to provide the service, would you think it would be appropriate to terminate that employee? Reverend JONES. No, definitely not. I would lose most of my staff. Mr. WATT. All right. So this thing about not having to pay overtime. Reverend JONES. Well, yes. Mr. WATT. That was kind of a flip comment you made? Reverend JONES. It was actually based on an experience that we had with a State employee-not working for us, but working for another agency-that was doing work to help us out; and they actually wanted to stay longer and do something, but their supervisor declined it. If we did, they would have had to pay him overtime if he did it in the capacity we needed him to do it. What I am saying is, I do not require my people to stay overtime, but I chose it and it is okay. Mr. CHABOT. By unanimous consent, the gentleman is recognized for an additional minute if you want to use it. Mr. WATT. Do you have an additional response or the same response, Mr. Clingman, to the question I gave her? Mr. CLINGMAN. My staff will serve until the job is done. We don't have an overtime issue. If there needs to be service rendered after the normal business hours, I have not had any problem rendering that service without any requirement of paying overtime or compensatory time. Mr. WATT. But do you think a nonchurch social services agencydo you think that puts you on a level playing field with a nonchurch social service agency? Mr. CLINGMAN. I would think in a nonchurch agency they probably would have could have some union issues they would have to deal with. Mr. WATT. They have some fair employment practices issues if they are expecting their employees to work. Mr. CLINGMAN. To work overtime? Mr. WATT. Right. Not union issues. It has nothing to do with that. Mr. CLINGMAN. Fair employment issues, that they expect their people to work in excess of 40 hours a week. However, we pride ourselves at the grass-roots level as being available when the services are needed. Mr. CHABOT. The gentleman's time has expired. Are there any additional requests for time? Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman. Mr. CHABOT. Yes. The Ranking Member is recognized. Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be permitted to submit additional materials for the record. Mr. CHABOT. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman. Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Scott is recognized. Mr. SCOTT. I just wanted to ask a follow-up question because we have two different answers to the question of discrimination from Mr. Clingman and Reverend Jones. I was wondering if I could follow up briefly. When I asked them, neither one discriminated based on religion, but there seemed to be some willingness to let someone else discriminate. My question, I guess to Reverend Jones, is, if you had the contract for the reading program and you had all of the qualified reading specialists, and a church down the street won the contract and you lost the contract and they were hiring people, do you expect your former employees, since you have lost the contract, to have all the benefits of the civil rights laws when they apply for a Federal job? Reverend JONES. I don't look at the jobs that we provide at churches as being Federal jobs. Our employees work for the church. Mr. SCOTT. If you have a contract and your contract involves hiring 10 employees, and you have hired 10 employees on that contract and they are the best experienced reading specialists in the area, and you lose the contract to another agency, would your employees expect to be able to apply for the jobs and not be discriminated against? Reverend JONES. Not at other houses of worship, they wouldn't expect it. They wouldn't expect to go into a mosque? Mr. SCOTT. For a Federal job? Reverend JONES. It is not a Federal job if they are working for the church. Mr. SCOTT. But if they are paid for with Federal money and you have got in the area 10 jobs paid for by the Federal Government and that is the contract, would you expect your parishioners to have an absolute right to apply for the jobs and not be discriminated against? When we passed the antidiscrimination laws in 1964, it wasn't unanimous. A lot of people did not like the idea that you had to hire blacks if they are more qualified or had to hire people of different religions if they are more qualified. Reverend JONES. Well, generally speaking, as far as I understand it-and again I am not a legal expert-church employees, regardless of funding source, work for the church. We are paid by the State to provide a service, and we provide that service. But the employees do not report to the State, they report to the church; and my understanding of the issue of maintaining the integrity of a religious organization is that the ideology of the religion is very much a part of that. So most employees who are not sharing that faith, generally speaking, don't expect to go into a church and work in a teaching capacity or anything else; and I would not expect it either. We chose, just based on the makeup of our community, not to discriminate in hiring, but I would not want to force that on the Apostolic church across the street. Mr. CHABOT. The gentleman's time has expired. I want to thank the witnesses for their testimony here this afternoon. I thought it was very, very excellent. And there were some probing questions asked by Members of both sides, and I thought the panel did very well. And again, the purpose of this hearing: There is a discussion about the expansion of charitable choice in this country. The programs already exist, but we want to see what is working out there right now; and particularly Mr. Clingman and Reverend Jones showed us what is happening in their communities and how it is working well. We appreciate your coming here. If there is no further business to come before the Committee, we are adjourned. [Whereupon, at 3:54 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE STEVE CHABOT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO While the First Amendment to the Constitution provides that the government shall not "establish" a particular religion, or religion over non-religion, the First Amendment also provides that the government shall not prohibit the “free exercise” of religion. Consequently, government must ensure that members of organizations seeking to take part in government programs designed to meet basic and universal human needs are not discriminated against because of their religious views. This simple principle of "charitable choice" allows for the public funding of faithbased organizations with demonstrated abilities to meet the needs of their neighbors in trouble while preserving the religious character of those organizations by allowing them to choose their staff, board members, and methods. These principles also protect the rights of conscience of program beneficiaries by ensuring that alternative providers, providers that are unobjectionable to them on religious grounds, are always available. Charitable choice simply means equal access. Charitable choice is not a new idea. Existing charitable choice programs have benefitted thousands of persons in need without raising constitutional concerns in their implementation. Every member of this subcommittee, except for one newly elected member, has previously voted for federal legislation containing charitable choice principles. Of my Democratic colleagues on the subcommittee, most have voted for at least two such pieces of legislation-the Community Service Block Grants Act and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Act. The latter was supported by every Member of the Judiciary Committee and signed into law by President Clinton. That law's purpose, as stated in the legislation itself, is “to prohibit discrimination against nongovernmental organizations and certain individuals on the basis of religion in the distribution of government funds to provide substance abuse services [and to] allow the organizations to accept the funds .. without impairing the religious character of the organizations or the religious freedom of the individuals.” My own state of Ohio has benefitted greatly from charitable choice programs. Along with the states of Texas, Wisconsin, and Indiana, Ohio received an "A" grade for its implementation of charitable choice programs from the Center for Public Justice, a research organization that tracks charitable choice initiatives. It is a tragedy that those moved to help others by the strength of faith-perhaps the most powerful spur to human improvement and the inspiration for untold numbers of selfless acts-face added barriers to federal social service funds, based on misguided understandings of the Constitution's religion clauses. Often it is those whose earthly compassion has the deep roots of faith who stand strongest against the winds of despair. Different rules should not apply to them when they seek to cooperate with the federal government in providing help to the helpless. Some perspective is also in order. For most of American history, social services programs have been run by largely faith-based organizations at the local level, with low administrative costs and a unique understanding of the particular needs of their neighbors in trouble. But now, the government funds, controls, and administers many of these programs-leading to higher taxes, greater inefficiency, and less success. Today, a family with two earners pays over 40 percent of their income for taxes, more than they spend on their own food, clothing, and housing combined. When the government takes so much, little is left for those families to give to their local charities, including faith-based organizations. At the same time, the government too often excludes out-of-hand faith-based organizations from the receipt of government funds even when such organizations can help meet basic human needs most effectively and in accordance with both the free exercise of religion and the Establishment Clause. This is a problem charitable choice programs seek to address. Now some critics of charitable choice programs say they worry that federal funds will be used to preach to people. Implicit in that criticism is the idea that religious persons can't be trusted to follow rules against the use of federal funds for proselytizing activities. Other critics of charitable choice say they worry that churches will become corrupted by money if they receive federal funds. Implicit in that criticism is the idea that religious persons are more prone to corruption than anyone else who receives government funds. I reject those assumptions, and I hope we can all begin a discussion of charitable choice by according those moved by faith the same respect we accord to others. We must not forget that faith lifts the chin of the hopeless. It lifts spirits and helping hands. Faith is the engine that drives millions of Americans to sacrifice for others, and none should remain idle for lack of fuel. It is with an end toward ensuring that no well of compassion goes untapped that charitable choice proposals are made. A first step toward understanding the constitutional issue related to proposals to expand the number of federal programs governed by charitable choice principles is to understand how those principles have been followed thus far. The witnesses before us today have important and insightful stories to tell and I look forward to exploring with them how existing charitable choice programs have been implemented. ARTICLE FROM THE WALL STREET JOURNAL TUESDAY, AUGUST 24, 1999 POLITICS & POLICY 'CHARITABLE CHOICE' TESTS LINE BETWEEN CHURCH, STATE BY ROBERT S. GREENBERGER STAFF REPORTER OF THE WALL STREET JOURNAL WASHINGTON-Operation Blessing, a group founded by Christian activist Pat Robertson that aids the homeless, recently lost a $50,000 federal grant. The reason? The group asked those it helps if they believe that being observant Christians would save them from eternal damnation. The grant was part of a program known as "charitable choice," which Congress approved in 1996 as part of welfare overhaul. Under the program, the U.S. gives funds to religious groups to use to combat poverty and other social ills. Opponents warn that the effort, which is strongly supported by the two presidential frontrunners, Vice President Al Gore and GOP Texas Gov. George W. Bush, will destroy the constitutional separation between church and state by mixing religion and taxpayers' funds. But so far, the possible missteps of Operation Blessing turn out to be an aberration. Many church groups, apparently reluctant to become enmeshed in government rules and bureaucracy, aren't rushing to the federal trough. Most religious organizations that already provide social services and that get federal funds continue to carefully avoid mixing social work and proselytizing, partly out of concern about lawsuits that could lead to legal restrictions on their activities. "With charitable choice, we're finding that, out there, a lot of churches are complying with the constitution," and "they're not proselytizing," says Julie Segal, legislative counsel of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, one of the most outspoken opponents of charitable choice. The group continues to search for a lawsuit to test the constitutionality of the concept. Meanwhile, one reason for the reluctance of many groups to participate may be a disconnect among conservative religious groups. National conservative religious leaders were among the strongest proponents of the charitable-choice provision. But at the local level, conservative congregations seem the least interested among religious groups in participating in charitable choice. In a 1998 survey of 1,236 religious congregations, Mark Chaves, a University of Arizona associate professor of sociology, found that only 24% of those who described themselves as theologically and politically conservative said they would be interested in joining the program, but 47% of self-described liberal or middle-of-the-road groups were interested. Some conservative groups fear that accepting federal funds and the government rules that go with them could lead to a slide toward secularism. "The natural drift of government involvement and government funding is to become more and more like your secular-government host," says Joseph Loconte, an expert on charitable choice at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank. "There is a deep, abid |