious organizations. The autonomy of pervasive religious organizations can be protected from government regulation, and the constitutional values that promote religious liberty, such as the separation of church and state, can be preserved. We all want to do right to help those in need. Let us all do it in the right way.

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you, Reverend Walker.

[The prepared statement of Reverend J. Brent Walker follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REVEREND J. BRENT WALKER

INTRODUCTION

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, for this opportunity to speak to you on a matter as important as religious liberty.

I am J. Brent Walker, executive director of the Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs (BJC). I am an ordained Baptist minister. I also serve as an adjunct profes

sor of law at Georgetown University Law Center, where I teach an advanced seminar in church-state law. I speak today, however, only on behalf of the BJC.1

The BJC serves the below-listed Baptist bodies,2 focusing exclusively on public policy issues concerning religious liberty and its constitutional corollary, the separation of church and state. For sixty-five years, the BJC has adopted a well-balanced, sensibly centrist approach to church-state issues. We take seriously both religion clauses in the First Amendment-No Establishment and Free Exercise-as essential guarantors of God-given religious liberty.

No principle is more important to Baptists and the BJC than religious liberty and separation of church and state. At our best, we embrace the words of John Leland, a Virginia Baptist evangelist, who said over 200 years ago: "The fondness of Magistrates to foster Christianity has caused it more harm than all the persecution ever did." That is why for the last five years the BJC has fought "charitable choice" proposals to allow government to fund religious ministries.

THE PROBLEMS WITH "CHARITABLE CHOICE"

"Charitable choice"-a specific legislative provision that allows pervasively religious organizations, such as houses of worship, to receive government funds to subsidize social services-was first codified in 1996 as part of the welfare reform law.3 Since then, Congress has passed three additional pieces of legislation containing "charitable choice" provisions.4

For the first time since its inception five years ago, "charitable choice" has attracted national attention and scrutiny in the last few months.5 Today's hearingthe first ever on the topic of "charitable choice"-further attests to that fact. The cause of the focused attention on this important topic is undeniably the attention given to "faith-based initiatives" by President George W. Bush. President Bush opened six federal offices of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives during his second week in office and has listed faith-based proposals, including the expansion of "charitable choice," as one of his top domestic priorities for his administration's first year.

We join others in applauding President Bush's recognition of religion's vital role in addressing social ills. But we believe religion will be harmed, not helped, by directing government money to fund pervasively religious enterprises.

So we oppose "charitable choice"-not because we are against faith-based social ministries but because of our desire to protect religious freedom.

As the BJC has said for several years, "charitable choice" is the wrong way to do right. The problems with “charitable choice” are many.

First, "charitable choice" is unconstitutional. "Charitable choice" promotes religion in ways that breach the wall of separation between church and state. The United States Supreme Court has long said that governmental financial aid to pervasively religious organizations, even for ostensibly secular purposes, violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.? Pervasively religious entities (like houses of worship and parochial schools) ones that are so fundamentally religious that they cannot or will not separate secular and religious functions-should be disqualified from receiving government grants because to fund them is to fund religion.

1 My curriculum vitae is attached. Neither I nor the BJC has received a federal grant or contract in the current or preceding two fiscal years.

2 Alliance of Baptists, American Baptist Churches in the U.S.A., Baptist General Association of Virginia, Baptist General Conference, Baptist General Convention of Texas, Baptist State Convention of North Carolina, Cooperative Baptist Fellowship, National Baptist Convention of America, National Baptist Convention U.S.A. Inc., National Missionary Baptist Convention, North American Baptist Conference, Progressive National Baptist Convention, Inc., Religious Liberty Council, and Seventh Day Baptist General Conference.

3 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, Public Law 104–193 [1996].

4 Community Services Block Grant Act, Public Law 105–285 [1998]; the Children's Health Act of 2000, Public Law 106-310 [2000]; and the New Markets Venture Capital Program Act, Public Law 106-554 [2000].

5 Contrary to some strains of popular opinion, cooperation between government and religion in the provision of social services is not a new idea. It predates this Administration's "faithbased initiatives" and even the 1996 "charitable choice" provision. This cooperation-often between government and religiously affiliated organizations that are not pervasively religiousdemonstrates the right way for religion and government to partner in providing social services to those in need.

6 Indeed, the BJC Board adopted a "Resolution on the Charitable Choice Provision in the New Welfare Act" as early as October 8, 1996.

7 See Bowen v. Kendrick, 487 U.S. 589 (1988); Roemer v. Board of Public Works, 426 U.S. 736 (1976); Hunt v. McNair, 413 U.S. 734 (1973); and Tilton v. Richardson, 403 U.S. 672 (1971).

In a pervasively religious institution, the money that goes into one pocket goes into all of its pockets. Proponents of "charitable choice" who claim that the provision does not violate the separation of church and state point to a provision that bars government funds from paying for "sectarian worship, instruction or proselytization." However, this so-called "protection" is illusory since privately-funded sectarian worship, instruction or proselytization may operate throughout the tax-funded program. Even if one purports to pay for only the soup and sandwich through a government grant, these funds will necessarily free up other money to pay the preacher to bless the meal and deliver a sermon after dinner. In short, "charitable choice" unconstitutionally funds government services that are delivered in a thoroughly religious environment.

Second, "charitable choice" violates the rights of taxpayers. Just as funding pervasively religious organizations violates the First Amendment's Establishment Clause, taking my taxes to pay for your religious organization, or vice versa, violates the First Amendment's free exercise principles. Although the Supreme Court has never ruled that taxpayers have standing to assert a free exercise challenge to a funding scheme, I believe this is exactly what Thomas Jefferson had in mind when he said that "to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical."8 It was over 200 years ago, and it is today. Government should not be allowed to use your tax money to promote my religion.

Third, "charitable choice” results in excessive entanglement between government and religion. It is an iron law of American politics that government regulates what it funds. This is what a Virginia pastor friend of mine meant when he asked government not to give us any "pats on the back." For all too often a friendly pat by Uncle Sam turns into a hostile shove by Big Brother.

Some regulation is outlined in the "charitable choice" legislation itself. As already mentioned, religious organizations that receive grants must make sure that the tax money is not used to pay for "sectarian worship, instruction or proselytization." It is a mystery how this legislative language will be enforced without a government officer standing in the sanctuary or poring over the church books, all the while making razor-thin theological judgments about what amounts to worship, instruction or proselytization. The "charitable choice" provision also requires religious organizations to be audited. If funds are segregated, then the audit would be limited to that funding. If the funds are not so segregated, then government will be able to review all of the church's books.

The regulations set forth in the statute, however, are just the beginning. Other federal and state laws and regulations are triggered by the expenditure of federal tax money. Even in cases where the religious organization agrees with the purpose of those laws and regulations, putting itself in a position to prove the compliance, itself, may be inimical to the autonomy of religious organizations. Ensuring compliance with rules and regulations will also drain the already overtaxed resources of the religious organizations providing services. I agree with the recent observation that churches will spend "more time reading the Federal Register than the Bible." 10 Fourth, "charitable choice" dampens religion's prophetic voice. Religion has historically stood outside of government's control, serving as a critic of government. How can religion continue to raise a prophetic fist against government when it has the other hand open to receive a government handout? It cannot.

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., arguably the twentieth century's best example of religion's prophetic voice, warned:

The church must be reminded that it is not the master or the servant of the state, but rather the conscience of the state. It must be the guide and the critic of the state, and never its tool. If the church does not recapture its prophetic zeal, it will become an irrelevant social club without moral or spiritual authority. ii

But cannot religious organizations simply refuse government funding if it begins to harm their ministries? Yes, that is possible, but not likely. Government money may be irresistible to many churches on meager budgets. "Charitable choice" is a temptation of Biblical proportions. Once the money is taken, religious organizations

8"A Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom," Virginia Assembly, presented June 1779.

9 See generally, Rogers, Melissa, "The Wrong Way to Do Right: Charitable Choice and Churches," in Welfare Reform and Faith-Based Organizations; Derek Davis and Barry Hankins, Editors; J.M. Dawson Institute of Church-State Studies, Baylor University, Waco: 1999; pp. 64-67. 10 Tanner, Michael in "Corrupting Charity: Why Government Should Not Fund Faith-Based Charities", CATO Institute, March 22, 2001.

11 King, Jr. Martin Luther, Strength to Love, 1963.

72-145 D-01--3