Steve Chabot

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I ask our colleagues to join me in recognizing the importance of National Burn Awareness Week that was observed February 3-9, 2002. Burn Awareness Week provides an opportunity to educate children and families about the risks that lead to unfortunate and tragic accidents, particularly for the youngest and most vulnerable--our babies and children. The children of Cincinnati who have been the victims of burn accidents have been benefiting from the service of the Shriners Hospitals for Children since 1968 when the Cincinnati burn center first opened. Unfortunately, infants and young children face greater risks from burn injuries than adults or older children. They rely more on the adults around them to ensure their environment is safe and free from potential burn-causing hazards. That is why in addition to treating over 20 percent of all pediatric burns in the nation at their four national burn centers in Boston, Galveston, Cincinnati and Sacramento, Shriners Hospitals focus on education and prevention of burn injuries. The Shriners Hospitals for Children is a unique charitable organization that has never sought nor received federal, state, local or third party funding of any kind. Additionally, Shriners Hospitals are distinctive in that they offer full physical, psychological, and emotional care to all the children they treat. With the 2002 budget for the 22 orthopaedic and burn hospitals totaling over half a billion dollars, and with an active patient roster at over 156,000 children, it is obvious how important the Shriners Hospitals are to the health of our children. The Shriners Hospitals are 100 percent free, despite the fact that they will spend $1.5 million dollars on children every 24 hours in 2002. In recognition of Burn Awareness Week, Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to commend such charitable organizations as the Shriners Hospitals that contribute greatly to the care, education, and research necessary to treat and work to prevent children's burn accidents.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to take a moment to pay tribute to a member of the ``Greatest Generation'' from the First District of Ohio, Mr. Walter J. Rischmann. Born in Cincinnati, Ohio, on March 28, 1920, Walter served in the U.S. Army during World War II in campaigns in France, Italy, and North Africa, where he took part in the American advance on a key German fortress on Hill 609. This significant battle was featured in the December 27, 1945 issue of Life magazine. Soon after returning home from the war, Walter began working for a lithographing company from which he retired in January 1982. He has eight children, 19 grandchildren, and 14 great grandchildren. Mr. Speaker, the events of September 11 reminded us anew of how much our freedom and security depends on the heroic service and bravery of men like Walter Rischmann. On behalf of the Ohio community that Walter has devotedly served all his life, I'd like to extend my fondest regards and gratitude to this fine American.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. American consumers essentially are being ripped off and the time has come for Congress to finally do something about it. The sugar program guarantees domestic cane sugar and beet sugar producers a minimum price for sugar which, at times, during the past year was about three times the world market price. The sugar program supports domestic sugar prices by offering loans to sugar producers at a rate established by law, 18 cents per pound for raw cane sugar, 22.9 cents per pound for refined beet sugar, with sugar serving as collateral for these loans. The sugar program keeps the price of sugar artificially inflated and above the world market price. In 1998, the General Accounting Office found that the Federal sugar program cost American consumers more than $1.9 billion, almost $2 billion, up from $500 million from the $1.4 billion inflated cost cited in a similar 1993 GAO study. It is time for Congress to eliminate this particularly egregious form of corporate welfare for the sugar-producing industry. American consumers essentially get hit twice. Their hard-earned tax dollars are being used to fund a wasteful program, which, in turn, results in artificially higher prices of sugar and sugar products on the grocery self. Any way we look at it, it is bad business. Their tax dollars are being wasted, and then they are paying higher prices at the grocers, so they get hit twice. Mr. Chairman, I urge support of the amendment.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, tonight we stand with our President as our Nation prepares to do battle with those who seek to destroy the American way of life. Tonight we vote to give our President full authority to use America's full military might against those responsible for this week's despicable attacks against the United States and its people. A strong response to the deplorable attacks on the United States is essential. The terrorist infrastructure must be destroyed, and the message must go out to all who seek to harm us in the future that America will respond to cowardly acts of violence against our people quickly and decisively. These are dark days for America, but we will work together to seek justice for the victims of terrorism and to ensure that such contemptible acts never again occur. Mr. Speaker, I urge support of the resolution. God bless America.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. The United States of America is a great nation with a compelling history. Over 200 years ago, we overcame long odds to create a new country and form a more perfect union. Since that time, we have withstood a depression, assassinations, natural disasters; we fought a Civil War, two world wars, and the Cold War. We have faced many trials and many enemies. And each time we have come together as one Nation, one people; and we have triumphed. Now we face a new challenge. September 11th, 2001, yesterday, will indelibly be etched in the minds of every American. It is another day that will live in infamy. Words alone cannot describe the enormity of yesterday's events. These vicious terrorist attacks represent nothing less than a declaration of war against our Nation. And as with any war, we must fight to win. We must use every investigative and military resource at our disposal to find and punish the individuals and governments responsible for these reprehensible crimes. The full power of the United States should be brought to bear against the cowards who carried out these attacks against innocent men, women, and children. As President Bush said last night, no distinction should be made between those who committed these atrocities and those who provide safe harbor and encouragement. The United States is a nation like no other. We are the world's greatest democracy, a nation that gives hope to the downtrodden and oppressed everywhere. We are a nation based on the principles of freedom and liberty. And while we have seen the light of freedom flicker and fade at times for many other people around the globe, it has always burned strong here in America. So, as in the past, we will rise above the confusion and despair of yesterday. We will prevail over those who seek to destroy our way of life. The future will bring new hope, and we will again join together as one Nation and show the world what being an American is all about. Our prayers go out to all the victims and their families. God bless them and God bless America.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, this morning I would like to pay a special tribute to a recently departed friend, Father Jim Willig, a dedicated and dynamic Catholic priest who was called by our Lord last month after a 2-year battle with cancer. Even while suffering from a debilitating illness, Father Willig continued to give to our community, sharing his memories and his message and inspirational book: Lessons From the School of Suffering: A Young Priest With Cancer Teaches Us How to Live. The Cincinnati Enquirer noted that even while he faced impending death, ``his faith remained strong and was an inspiration to others, like a lighthouse on a dark and storm-tossed sea.'' The Cincinnati Post accurately stated that ``few touched as many lives as Father Jim Willig.'' Father Willig will be sorely missed in the Cincinnati community, not only by his parents and 10 brothers and sisters and nieces and nephews, but by the countless people he has touched in his ministry. Father Jim, your flock deeply misses you, but we know you are with our Lord.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, as we debate this bill today, I would ask my colleagues not to let partisanship cloud their judgment on this proposal. The purpose of this bill is to help people. This is not some great scheme to funnel tax dollars to religious organizations or to force people to seek social services from religious providers. This bill will provide new hope and new opportunities to thousands of Americans. It will help the homeless, the hungry, and the downtrodden, and it will help those in need. Over the past several months, the House Subcommittee on the Constitution held several hearings that looked at charitable choice programs and the role that faith-based organizations can play in the delivery of social services. We heard compelling testimony about the work of faith-based organizations that have received Federal funding under current law. It is the current law now. And we discussed and debated the constitutional issues surrounding this legislative proposal. And at the conclusion of these hearings, two points were very clear. First, the charitable choice provisions of H.R. 7 are completely consistent with the Constitution. And second, faith- based organizations play a vital role in providing social services to the most desperate among us. I would like to quote from a speech that was made a while back to the Salvation Army: ``The men and women who work in faith-based organizations are driven by their spiritual commitment. They have sustained the drug addicted, the mentally ill, the homeless, they have trained them, they have educated them, they have cared for them. Most of all, they have done what government can never do: they have loved them.'' Do my colleagues know who said that? Al Gore. Now I do not always agree with Al Gore, but I certainly agree with him in that particular instance. This is legislation which is very important to the President. I want to thank the chairman, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), for getting us to this point today. We want to make sure that this withstands any constitutional challenge that might be made against it. This is excellent legislation which will literally help thousands and thousands of the most desperately needy people in this country. I want to thank the chairman for his leadership again on this. Let us pass this legislation today. It is important to an awful lot of people. Responses to False Democratic Claims in Their Dissenting Views in the Committee Report Claimed comparison of H.R. 7 with language of 1996 Welfare Reform Act Footnote 7 of the Dissenting Views states that H.R. 7 does not contain language from the 1996 Welfare Reform Act that indicated its provisions were not intended to supercede State law, and therefore the absence of that provision from H.R. 7 means it somehow preempts State law. That is a mischaracterization of the provision in the 1996 Welfare Reform Act. The provision referred to in the 1996 Act was simply a ``savings clause'' that recognized that some states have provisions in their constitutions and state laws that don't allow them to spend state funds on faith-based organizations. The savings clause simply recognized that in those states with such laws, they could continue to segregate state funds as required by state law, but that they could also use federal funds in accordance with the charitable choice provisions of the 1996 Welfare Reform Act. Conference Report 104-430, accompanying H.R. 4, 104th Congress, 1st Session (December 20, 1995), at 361--the previously adopted welfare reform bill with the identical subsection (k) as that found in the Welfare Reform Act of 1996--provides the following explanation for the subsection: ``Subsection (k) states that nothing in this section shall be construed to preempt State constitutions or statutes which restrict the expenditure of State funds in or by religious organizations. In some States, provisions of the State constitution or a State statute prohibit the expenditure of public funds in or by sectarian institutions. It is the intent of Congress, however, to encourage States to involve religious organizations in the delivery of welfare services to the greatest extent possible. The conferees do not intend that this language be construed to required that funds provided by the Federal government referred to in subsection (a) be segregated and expended under rules different than funds provided by the State for the same purposes; however, States may revise such laws, or segregate State and Federal funds, as necessary to allow full participation in these programs by religious organizations.'' H.R. 7 gives states the same option. Subsection (j) provides that insofar as states use federal funds, or mingle state and federal funds, and uses them for covered programs, the federal rules in H.R. 7 apply. If states separate out their state funds, then they can of course use them without any federal conditions attaching. Claim that millions of dollars already go to groups like Catholic Charities, so there is no problem to fix The Dissenting Views point out that millions of dollars go to large organizations such as Catholic Charities every year, but fails to mention these are large, separately incorporated and secularized organizations, not churches. The purpose of H.R. 7 is to allow small religious organizations to be able to compete for social service funds by removing barriers to entry and allowing them to serve as churches, and to provide social services in their churches without having to rent out separate, expensive office space, or having to hire lawyers to create separate corporations. Claim that H.R. 7 preempts general state and local nondiscrimination in employment laws The Dissenting Views states that under H.R. 7 a national religious organization could choose to accept a single federal grant and attempt to use that as a shield against laws protecting gay and lesbian employment rights in all 50 states. This is wrong. Subsections (d) and (e) in H.R. 7 do not constitute a general preemption clause, but a narrow statutory right afforded faith-based organizations to help them preserve their religious liberty when they are using federal funds during the course of a federally funded program and encourage their participation in the delivery of social services for the poor and the needy. When a religious organization is not using federal funds during the hours of a federally funded program, which will be most of the time, the protections of H.R. 7 do not apply, and all State and local nondiscrimination in employment laws that are not tied to government funding, including those that prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation, remain in effect. For example, in 16 states, employers with a single employee are covered by their state's civil rights law. Others set the minimum number of employees between 4 and 10. Ohio's employment discrimination law covers employers with 4 or more employees; Oh.St. Sec. 4112.01(A)(2); Wisconsin's covers employers with 1 or more employees; Wi.St. 111.32(6)(a); Massachusetts' covers employers with 6 or more employees; Ma.St. 151B Sec. 1(5); New York's covers employers with 4 or more employees; N.Y.Exec. Sec. 292(5); Michigan's covers employers with 1 or more employees; Mi.St. Sec. 37.2201(a); California's covers employers with 5 or more employees; Ca.Civil Sec. 51.5(a). Also, the provisions of H.R. 7 will not apply whenever a State or local government chooses to separate its federal funds from its non-federal funds. Experience from existing charitable choice laws that contain the very same provisions as H.R. 7--and which have been on the books for five years--has shown that this narrow statutory right will not need to be invoked very often, if ever. Claim that the House has never previously considered the details of charitable choice provisions Contrary to the assertion in the Dissenting Views, the House has voted several times on amendments offered by Mr. Scott to strip away charitable choice provisions that would allow religious organizations to continue to be able to hire based on religion while taking part on federal programs. The Fathers Count Act of 1999 contained the charitable choice provisions of the Welfare Reform Act of 1996. Mr. Scott offered a motion to recommit the bill with instructions to remove the charitable choice provision allowing religious organizations receiving funds under the designated programs to make employment decisions on religious grounds. This motion was defeated 176-246, by a 70 vote margin including 34 Democrats. The bill was then adopted by the House by a vote of 328-93, by a 235 vote margin. Constitution subcommittee Ranking Member Nadler voted for the bill, as did four other Democratic Members of the House Judiciary Committee. Those other Members were Sheila Jackson-Lee, Boucher, Delahunt, and Meehan. The Child Support Distribution Act of 2000 also contained the charitable choice provisions of the Welfare Reform Act of 1996. Mr. Scott's motion to recommit with instructions would have removed the charitable choice provision allowing participating religious organizations to make employment decisions on religious grounds. The motion was defeated 175- 249, by a 74 vote margin including 30 Decmocrats. The bill was then adopted by a vote of 405-18, by a 387 vote margin. Constitution Subcommittee Ranking Member Nadler voted for the bill, as did eight other Democratic Members of the House Judiciary Committee. Those other Members were Conyers, Watt Jackson-Lee, Lofgren, Berman, Boucher, Meehan, Delahunt, Wexler, Baldwin, and Weiner. Claims regarding statements made by President Clinton when he signed previous charitable chioce laws The Dissenting Views incorrectly state that prior charitable choice laws were enacted without the support of President Clinton, and they cite President Clinton's statement when he signed the re-authorization measure for the Community Services Block Grants Program (``CSBG'') into law that its charitable choice provisions should not be used to fund `` `pervasively sectarian' organizations, as tha term has been defined by the courts.'' 134 Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents 2148 (Nov. 2, 1998) (Statement on Signing the Community Opportunities, Accountability, and Training and Educational Services Act of 1998). However, the courts have since abandoned the ``pervasively sectarian'' test, and President Clinton's later statements on charitable choice provisions in October and December 2000, do not rely on the pervasively sectarian test, and those statements in fact support H.R. 7. The Congressional Research Service concluded in the December 27, 2000, Report to Congress on Charitable Choice, that ``In its most recent decisions[,] the [Supreme] Court appears to have abandoned the presumption that some religious institutions, such as sectarian elementary and secondary schools, are so pervasively sectarian that they are constitutionally ineligible to participate in direct public aid programs.'' CRS Report, at 29. Indeed, on October 17, 2000, President Clinton stated his constitutional concerns regarding the implementation of the charitable choice provisions in Substsance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (``SAMHSA'') programs as follows: ``This bill includes a provision making clear that religious organizations may qualify for SAMHSA's substance abuse prevention and treatment grants on the same basis as other nonprofit organizations. The Department of Justice advises, however, that this provision would be unconstitutional to the extent that it were construed to permit governmental funding of organizations that do not or cannot separate their religious activities from their substance abuse treatment and prevention activities that are supported by SAMHSA aid. Accordingly, I construe the act as forbidding the funding of such organizations and as permitting Federal, State, and local governments involved in disbursing SAMHSA funds to take into account the structure and operations of a religious organization in determining whether such an organization is constitutionally and statutorily eligible to receive funding.'' Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents (Oct. 23, 2000) (Statement on Signing the Children's Health Act of 2000), p. 2504. He made an identical statement regarding the charitable choice provisions in the Community Renewal Tax Relief Act when he signed that measure into law on December 15, 2000. See White House Office of the Press Secretary, ``Statement of the President Upon Signing H.R. 4577, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, FY 2001'' (December 22, 2000), at 8. These concerns are the same as those addressed by the provision in subsection (j) of the Charitable Choice Act of 2001, which provides that, ``No funds provided through a grant or cooperative agreement to a religious organization to provide assistance under any [covered] program . . . shall be expended for sectarian instruction, worship, or proselytization. If the religious organization offers such an activity, it shall be voluntary for the individuals receiving services and offered separate from the program funded under subsection (c)(4).'' The required separation would not be met where the government-funded program entails worship, sectarian instruction, or proselytizing. Under subsection (j), there are to be no practices constituting ``religious indoctrination'' performed by an employee while working in a Government-funded program. The same is true for volunteers. Claim that current charitable choice laws have been barely implemented The Dissenting Views states that current charitable choice laws have barely been implemented. This is untrue. Existing charitable choice programs have had a significant impact on social welfare. Dr. Amy Sherman of the Hudson Institute has conducted the most extensive survey of existing charitable choice programs. Dr. Sherman concluded that, currently, ``All together, thousands of welfare recipients are benefiting from services now offered through FBOs [faith-based organizations] and congregations working in tandem with local and state welfare agencies.'' Dr. Amy S. Sherman, ``The Growing Impact of Charitable Choice: A Catalogue of New Collaborations Between Government and Faith-Based Organizations in Nine States'' (``Growing Impact''), The Center for Public Justice Charitable Choice Tracking Project (March 2000) at 8. Dr. Sherman also found that fears of aggressive evangelism by publicly funded faith-based organizations have little basis in fact. According to Dr. Sherman: ``[O]ut of the thousands of beneficiaries engaged in programs offered by FBOs [faith- based organizations] collaborating with government, interviewees reported only two complaints by clients who felt uncomfortable with the religious organization from which they received help. In both cases--in accordance with Charitable Choice guidelines--the client simply opted out of the faith- based program and enrolled in a similar program operated by a secular provider. In summary, in nearly all the examples of collaboration studied, what Charitable Choice seeks to accomplish is in fact being accomplished: the religious integrity of the FBOs working with government is being protected and the civil liberties of program beneficiaries enrolled in faith-based programs are being respected. Id. at 11 (emphasis added). Religious groups in the nine states Dr. Sherman surveyed also registered few complaints about their government partners. According to Dr. Sherman, ``The vast majority reported that the church-state question was a `non- issue,' and that they enjoyed the trust of their government partners and that they had been straightforward about their religious identify.'' Id. The success of existing charitable choice programs had led the National Conference of State Legislatures (``NCSL'') to support their expansion. According to Sheri Steisel, director of NCSL's Human Services Committee, ``In many communities, the only institutions that are in a position to provide human services are faith-based organizations. Providing grants to or entering into cooperative agreements with faith-based and other community organizations to provide government services is something that has proven effective in the states over the past five years. As welfare reform continues to evolve, it is important that government at all levels continues to explore innovative ways to provide services to its constituents. We are extremely pleased that the President is joining the states in exploring these new opportunities.'' News Release, ``Faith Based Initiatives Nothing New to Nation's State Lawmakers'' (January 30, 2001). Some states have embraced charitable choice to the tune of spending hundreds of thousands of dollars or, in some cases, millions in contracts with congregations and other organizations that would not otherwise have been eligible. See Associated Press, Survey Highlights Charitable Choice (March 19, 2001). Claim regarding the number of ``charitable choice'' lawsuits filed The Dissenting Views states that there have been five lawsuits filed challenging existing charitable choice laws. That is not true. The Dissenting Views mention three lawsuits that do not involve the terms of federal charitable choice programs, and another has already been dismissed as moot: American Jewish Congress v. Bernick, (San Francisco County Superior Court, filed January 31, 2001) (challenging a program announced in August 2000 by the California Department of Employment Development to fund job training offered by groups that had never before contracted with government; charging that only religious organizations were eligible to compete). The State of California filed an affidavit in the case stating no TANF funds were used in the program. Pedreira v. Kentucky Baptist Home for Children, Case No. -- (E.D. Ky., filed April 17, 2000) (charging that the dismissal of an employee, who was employed to help the Kentucky Baptist Home for Children distribute state funds for the provision of child care, on the grounds that her sexual orientation was contrary to the employer's religious tenets violates the establishment of religion clause). No federal funds were used in this case, so the lawsuit does not involve a federal charitable choice program. In Lara v. Tarrant County, 2001 WL 721076 (Tex.), the court stated that ``This case involves a dispute over a religious- education program in a Tarrant County jail facility. Our inquiry focuses on the Chaplain's Education Unit, a separate unit within the Tarrant County Corrections Center, where inmates can volunteer for instruction in a curriculum approved by the sheriff and director of chaplaincy at the jail as consistent with the sheriff's and chaplain's views of Christianity.'' American Jewish Congress and Texas Civil Rights Project v. Bost, No. -- (Travis County, Texas, filed July 24, 2000) was dismissed as moot on January 29, 2001. Claim that H.R. 7 requirement that an alternative unobjectionable on religious grounds is available is an ``unfunded mandate'' The Dissenting Views state that H.R. 7's requirement that an alternative be available that is unobjectionable to a beneficiary on religious grounds is an ``unfunded mandate.'' This is not true. As the Congressional Budget Office points out in its statement on H.R. 7, ``All of [the charitable choice] requirements are conditions of federal assistance, and therefore, are not mandates under UMRA [the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act].'' Claim that children could be subject to ``peer pressure'' to engage in proselytizing activity The Dissenting Views worry about children being subject to ``peer pressure'' that leads them to take part in sectarian activities outside a federal program. H.R. 7 excludes from covered programs those that include ``activities carried out under Federal programs providing education to children eligible to attend elementary schools or secondary schools, as defined in section 14101 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 8801),'' except it does not exclude activities ``related to the prevention and treatment of juvenile delinquency and the improvement of the juvenile justice system, including programs funded under the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5601 et seq.).'' Children eligible to attend elementary schools or secondary schools is defined in Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, 20 U.S.C. Sec. 8801(3), as follows: ``The term `child' means any person within the age limits for which the State provides free public education.'' Also, H.R. 7 makes clear that any sectarian instruction, worship, or proselytizing activities must be conducted separate and apart from the federally-funded program, and any children taking part in any such activities would be doing so under the normal doctrines of guardianship law. Claim that H.R. 7 allows discrimination against beneficiaries The Dissenting Views incorrectly states that H.R. 7 allows discrimination against beneficiaries because its terms only refer to a prohibition on discrimination against beneficiaries on the basis of religion. First, courts will interpret ``on the basis of religion'' in the same way they do when interpreting the Title VII exemption, which is to also include within ``religion'' an organization's beliefs regarding lifestyle. Courts have held that the Sec. 702 exemption to Title VII applies not just when religious organizations favor persons of their own denomination. Rather, the cases permit them to staff on the basis of their faith or doctrine. See Little v. Wuerl, 929 F.2d 944 (3d Cir. 1991) (Catholic school declines to renew contract of teacher upon her second marriage); Hill v. Baptist Memorial Health Care Corporation, 215 F.2d 618 (6th Cir. 2000) (dismissing woman when she became associated with church supportive of homosexual lifestyle and announced she was lesbian). H.R. 7's provisions in subsection (h)(1) prevent religious organizations taking part in covered programs from discriminating against beneficiaries of grant programs on the basis of a refusal to hold a religious belief. Therefore, a religious organization could not discriminate against homosexual beneficiaries of grant programs because they do not adhere to a religious belief that homosexuality is a sin. Also, Title VII does not exempt a religious organization from a discrimination claim based on sex, and Title VII treats discrimination against a woman because of her pregnancy as discrimination based on sex, and prohibits it. The answer is the same whether the woman is married or unmarried. Further, H.R. 7 does not preempt State or local laws protecting beneficiaries from discrimination, including State or local laws that prohibit discrimination against homosexuals in the receipt of social services. Claim that beneficiaries don't have a right under H.R. 7 to enforce discrimination claims in court The Dissenting Views state that beneficiaries facing discrimination do not have a right to enforce their rights in court. This is patently untrue. Any beneficiary who is discriminated against may sue, in federal court, a State or locality under subsection (n) and get them to stop any discrimination going on in a covered program that denies a beneficiary access to a service on the basis of religion, a religious belief, or a refusal to hold a religious belief. A beneficiary who is protected by any other State or local law protecting beneficiaries in the receipt of services can enforce their rights in court under those laws as well. Beneficiaries are also protected against discrimination based on race under Title VI. Claim that subsection (l) regarding indirect funding was ``hidden in the fine print'' The Dissenting Views claim that subsection (l) was hidden ``in the fine print'' of the manager's amendment and ``added in the middle of the night.'' Well, subsection (l) was typed on the page in the same font and font size as any other provision in the amendment, and the amendment was distributed the afternoon before the markup, at about 3 o'clock. Subsection (l) was not buried in a footnote. Indeed, the entire charitable choice sections of the amendment consisted of a mere 13 pages, double spaced, in standard legislative counsel format. Of course, we had been working on changes, but we didn't have the final draft until that afternoon and therefore couldn't distribute it to our Republican Members until the day before the markup too. Claims on indirect funding that are internally inconsistent The Dissenting Views are internally inconsistent on the significance of indirect funding. On the one hand, on page 305, they state that indirect funding of religious organizations is objectionable because when a religious organization engages in sectarian instruction, worship, or proselytizing with indirect funds, it is still doing so ``with Federal funds.'' But on page 298, the Democrats say it's all right for religious organizations to hire staff based on religion when they receive Federal funds indirectly. Apparently there is dissent even within the Dissenting Views. Claim that ``you can't have it both ways'' on non- proselytization and hiring on a religious basis The Dissenting Views state that the Majority ``cannot have it both ways--either the Federal funds will be used for religious purposes, in which case there may be a justification for tolerating religious discrimination [in hiring]; or the funds will be used in a non-sectarian manner, in which case there is no reason to discriminate [in hiring] on the basis of religion.'' This totally misses the point that faith-based organizations perform secular social services motivated by religious conviction. They want to provide social services as a church. While the task of serving the poor and the needy is ``secular'' from the perspective of the government, from the viewpoint of the faith-based organization and its workers it is a ministry of mercy driven by faith and guided by faith. As the Reverend Donna Jones of North Philadelphia stated in her testimony before the House Subcommittee on the Constitution, she and her fellow church members did not want to set up a separate secular organization to perform good works because they were motivated to perform those good works together as a church, and they wanted to retain their identity as a church when they provided the services. Justice Brennan makes this same point in his concurring opinion in the Amos case, which upheld the current Title VII exemption for religious organizations seeking to preserve the religious character of their organization. Justice Brennan recognized that many religious organizations and associations engage in extensive social welfare and charitable activities, such as operating soup kitchens and day care centers or providing aid to the poor and the homeless. Even where the content of such activities is secular--in the sense that it does not include religious teaching, proselytizing, prayer or ritual--he recognized that the religious organization's performance of such functions is likely to be ``infused with a religious purpose.'' Amos, 483 U.S. at 342 (Brennan, J., concurring). He also recognized that churches and other religious entities ``often regard the provision of such services as a means of fulfilling religious duty and providing an example of the way of life a church seeks to foster.'' Id. at 344. Perhaps one of the greatest liberal Justices, then, recognized that preserving the Title VII exemption when religious organizations engage in social services is a necessary element of religious freedom. Mostly importantly, faith-based organization employees and volunteers can do their good works out of religious motive. While the task of helping the poor and needy is ``secular'' from the perspective of the Government, from the viewpoint of the faith-based organization and its workers it is a ministry of mercy driven by faith and guided by faith. Claim that H.R. 7 allows a faith-based organization to discriminate based on interracial dating or marriage The Dissenting Views claim that H.R. 7 will permit employment discrimination on the basis of interracial marriage. The cited source, an NAACP memo, plays off Bob Jones University v. United States, 461 U.S. 574 (1983). The claim in false. Title VII prohibits racial discrimination in employment by faith-based organizations. It is an act of facial discrimination to fire a while person because he or she marries a black person. There are no reported cases of anyone ever being allowed to be discriminated against by an organization due to interracial dating or marriage under Title VII. Finally, in no way does H.R. 7 overrule the Bob Jones case. The case involved a challenge to a 1971 IRS Ruling which denied tax exempt status, under 501(c)(3), to any school which engaged in racial discrimination, and the Bob Jones University prohibited interracial dating by its students. The IRS Ruling has nothing to do with federal funding. H.R. 7 does not affect the Supreme Court's decision in any way. The IRS Ruling #71-447 continues in full force and effect. Claim that Justice O'Connor disapproves of direct funding of religious organizations In Justice O'Connor's view, monetary payments are just a factor to consider, not controlling. Also, please note that Justice O'Connor concurred in the opinion in Bowen v. Kendrick, where she joined in approving direct cash grants to religious organizations, even in the particularly ``sensitive'' area of teenage sexual behavior, as long as there is no actual ``use of public funds to promote religious doctrines.'' Bowen v. Kendrick, 487 U.S. 589, 623 (1988) (O'Connor, J., concurring).

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I rise in opposition to the substitute amendment of the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt). The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) has, in essence, indicated that it is going to be difficult or perhaps impossible to differentiate between appropriate burning of the flag or proper burning of the flag and an inappropriate or desecrating of the flag. This argument has been made other times. How do we differentiate between the two? This is done by tradition and by practice. For 100 years, our courts and the American people were able to tell the difference between desecration and the proper disposal of worn flags. In the absence of a provision of some way to dispose of American flags, we would have to maintain them into perpetuity. It did not present a problem before, it has not throughout our Nation's history, and there is no reason to think it would be a problem now. In 1989, Congress passed the Flag Protection Act and was able to define desecration and flag. Additionally, the U.S. Code defines the terms and it always has. In any event, we trust the good common sense of the American people and the fairness of the courts to resolve any unforeseen problems. And, ultimately, that is what would happen if there was a disagreement on whether something was an appropriate disposal of a flag in one person's mind or desecration in the other. The courts could step in, as has happened in the past. We should be able to easily differentiate between a ceremony that many of us have gone to on Memorial Day, for example. Many of us go back into our districts and participate in those ceremonies. That is clearly different than a person who goes out and desecrates a flag or sets it on fire, as has happened. Again, some have argued this does not happen any more. It has happened 86 times in the recent past, in 29 States and in the District of Columbia and in Puerto Rico, for example. We are able to differentiate, just as we are able to differentiate, for example, a surgeon who has a scalpel and operates on a person to assist them, to do something, to cure a disease or to cure some problem that person has from another person coming up with a knife and stabbing a person with it. It is easy to differentiate between the two, just as it is easy to differentiate between appropriate disposal of the flag and not appropriate disposal. The gentleman's substitute amendment, again, says ``not inconsistent with the first article of amendment of this constitution.'' We already know what this Supreme Court, at least five of the justices of the Supreme Court, think about desecration of the flag. We know that they think that it amounts to expression and that that is protected by the first amendment in that 5 to 4 decision. And since this language would come first in the amendment, it would be controlling. So, in essence, if we would pass the substitute amendment of the gentleman from North Carolina as he proposes, it would appear that we are passing an amendment to protect the flag, to stop desecration of the flag in this country; but in essence, we would be passing absolutely nothing. It would be a sham. For that reason, I oppose the amendment.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) for his leadership in pushing for this amendment to be argued and debated today on the floor of the House. I also want to thank the principal sponsor of this constitutional amendment, the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), who spoke with such emotion and so eloquently just a few moments ago. No one is more qualified in actually putting his life on the line for his country than the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham). I want to thank him for that. The flag is the most powerful symbol of the ideals upon which America was founded. It is a national asset that helps to protect and preserve our unity, our freedom, and our liberty as Americans. As our country has grown and welcomed those from diverse religious and cultural backgrounds, the flag's power to unify our Nation has become even more evident, bringing together all Americans, young and old, to champion those principles upon which this country was built, principles for which our servicemen and women have fought and died, and principles that have moved so many individuals throughout history to leave their homes and families and travel to America to build a new life. A symbol that binds a nation together, as our flag does, already fulfills a unique role in our democratic process. Since 1994, however, there have been at least 86 reported incidences of flag desecration. These incidences have occurred in 29 States. They have occurred here in the District of Columbia. They have occurred in Puerto Rico. Since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Texas v. Johnson that burning an American flag as part of a political demonstration was expressive conduct protected by the first amendment to the United States Constitution, the States have been powerless to prevent the physical desecration of this most valued symbol. In response to Johnson in September, 1989, Congress overwhelmingly passed the Flag Protection Act of 1989, which amended the Federal Flag Statute to focus exclusively on the conduct of the act, irrespective of any expressive message he or she might be intending to convey. Later that year, however, in another five to four ruling in the U.S. Supreme Court, United States v. Eichman, they struck down that act as an infringement of expressive conduct protected by the first amendment. Because of the Johnson and Eichman decisions, the only remedy left to Congress to protect the flag from acts of desecration is a constitutional amendment. Many would argue that we should not amend the Constitution for this purpose. This is the only way that we can protect the flag. The amendment before the House would restore to Congress the authority to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag. The amendment, as the chairman stated, itself does not prohibit flag desecration. It merely empowers Congress to enact legislation to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag, and establishes boundaries within which it may legislate. Work on a statute will come at a later date, after the amendment is ratified by three-fourths of the States. Vigilant protection of freedom of speech and, in particular, political speech is central to our political system. Until the Johnson and Eichman cases, however, punishing flag desecration had been viewed as compatible with both the letter and the spirit of the first amendment. The first amendment freedoms do not extend and should not be extended to grant an individual an unlimited right to engage in any form of desired conduct under the cloak of free expression. Both State and Federal criminal codes are full of examples of conduct that is prohibited in our country, regardless of whether it is cloaked in the first amendment. Furthermore, obscenity laws, libel and slander laws, copyright laws, and even perjury laws, they all reflect the fact that some forms of expression and sometimes even the content of that expression may be regulated and even prohibited without violating the first amendment. We cannot burn our draft cards. We cannot burn money. There are many acts we cannot perform. The flag protection amendment simply reflects society's interest in maintaining the flag as a national symbol by protecting it from acts of physical desecration. It will not interfere with an individual's ability to express his or her ideas, whatever they may be, by any other means. This amendment has been approved by this Chamber twice and enjoys the support of a supermajority of the House of Representatives. It is supported by a majority of the United States Senators and 49 out of 50 State legislatures, which have passed resolutions calling on Congress to pass the amendment and send it back to the States for ratification. Perhaps, most importantly, the amendment is supported by an overwhelming majority of the American people. It is time for Congress to answer their calls to preserve and protect the one symbol that embodies all that our Nation represents. For the veterans who risked their lives for our country and our freedoms, for our children who view our flag with admiration and devotion, and for every American who believes that our flag deserves protection, I urge my colleagues to support this important amendment.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I rise in support of the rule. The American flag serves a unique role as the symbol of the ideals upon which America was founded. It is a national asset that helps to preserve our unity, our freedom, and our liberty as Americans. This symbol represents our country's many hard-won freedoms paid for with the lives of thousands and thousands of young men and women over this Nation's history. For years, 48 States and the District of Columbia enforced laws prohibiting the physical desecration of the American flag. In the 1989 Texas v. Johnson ruling, the United States Supreme Court in a 5-4 vote overthrew what until then had been settled law and ruled that flag desecration as a means of public protest is an act of free expression protected by the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution. A year later, essentially reiterating its Johnson ruling, the court in U.S. v. Eichman, another 5-4 ruling, by the way, struck down a Federal statute prohibiting the physical desecration of the flag despite the court's own conclusion that the statute was content- neutral. In the years since these two rulings were handed down, 49 States have passed resolutions calling upon this Congress to pass a flag protection amendment and send it back to the States for ratification. Although a constitutional amendment should be approached only after much reflection, the U.S. Supreme Court's conclusions in the Johnson and the Eichman cases have left the American people with no other alternative but to amend the Constitution to provide Congress the authority to prohibit the physical desecration of the American flag. The amendment enjoys strong support throughout the Nation, indicating that it will likely be adopted by the States should this Congress approve the language. I urge my colleagues to approve this rule and move to full debate and pass H.J. Res. 36.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce) for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Royce amendment, and I commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce) for his hard work on this issue. Mr. Chairman, this is one of the most egregious examples of taxpayer subsidized corporate welfare, the MAP program. Hardworking taxpayers should not have to subsidize the advertising costs of America's private corporations. Yet that is exactly what the MAP program does. Since 1986, the Federal Government has extracted nearly $2 billion from the pockets of American taxpayers and handed it over to multimillion dollar corporations and cooperatives to subsidize their marketing programs in foreign countries. When Congress, back in 1996, in the farm bill required MAP funds to be limited to farmer cooperatives and trade associations, proponents argued that the MAP funds would only be used to help small businesses and farmers. In fact, much of the funding went to large trade associations made up of some of the largest and most profitable corporations. Mr. Chairman, Congress should end the practice of wasting tax dollars on special-interest spending programs and unfairly take money from hard working families to help profitable private companies pad their bottom line. MAP is a massive corporate welfare program that we should eliminate today.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman), the principal sponsor of the legislation.

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2131) to reauthorize the Tropical Forest Conservation Act of 1998 through fiscal year 2004, as amended.

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2131, the Tropical Forest Conservation Act reauthorization, and I want to commend the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) for his leadership and hard work on this important legislation. I am proud to be one of the 28 original cosponsors of this piece of legislation. Tropical forests provide a wide variety of benefits to the entire world. They act as carbon sinks, helping to reduce greenhouse gases as they absorb large amounts of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, and provide habitat for many plant species that are used to develop lifesaving medicines and pharmaceutical products. It has been estimated that up to 30 million acres of tropical forests are lost each year, an area roughly the size of Pennsylvania. This alarming rate of destruction emphasizes the need to act, and act quickly, to preserve these valuable assets for future generations. The Tropical Forest Conservation Act reauthorization is a sound, free-market approach to a very serious global environmental problem. It will encourage the preservation of tropical forests without creating a burden on the American taxpayer. It is a good, sensible piece of legislation. It is worthy of our support, and I urge its adoption. Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) for proposing this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), also a distinguished member of the Committee on International Relations.

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), one of the distinguished members of the Committee on International Relations. (Mr. BEREUTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 2131, the bill under consideration.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from North Carolina for yielding me this time. It has been an honor serving in the House with him. We both came at the same time. He is truly a great American. Mr. Speaker, I am also pleased to join with my very good friend and colleague, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman), in sponsoring H.R. 1000, the William Howard Taft National Historic Site Boundary Adjustment Act of 2001. This legislation will enable the Department of Interior to complete a land transaction that will allow for more contiguous plots of land for President Taft's boyhood home in Cincinnati, Ohio and authorize the acquisition of another parcel of land adjacent to the site. The City of Cincinnati is very proud to be a steward of this national landmark and, as has been stated, the Taft historic site commemorates the birthplace of the only man who served as both President of the United States and as Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court and that is Cincinnati's son, William Howard Taft. During his distinguished career, William Howard Taft served as a Federal judge, as President McKinley's appointee as Governor of the Philippines, as President Theodore Roosevelt's Secretary of War, and in 1909 was sworn in as the 27th President of the United States. In 1921, President Warren Harding appointed him as Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court. The House where President Taft was born has been restored to its original appearance and visitors to the site are treated to a tour of the home, including four period rooms that reflect family life during President Taft's boyhood. The home also includes educational exhibits highlighting the 27th President's life and career, and the Taft Education Center which houses classrooms for visiting school children. Mr. Speaker, thousands of Americans enjoy visiting the William Howard Taft historic site each year. I would urge students of American history to take advantage of this wonderful opportunity when they visit our great city of Cincinnati sometime, we hope, in the near future. I want to again thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) who has been a great leader in this House on many other very, very important pieces of legislation for his hard work on this issue. I urge my colleagues to support the legislation.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to join with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Lampson), my good friend, thanking the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde) for including in his en bloc amendment our amendment, which extends until 2003 the reporting requirement of the State Department on compliance with the provisions of the Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. My colleagues will recall that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Lampson) and I offered legislation last year adopted in both the House and the Senate that urged compliance by signatory countries with the Hague Convention. The legislation became necessary because, sadly, some Hague signatories consistently fail to comply fully with both the letter and the spirit of their international legal obligations under the Convention. The Hague Convention establishes reciprocal rights and duties between and among its contracting states to expedite the return of children to the state of their habitual residence as well as to ensure that rights of custody and of access under the laws in one contracting state are respected in other contracting states. Unfortunately, some parties to the Convention have been routine offenders. My colleagues have often heard me talk about the case of a Cincinnati man, Tom Sylvester, whose then baby daughter, Carina, was abducted by her mother back in 1995 and taken to Austria where she remains today. Six years after the abduction, the case remains unresolved despite a number of court orders in Mr. Sylvester's favor in both the United States and Austria, including an order all the way up to the Austrian Supreme Court in Mr. Sylvester's favor. Unfortunately, the Sylvester case is not a rarity. Every year, more and more American parents suffer similar circumstances and face similar obstacles from other nations, many of whom are signatories of the Hague Convention. This amendment which extends for 2 years the reporting requirements of the Department of State on compliance by Hague signatories is, unfortunately, quite necessary. The continuation of this language in the State Department authorization legislation sends a message to those offending countries who consistently fail to honor their obligations under international law, that the Congress takes their failure to comply very seriously and will continue to pursue efforts to bring our American children home. I want to commend the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Lampson). As chairman of the Congressional Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children, he has done an extraordinary job in bringing national and international attention to this growing problem that devastates so many American families. I urge adoption of the amendment.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, it is an issue that clearly is a crime against unborn children and as well as the mothers.

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds. Once again, we keep hearing the term, ``a woman's right to choose''; and I just want to say again that the woman chose to have the baby, it is the criminal that took away her right by killing her baby. And we are just trying to make it tougher on those criminals and to make the penalties much tougher and make it a separate offense if they take that child's life or harm that life. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), a proponent of this bill.

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham).

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Pennsylvania, (Ms. Hart), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith). (Mr. SMITH of New Jersey asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)