U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

94–492 PDF 2004

FAITH-BASED PERSPECTIVES ON THE PROVISION

OF COMMUNITY SERVICES

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE,

DRUG POLICY AND HUMAN RESOURCES

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON

GOVERNMENT REFORM

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

JANUARY 23, 2004

Serial No. 108–158

Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/congress/house

http://www.house.gov/reform

(II)

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM

TOM DAVIS, Virginia, Chairman

DAN BURTON, Indiana

CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida

JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio

DOUG OSE, California

RON LEWIS, Kentucky

JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania

CHRIS CANNON, Utah

ADAM H. PUTNAM, Florida

EDWARD L. SCHROCK, Virginia

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio

JOHN R. CARTER, Texas

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee

——— ———

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California

TOM LANTOS, California

MAJOR R. OWENS, New York

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois

JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri

DIANE E. WATSON, California

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland

LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California

C.A. ‘‘DUTCH’’ RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of

Columbia

JIM COOPER, Tennessee

CHRIS BELL, Texas

———

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont

(Independent)

MELISSA WOJCIAK, Staff Director

DAVID MARIN, Deputy Staff Director/Communications Director

ROB BORDEN, Parliamentarian

TERESA AUSTIN, Chief Clerk

PHIL BARNETT, Minority Chief of Staff/Chief Counsel

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE, DRUG POLICY AND HUMAN RESOURCES

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana, Chairman

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia

JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

DOUG OSE, California

JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia

EDWARD L. SCHROCK, Virginia

JOHN R. CARTER, Texas

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri

LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California

C.A. ‘‘DUTCH’’ RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of

Columbia

CHRIS BELL, Texas

EX OFFICIO

TOM DAVIS, Virginia HENRY A. WAXMAN, California

J. MARC WHEAT, Staff Director

ELIZABETH MEYER, Professional Staff Member

NICOLE GARRETT, Clerk

(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Hearing held on January 23, 2004 ......................................................................... 1

Statement of:

Anderson, Ed, vice president/CFO, Compassion International .................... 75

Cote, Bob, Step 13, Denver, CO ...................................................................... 86

Cowles, Reverend Dean, president, YouthPartnersNet ................................. 59

Haley, Mike, manager of gender issues, Focus on the Family ..................... 24

Jaramillo, Jackie, Faith Partners ................................................................... 84

Keller, Frank, senior director of constituent services, Focus on the Family .................................................................................................................... 11

Larimore, Walter L., vice president of medical outreach, Focus on the

Family ............................................................................................................ 16

Littrell, Sharon, executive director of Interfaith Hospitality Network ........ 57

Minnery, Tom, vice president of public policy, Focus on the Family ........... 27

Robinson, Jean, Denver Urban Ministry ........................................................ 73

Tollefson, Dean E., Community Ministers Unlimited ................................... 55

Whetstone, Steven, Feed the Children ........................................................... 42

Wooten, Wilfred, senior director of counseling, Focus on the Family .......... 10

Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:

Anderson, Ed, vice president/CFO, Compassion International, prepared

statement of ................................................................................................... 78

Cowles, Reverend Dean, president, YouthPartnersNet, prepared statement of ........................................................................................................... 62

Haley, Mike, manager of gender issues, Focus on the Family, prepared

statement of ................................................................................................... 25

Keller, Frank, senior director of constituent services, Focus on the Family, prepared statement of ............................................................................ 14

Larimore, Walter L., vice president of medical outreach, Focus on the

Family, prepared statement of ..................................................................... 18

Souder, Hon. Mark E., a Representative in Congress from the State

of Indiana, prepared statement of ............................................................... 5

Whetstone, Steven, Feed the Children, prepared statement of .................... 45

(1)

FAITH-BASED PERSPECTIVES ON THE

PROVISION OF COMMUNITY SERVICES

FRIDAY, JANUARY 23, 2004

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE, DRUG POLICY AND

HUMAN RESOURCES, COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM, Colorado Springs, CO.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:14 a.m., at City

Hall, Third Floor, 107 North Nevada Avenue, Colorado Springs,

CO, Hon. Mark E. Souder (chairman of the subcommittee) Presiding.

Present: Representatives Souder and Hefley.

Staff present: Elizabeth Meyer, professional staff member and

counsel; and Nicole Garrett, clerk.

Mr. SOUDER. The subcommittee will come to order. We’re pleased

to have Congressman Hefley, your local Congressman, here. I

served under him on the National Parks Subcommittee, and I

worked with him as well on many other issues, and he’s been a

great leader in Washington. I’m going to start with an opening

statement that explains a little bit of what we’re doing here today.

I thank you all for joining us today as we continue our discussion

on the role of faith-based organizations in the provision of social

services. I’m very pleased to be here in Colorado Springs.

Scores of dedicated men and women open their hearts and homes

to the less fortunate each and every day. They do this not for the

glory of public recognition or for the money but for the simple fact

that their faith calls them—demands them—to action. They are

committed to improving the lives of their neighbor, no matter the

sacrifice to their own safety and comfort. Often their only reward,

which they will tell you is the best reward, is the knowledge that

they have restored hope to someone who had been suffering.

The men and women who run the countless faith-based social

service organizations in neighborhoods all across the country are

often the only people willing to tackle the tough problems because

frequently the rest of us take an out-of-sight, out-of-mind approach

to issues that make us uncomfortable.

If, in the United States, we had an unlimited amount of money,

we’d be able to fund every organization that is effectively providing

social services. The hard reality is that we don’t have unlimited resources. So we have to find a way to get the dollars we do have

into the most effective agencies in the neighborhood.

Frequently, that agency is a faith-based organization. Leaders of

the many faith-based agencies I’ve had the privilege to visit tell me

2

that they are successful because they look beyond the immediate

need. Their focus is helping the client regain hope and change their

life.

These men and women truly make a difference, not only in the

life of the client, but in the community as a whole. We need to determine how we can best encourage and support the work that they

do without asking them to compromise their beliefs.

We’ve been having this discussion in Washington for quite some

time. What I find to be most frustrating is the tendency to lose

sight of the reason we are having the discussion in the first place.

We know that faith-based organizations are effectively transforming lives and communities. Where the discussion gets bogged

down is in the legal questions. We need to refocus the discussion

on what makes a faith-based organization successful. What is it

that makes them effective?

The fact that faith-based organizations are effective is the reason

this discussion began in the first place. It is time to listen to the

providers tell us how we can best assist them in their work.

I doubt that government strings and bureaucratic red tape are

something that they’re actively seeking. I believe one of the best

ways that we as legislators can help is not by giving you more government strings to deal with, but by helping to facilitate new relationships among the providers of social services and the foundations that provide financial and technical assistance to faith-based

and community organizations. Today we have the great opportunity to talk with providers of a range of faith-based services. We

need to understand how the unique element of faith impacts the

structure and success of these programs. It is also important that

we understand how your programs transform lives by building selfconfidence and self-esteem. Over the last several months, we have

heard from faith-based providers in San Antonio, TX; Nashville,

TN; Chicago, IL; Charlotte, NC, and last week in Watson and Los

Angeles, CA.

Our witnesses today represent just a small fraction of the countless faith-based organizations that are reaching out to not only the

hurting in Colorado, but around the world, as well. I expect that

our witnesses today will provide us with valuable insights into

their work, and the needs of the community. Most importantly,

they will help us identify areas and methods by which the government can best assist community organizations of all types to provide the best possible care for people in need. I very much look forward to the testimony today.

I, again, add that’s the general introduction that I give for each

of the hearings. I can add just a few other comments to put this

in context.

The subcommittee that I chair is part of a government-formed

oversight committee. We have jurisdiction primarily over narcotics,

in both authorizing and oversight on narcotics and all drug policy

in the United States. But we also, then, have oversight over a series of different agencies, including HSS, HUD, the Department of

Education, Justice, and the Office of Faith-Based. And in that,

we’re the only committee that has oversight jurisdiction over the

Office of Faith-Based and the White House. The actual legislation

that is passed comes through other committees, as far as monitorVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:43 Aug 02, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\94492.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
3

ing what is going on, and trying to shape what’s going on on different issues.

I wanted to do it, because I’ve personally been the House leader

on many of the amendments that happened over the years when

then-Senator Ashcroft and Coates did the first faith-based initiative in welfare reform, I think it was about 1995 or 1996.

I carried the House amendment that allowed faith-based groups

to be eligible for the funding. Then as we moved future pieces of

legislation through, we had more and more controversy related to

it, in juvenile justice, in Head Start, in the fatherhood initiative,

in HUD.

But four passed both Houses. President Clinton signed four of

those into law. The latest part of the faith-based initiative would

be tax reform. Compassion Capital would help to develop capacity,

and the grant portion that would broaden it beyond those single

and make it more permanent.

That bogged down over hiring practices predominantly. That is

not the only thing. Because that is merely one thing that is related

to the faith-based element where we focused on the legal issues.

And we’re going to finish with one in Washington where we focus

on legal issues. And although it comes up in every hearing and

there are disagreements on how critical hiring practices and so on,

the focus here is not predominantly that.

A couple of other things. This is an oversight committee. The full

committee, for example, after the Republicans took over Congress,

you’ll see that we have to swear in all the witnesses in this committee. There have been people prosecuted for perjury in this committee. We’ve done things like the Waco oversight to who hired

Craig Livingstone, Whitewater, China. Most of those types of investigations in Congress occurred through this committee, because you

have authorizing committees, appropriation committees, and our

committee sees how it’s being implemented.

That kind of gives you the context of what we’re doing here. It

may or may not lead to different legislation, although all of us

work on different committees to support that, much of what’s being

done is by Executive order. Therefore, we work with that generally.

That kind of puts it in the process of this 2-year cycle. We’re

going to do a 2-year report, which will have information, in addition to the hearings, in it. Like we did last cycle on Homeland security. We held a series of hearings on both borders. We did this for

2 years and issued that report.

I’m on the Homeland security committee, on the border subcommittee, and Congressman Camp, who’s a member of that, said

this is the base and the best outline of that. We want to have a

similar document for faith-based. So when people look at the national debate, while there have been a few Washington hearings as

the bills have moved through, it’s often only a small part of that

debate. We’re going to have a series of hearings on the subject.

One last comment. By House rules, you have to have either a

Democrat present in a quorum, or you can get a waiver. The ranking democrat is Elijah Cummings, who heads my caucus, and we

have a very good relationship. We’ve accommodated Democratic

issues as they’ve moved through. We’ve had different hearings.

4

We’ve been able to move a number of major bills on a bipartisan

basis.

Therefore, we’ve been given a lot of flexibility in this committee.

And that’s why today, you’ll see there will be a fair amount of debate and discussion. Some hearings we have more of that. Some

hearings there will be more witnesses from the Democratic side.

We have members.

In Washington, there are fairly rigid rules as far as whether

you’re on the subcommittee or the full committee. And Congressman Waxman, who’s the ranking member, wants us to enforce

those rules. But when we go into people’s districts, many of the districts have been in the Democratic districts.

But today Congressman Hefley is here. So I’ll ask for a rule

waiver, so that he can participate in the hearing today. He’s not

going to be able to be here for most of the time. But we’ll have a

Member from the local area.

Most of our hearings have, in fact, been bipartisan. So let me

first do the two rule waivers. Written statements and questions to

the hearing record and any answers to written questions provided

by the witnesses also shall be included in the record without objection. So ordered.

I also ask unanimous consent that other materials referred to by

Members and witnesses may be included in the hearing and that

all Members be permitted to revise and extend their remarks.

Without objection, it is so ordered.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Mark E. Souder follows:]

5

6

7

8

9

Mr. SOUDER. I’d now like to yield to my friend Mr. Hefley for any

comments he’d like to make.

Mr. HEFLEY. Yes, Chairman Souder. I, first of all, want to welcome you to Colorado Springs. And I think you’ve brought this

hearing to a good place, because I don’t know of any community in

America that has more headquarters of national faith-based organizations than right here in Colorado Springs. Everybody from Focus

to Young Life, Navigators, and you could go on and on down the

list.

I speak to the management group of these organizations from

time to time. I’ve watched it over the years grow, and I think the

last time I spoke to them, they had over 100 organizations represented. And so you come. We appreciate you coming here, and

thank you for it.

And this is an important topic. Somewhere down the line, we’ve

gotten the idea that government has to do it all. And for most of

our country’s history, that has not been the case. For most of the

history of the United States, who do you think did the social services to this country? It was the faith-based organizations.

It was only during the Great Depression that we began to get the

growth of the Federal Government being involved in all of these

services to the point now that you bring up something like this,

and there are those in Washington who think somehow or another

if it’s a faith-based organization, it will contaminate the system.

But, oh, the government could sure do it right.

We’ve seen over the years that the government has not done it

right in many, many cases and the government cannot do it all. We

need help. And we need help from people who are dedicated and

committed and know how to do it. And the movement to enlist

faith-based organizations has been a priority of President Bush,

and I think it should be a priority of all of us.

The question is how do you do it and get past the legal hurdles

that you’ve talked about? So I look forward to the hearing today,

and appreciate you bringing the hearing to Colorado Springs.

Mr. SOUDER. Thank you very much.

As long as I look east, it looks a lot like Indiana.

For the record, too, if there are people who want to provide information to the committee or submit statements who aren’t on the

panels, if you’d provide them to us, we’ll try to get them into the

written record. But only witnesses who have been on the schedule

and have been cleared with the committee are going to be testifying publicly today.

Now, if the first panel will come forth to the panel. Will you raise

your right hands.

[Witnesses sworn.]

Mr. SOUDER. Let the record show that each of the witnesses responded in the affirmative. The clock will show green at 5 minutes

with 1 minute to go. It should show—do we have yellow on this

one? If there’s time after your 5 minute testimonies each, and we

have a large second panel, as well, we’ll ask questions.

As you heard in the earlier part, your full testimony will be submitted in the record. You can submit other things after that. You

can either read or summarize your statements, and I’ll be a little

generous with the 5 minutes. But with the pressures, we really

10

want to get into some of the questions and some reaction of what

is said. So we’ll start with Mr. Wiflred Wooten from Focus on the

Family.

STATEMENT OF WILFRED WOOTEN, SENIOR DIRECTOR OF

COUNSELING, FOCUS ON THE FAMILY

Mr. WOOTEN. Thank you, sir. In the book, Prayer, Faith and

Healing, subtitled, Cure Your Body, Heal Your Mind, and Restore

Your Soul, there is a powerful thought presented by Bernie Siegel,

M.D.

Dr. Siegel stated, ‘‘With prayer and faith, you can build a home

for all mankind. Without them, you go build walls and fears that

separate you from others and destroy your life.

When you choose to pray and love, you are in tune with your existence. Prayer, faith and love are the most powerful weapons you

have, and you need to make them a consistent part of your life, and

use them wisely.’’

Perhaps we have God. We’ve gotten a long way from our founding fathers, what they believed, and what they had vision for. My

name is Willy Wooten. I’m a licensed marriage, family, and child

counselor, and a licensed clinical social worker. I served in the

armed forces as social work officer for 24 years from 1969 to 1993.

I’ve been on the staff of Focus on the Family for over 10 years. I

serve as director of the counseling department. In the last 35 plus

years of clinical work, I have observed the power of faith and prayer in the healing of physical and emotional disorders. The counseling department at Focus on the Family handles approximately

1,200 calls for assistance each week, or over 60,000 per year.

These calls are the most critical needs that come into the ministry, from parenting issues, teen rebellion, divorce, separation, depression to suicide. We have 16 licensed Christian counselors, two

chaplains, and a support staff of six who respond to many calls for

help.

We have developed a national referral network of over 2,200

Christian counselors throughout the country to refer constituents

who need additional support. We’ve also developed an informal network of churches to refer people who can’t afford professional help

or need some other kind of ministry that way.

I have worked in a variety of secular and faith-based settings.

Both research and my observation are that faith, prayer, and hope

make a significant difference to the health, well-being, and healing

of those who are struggling with the many challenges and hurdles

that life can present.

I believe one critical difference between a secular and faith-based

program in assisting people in need was captured in the quote I

shared earlier. We in the mental and physical health professions

can give only limited and temporary relief from the diseases of life

in our care and services without the application of prayer, faith,

and hope, the result is a viable heart change and relationship with

Jesus Christ.

If you want to understand and find the solution for people’s problems, one needs to go to the inventor, God, and live by his manual,

the Bible. When our car pulls to the right or left instead of remainVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:43 Aug 02, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\94492.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
11

ing straight when we brake, we take it in for alignment. Prayer

and faith is a form of alignment with God.

We appear to be out of alignment as families and as a Nation.

There are court rulings that prohibit prayer in schools and other

public places, thereby reducing the tools, procedures, and power

our founding fathers lived by.

A comment from a constituent recently stated, ‘‘In recent months,

I have very much appreciated the stand Dr. Dobson and Focus has

taken on moral issues. I truly believe that it is why your ministry

has done so well. You have never backed down, wavered, or filtered

the truth. It’s extremely hard to face our current culture, government, and justice system without at least a little apprehension

about the outcome. I’m grateful that Focus on the Family has stood

firm, without apology, and without watering down the stand you

take on issues. Faith-based and proactive.’’ One of the things that

we do as a department and ministry is to reach out to the community here. We have contact with over 31 churches. We work with

the Salvation Army. This is in reference to other faith-based organizations. American Red Cross, Northern Churches Care, Ecumenical Social Ministries, Women Partnering, Westside Cares, and others. This cooperative effort is through our benevolence outreach in

helping constituents meet basic needs such as food, shelter, utilities, and medical bills, while also attending to the emotional and

spiritual needs and trying to connect individuals who may be disconnected from the community at large. Thank you.

Mr. SOUDER. Thank you very much for your testimony.

Next is Mr. Frank Keller. The first panel is all from Focus, from

some of the different ministries, which is one of the largest in the

United States and around the world. And we wanted to see some

of the range of what you do. Mr. Keller.

STATEMENT OF FRANK KELLER, SENIOR DIRECTOR OF

CONSTITUENT SERVICES, FOCUS ON THE FAMILY

Mr. KELLER. Good morning. My name is Frank Keller. I’ve been

on staff at Focus on the Family for 12 years, having previously

spent 20 years in public and private school administration.

It’s my privilege to be one of two senior directors for constituent

services, which includes several departments consisting of 500 employees at Focus on the Family. I represent and oversee the daily

activity of these departments, which provide, letter, e-mail, phone,

product shipping, and guest relations services to approximately

10,000 constituents each day.

The mission of Focus on the Family states that we exist to cooperate with the Holy Spirit in disseminating the gospel of Jesus

Christ to as many people as possible, and to specifically accomplish

that objective by helping to preserve traditional values and the institution of the family. This, based on scriptural truths, is done

through practical outreach to homes based on our firm beliefs that

both the Christian faith and the importance of the family are at

the center.

Each day brings several thousand letters, phone calls, and emails to the attention of Focus on the Family from individuals and

families all across the United States. Sometimes internationally.

These represent a wide variety of reasons for the contacts. Some

12

are sharing information that Focus might benefit from, and many

are asking for advice, resource suggestions, referrals to other support organizations, or outright help in the midst of extreme personal or family hardships.

This direct communication is a vital link to the people we serve.

In addition, an average of 600 guests physically walk into the

Focus on the Family buildings each day looking for a tour, or are

interested in shopping at the Focus bookstore and visitor’s center.

Those who contact us are treated with dignity and care. The

many inquiries for information, advice, and encouragement are

fielded by a highly trained staff in our constituent services departments. These include phone, mail, and e-mail representatives,

along with shipping and distribution personnel whose job it is to

assure the highest level of personal and supportive services.

We see ourselves as entering into a relationship with those who

contact us, and as a result, include offering to pray with them

whenever appropriate.

Many of our constituents actually request that Focus do this for

them. A foundational component of faith-based organizations is

that of connecting spiritually with God through prayer, for wisdom,

guidance, encouragement, and comfort. It is impossible to be a

faith-based organization without being prayer-dependent.

On December 1, 2003, the highest single contact day at Focus on

the Family in the last year, 24,000 phone, mail, e-mail, and Internet Web orders were received and handled by the staff. A typical

or average day number of constituent contacts received and handled in the past year would be about 7,000 each day.

We feel we have been effective and successful in our attempts to

assist the families as a result of seeing continued contacts and

interaction for future services, as well as by the feedback we’ve received.

Many people write or call back to let us know how their situation

or need has improved, their faith strengthened, or how their life

has been positively impacted by the assistance provided by Focus

on the Family.

I’d like to present three of those to you today, which wonderfully

illustrate the opportunity our constituent services staff has to assist families through our faith-based organization.

First, from a gentleman serving a prison sentence, we hear these

words. ‘‘Eight years ago, my marriage was in serious trouble. I was

incarcerated, and didn’t have any money, but I wrote you and

asked for a copy of a book to help me, and you blessed me with

a free copy. I’m happy to report that my wife and I just celebrated

our 11th anniversary.’’

A woman tells us from Midlothian, VA, ‘‘Thank you very much

for responding to my e-mail. It gives me a little bit of hope just

knowing that even though you do not know me, you took the time

to try to help me. With all my problems lately, I’ve wondered if God

even cares anymore. But I guess he cares enough to send good people like you, who are willing to help those of you us who are lost.

God bless you for giving your time to help others.’’

And, finally, and I’ll end with this. These words come from a

man in Yukon, OK. He had contacted Focus on the Family just

originally just to see if he could get some information to help him

13

assist his disabled wife. He mentioned in passing that his financial

situation was rather grim because of his wife’s medical costs, and

that they may have to file for bankruptcy.

He says, ‘‘In addition, and to our surprise, you sent me and my

wife some financial assistance. I’m calling to express my gratitude

for the way your ministry reached out to us. I did not plan to ask

for assistance. But that gesture of care meant a great deal to us.’’

Through tears he said, ‘‘You will never know what that meant to

us.’’

Mr. SOUDER. Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Keller follows:]

14

15

16

Mr. SOUDER. Our third witness is Dr. Walter Larimore, vice

president of medical authorization.

STATEMENT OF WALTER L. LARIMORE, VICE PRESIDENT OF

MEDICAL OUTREACH, FOCUS ON THE FAMILY

Mr. LARIMORE. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Hefley, good morning. Prior

to joining Focus on the Family to become the vice president of medical outreach, I practiced family medicine for over 20 years. I was

also involved in medical research and writing and appointments,

including the University of Colorado.

My testimony today to you is as a physician and researcher, and

it’s on the topic of the impact that positive spirituality can have on

individuals and upon society.

Positive spirituality, as I and my research colleagues have defined it in the medical literature, is distinctive from faith, morality,

and religion, in that it involves an ever evolving authentic and personal relationship with God.

It’s not bound by race, ethnicity, economics or class. This personal relationship with God promotes the wellness and welfare of

others over self. It includes the beliefs and values by which an individual lives, and it results in the visible fruit of love, joy, peace,

patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control.

Over the last 40 years, researchers have increasingly shown that

those with positive spirituality, those who internalize biblical

teaching by frequently praying, applying what the Bible says to

their lives, and believing that they will have a personal relationship with God, and practicing what they teach or believe have high

levels of satisfaction in life, high levels of a sense of well-being, and

overall happiness.

The Handbook of Religion and Health published by Oxford Press

said that the published data suggested, religious commitment plays

a significant, beneficial role in three ways. One, in the prevention

of mental and physical illness; two, improving how people cope

with mental and physical illness; and three, facilitating recovery

from illness.

Representative Souder, if we had a pill that would do that, it

would outsell Viagra. Not by much, but it would.

Positive spirituality postpones the development of physical disability in later life. It helps chronically ill people who think of

themselves and perceive themselves as less disabled than they

really are. Positive spirituality results in optimism, hope, purpose,

and meaning, even in the midst of negative life circumstances. Persons with positive spirituality can experience peace and healing,

even when a cure is not forthcoming.

Relationships between mental health and strong faith, devout

prayer, and religious socialization have consequences that are farreaching, and perhaps greatly underestimated.

Positive spirituality is associated with improved attendance at

scheduled medical appointments, greater cooperativeness with

medical treatment plan, better compliance with medical recommendations, and improved medical outcomes. Positive spirituality is associated with decreased divorce, decreased fatherlessness,

decreased teen pregnancy, decreased criminal recidivism.

17

Let me close my testimony with just three suggestions on how

the facilitation of faith-based organizations in healthcare may be

beneficial to individuals and societies.

No. 1 would be to encourage healthcare organizations and caregivers to incorporate positive spirituality into clinical care.

Over the last several years, we’ve been involved in a continuing

medical education course for healthcare providers. Over 10,000

healthcare providers have attended this course, either through live

conference or video conference. Most of the learners were primary

care physicians who were anxious to learn how to incorporate positive spirituality into their practices. The promotion of such faithbased activity by healthcare givers only improves doctor-patient relationships, and it introduces the very positive faith factor in physical well-being.

Second, encourage education in the proper implementation of the

HIPAA regulations, so as not to prevent patients from receiving the

positive spiritual care they desire and need.

The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996

includes language originally intended to prevent electronic patient

information from being sold and used inappropriately. But it’s tied

the hands of the healthcare industry in knots, and it’s prompted

most providers to err on the side of zero access to patient data.

We’re hearing from many pastoral professionals around the country that it means they can no longer stop by a hospital in search

of members of their congregation without having permission or

being on a specific list.

It’s been contended that these bureaucratic snafus could be readily fixed by the Department of Health and Human Services with a

clarification of the privacy rules and the intent of HIPAA.

Last, we would ask Congress to consider continuing and expanding clinical pastoral education. On October 1, 2003, the Medicare

funding of CPE programs was diminished. And we feel that may

have a negative implication on the positive spiritual care of people

in hospitals.

Let me conclude my comments to you by saying that the evidence

today tells us that clinicians, communities, and Congress should

continue to encourage positive spirituality. Health policymakers,

health-care givers, and faith-based organizations should assess the

spiritual needs of people and provide indicated and desired spiritual interventions.

Our social programs should not, without compelling data to the

contrary, deprive people of the spiritual support and comfort upon

which their hope, health, and well-being may hinge. Thank you.

Mr. SOUDER. Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Larimore follows:]

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

Mr. SOUDER. Next, Mr. Mike Haley, the public policy gender specialist from Focus on the Family.

STATEMENT OF MIKE HALEY, MANAGER OF GENDER ISSUES,

FOCUS ON THE FAMILY

Mr. HALEY. Morning. As was stated, I’m the manager of the gender issues department and the Love Won Out department at Focus.

Having lived as an active member of the gay activist community

for 12 years, I offer unique insights into the causes and recovery

of the homosexual condition. I serve as the chairman of the board

of Exodus International, the largest ministry offering help to individuals and families throughout the world on the issue of homosexuality.

My wife, Angie and I live here in Colorado Springs, and have two

sons.

Focus on the Family has taken on the difficult task of educating

the populous on the true causes and recovery of homosexuality

since 1998. Love Won Out has gone to the Nation’s largest cities

and Canada for 5 years speaking with a life-changing message to

tens of thousands of people.

The Love Won Out conference seeks to balance truth and love

while presenting the contentious issue of homosexuality from a

Christian perspective. Attendees at our conference include parents,

friends, and loved ones of homosexuals, pastors, mental health professionals, youth workers, educators, and even gay activists.

There’s not a family, church, or community not personally affected by the issue of homosexuality. Pop culture says homosexuality is biological, and that change and freedom from homosexuality

are impossible.

Some Christians, through fear and ignorance, communicate condemnation and hatred to homosexuals. Others don’t know how to

share their beliefs with those struggling with homosexuality. As a

result, each year, thousands of confused and hurting people feel

that there is no other option than to embrace this way of life, and

thousands of families with loved ones in homosexuality feel there

is nowhere to turn for help or answers.

The misleading message offered by popular culture and the

church necessitate a forum of real answers to homosexuality. Love

Won Out seeks to shed light on truth through the Bible and social

science research. Our ministry and the hope it offers would not be

possible without the power of Christ. I would not have overcome

my homosexuality or now have a message of redemption and new

life without Christ. Love Won Out is rooted in God’s word and forgiveness through Jesus Christ, and it would not exist any other

way.

Due to the dependence we have, it’s imperative that we hire individuals with traditional biblical views, especially of God’s design for

sexuality. With so many ideas, thoughts, and beliefs on homosexuality in our culture today, we must ensure that the Love Won

Out team and the entire ministry of Focus on the Family adhere

to God’s standards, and believe in the redemptive power of Jesus

Christ. Thank you.

Mr. SOUDER. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Haley follows:]

25

26

27

Mr. SOUDER. We’ll conclude this panel with Mr. Tom Minnery,

vice president of public policy at Focus.

STATEMENT OF TOM MINNERY, VICE PRESIDENT OF PUBLIC

POLICY, FOCUS ON THE FAMILY

Mr. MINNERY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m happy to be the

clean-up hitter here. I hope everybody at least got on base with

you.

Mr. Chairman, we fear the day when government may tell us

that we can no longer hire on the basis of our religious faith. I cannot underscore enough the importance of religious conviction in all

that we do at Focus on the Family.

Our work force must adhere to a Christian world view and, indeed, be alive in Christian faith in order for our ministry and the

services we provide to be effective. If the government were to prohibit us from hiring with religious criteria, we would be hardpressed to call ourselves a Christian organization.

We could not reasonably expect a religiously diverse work force,

or indeed, a work force in which employees have no religion at all

to carry out the unambiguous mission to disseminate the gospel of

Jesus Christ. Legislative measures to ensure that our religious liberties are protected, particularly in hiring, would be most appreciated by Focus on the Family and the families we serve.

We see State to State, and it’s mostly State legislation, laws

being passed that make it more difficult for openly faith-based organizations, even churches in some States, to hire freely without

being under the thumb of the State and sometimes local regulations, sometimes called the civil rights regulations.

We fear that will become a pall on all that is done in the name

of openly expressing religious faith. It’s absurd to think that a Jewish relief organization would be required to hire a Catholic believer.

It’s absurd to think that a Catholic organization with a devotion to

the blessed virgin would be required to hire Protestants. It doesn’t

make any sense. Even in the faith-based initiatives emanated from

Washington, we are pleased in the protections that the President

has adopted to institute. But when it comes time to think about

State and local regulations, and State and local laws, there is no

protection offered from the Federal level against the encroachment

of these local laws for those organizations that take Federal money

for faith-based initiatives.

I believe that the Federal legislation has to do a lot more to protect organizations against the encroachment of these State and

local laws if the organizations are going to take government money.

Let me turn real quickly to another topic. One of the goals of

Focus on the Family is to encourage people to become more effective citizens by letting their voices be heard more effectively. We

prize the privilege of being citizens in this great country. And we

encourage our constituents to raise their voices. Much of the activity is classified by the IRS as grass-roots lobbying. Focus is permitted a yearly maximum of $250,000 in expenditures for this activity. It’s a minuscule amount for an organization with a budget

of $130 million. The current law also allows us to spend an additional $750,000 on what the IRS calls direct lobbying. That is the

28

effort to relay our concerns to legislators first hand instead of

through constituents.

We don’t spend nearly $750,000 for this purpose. We’d like to

spend more on the grass roots portion of it. Our limit is $1 million.

There is an unwieldy distinction between grass roots and direct

lobbying.

We would specifically ask that artificial distinction be eliminated.

We’re not asking to be able to spend more in lobbying, but simply

that the unwieldy distinction between grass roots and direct lobbying be eliminated.

We join with a number of nonprofit organizations across the political spectrum in asking for Congress to clean this up. The CARE

Act now before Congress would do so. A section of Senate version

303 and Section 206 of the House version, each section is called

Simplification of Lobbying Expenditure Limitation, would do exactly that.

Nonprofit organizations on all sides of the spectrum would greatly appreciate Congress attending to this matter. Thank you very

much.

Mr. SOUDER. Thanks.

Let me start with a couple of typical followup questions, and a

few just for the general record. And maybe, Mr. Minnery, you can

field the first basic question.

Focus on the Family is not affiliated with any particular church?

It’s a separate denomination.

Mr. MINNERY. That’s correct.

Mr. SOUDER. When you have your different State initiatives, does

Focus have different 501(c)3s? Do you transfer money to different

501(c)3s?

Mr. MINNERY. No, all of our expenditures are operated through

our 501(c)3. Focus on the Family itself has an informal association

with a number of groups on different projects and initiatives all the

time.

Mr. SOUDER. So when you do a money transfer to any of those

groups, it’s not a possibility that you’re going to get tangled up

with being, in effect, part ownership or underwriting?

Mr. MINNERY. That is correct.

Mr. SOUDER. Is that true of the international operations, as well?

Mr. MINNERY. That is correct, primarily because our international affiliate organizations are their own separate corporate

entities, with their own boards of directors.

Mr. SOUDER. Do you provide them with free materials?

Mr. MINNERY. We do.

Mr. SOUDER. Let me ask you one more technical followup question. On this lobbying section, as I understand the issue, it’s a bias

toward Washington lobbyists against non-Washington lobbyists; is

that a fair characterization?

Mr. MINNERY. I don’t understand it to be that.

Mr. SOUDER. You said $750,000 for direct lobbying, and only

$250 for indirect?

Mr. MINNERY. That’s correct.

Mr. SOUDER. So wouldn’t that be a bias for if you have a lobbyist

in Washington, and direct lobbying in Washington, then in effect

29

some of the lobbyists would have been affected, and it would disadvantage organizations that wouldn’t have it coming directly?

Mr. MINNERY. That may well be the reason that lopsided amount

is in there.

Mr. SOUDER. What local organizations are supporting this?

Mr. MINNERY. A wide variety. Too many for me to account here.

Mr. SOUDER. Then, Dr. Larimore, I wanted to make a note to my

staff, and if you can followup on the two particular issues you

raised toward the tail end. Because I’m worried it’s going to get lost

in the shuffle here. Because I’m leaving for Libya, Iraq, and Afghanistan tomorrow. So I won’t be back in my office.

You mentioned two things. One, you felt that HSS could clarify,

without legislature changes, the HIPAA problem. Perhaps you can

either work with Mark Weiland or Roland, if you can followup with

them.

The second thing is to followup on Medicare. And if you can call

our office sometime next week just to make sure we’re getting some

of this started, and get a little more detail on the chaplain question.

Was that changed in the new Medicare bill?

Mr. LARIMORE. No, that was a revised ruling regarding Medicare

and clinical pastoral education. It was published October 1, 2003.

And the specifics were that Medicare reimbursement to hospitals

for CPE programs was significantly altered in that only the first

year of training was funded.

Mr. SOUDER. Was there a claim that legislatively there was anything to do with this, or how was it dealt with?

Mr. LARIMORE. My understanding was it was just regulatory.

Mr. SOUDER. Because we’ve seen this squeeze on chaplains in

other areas, as well. And to the degree we can, try to get a response, because we do have oversight over HSS, and work with the

authorizing committee, as well.

Let me now go back to a broad question that I thought Mr.

Minnery addressed well, but I would like you to illustrate some in

the different sections. And let me first start with Mr. Wooten in the

counseling area.

Do you have a statement of faith for counselors? In other words,

are there criterias when you have a counselor in your group, and

could you kind of elaborate on how, if you didn’t, how it would

change your ministry?

Mr. WOOTEN. There’s a statement of faith that we have as a ministry that people sign and adhere to when they are hired. How it

would change the mission or our ministry.

Mr. SOUDER. Yes.

Mr. WOOTEN. The majority of people who call in crisis are looking for that particular aspect of faith that we provide. Many because they’ve listened to the broadcast or they’ve been referred by

somebody else. Probably 90 percent of the calls that we get are people that have some sort of faith or are struggling with it, and

maybe another 10 percent that don’t.

Although we are reaching out more now with Internet, and are

expecting larger numbers of people that maybe do not have faith

that we want to be able to minister to. But that would very much

impact our ability to freely do that.

30

Mr. SOUDER. It probably wouldn’t be possible for you to have two

counselors sitting there where if they raise a religious subject you

can switch over to that counselor, and if they didn’t want to pray,

for example, they could talk to the counselor here?

Mr. WOOTEN. In this organization, to divide up the staff between

the Christian and secular——

Mr. SOUDER. You’d almost have to divide it by phone conversation. In the middle of the phone conversation.

Mr. WOOTEN. Yeah.

Mr. SOUDER. In other words, for those who argue that you don’t

have to necessarily pray, or you don’t necessarily have to give a

statement of faith, my impression is that would be very difficult in

a mission like yours to separate the kind of work side of Christianity from the faith side of Christianity in the same conversation.

You couldn’t say, ‘‘Uh-oh, this is yours.’’ You’d have to tag-team

the phone call.

Mr. WOOTEN. Absolutely. We don’t force anybody. We offer to

pray with somebody, because we feel that’s so important. And we

ask them if they’d mind if we pray with them. Very few say no.

If they do, then we don’t, and we provide the other services of psychological and emotional support for referral. But very few don’t

want that to happen.

In fact, when some people call in, if they’re extremely distraught,

during that time of saying, ‘‘Can we pray for you?’’ There is a quieting that often takes place that makes whatever was said before

more effective, to be able to at least summarize and share with

somebody.

Mr. SOUDER. Is it fairly safe to say that doing counseling is a little bit different than, for example, giving soup at a soup kitchen?

Mr. WOOTEN. Absolutely. Yeah.

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Hefley.

Mr. HEFLEY. Yes. Thank you. Tom, I’m very happy that you

brought up the hiring aspect, because this is one of the sticking

points in this, as you well know.

The Federal Government has a policy that they won’t give grants

to organizations who discriminate on the basis of race, religion, and

so forth. And so this is something we have to deal with from a legal

standpoint.

But you’re absolutely right, what you said about the ridiculousness of the Jewish organization and Christian organization, not

being able to pick people who share your basic faith, I think is extremely important. And I would not support the faith-based initiative unless this item is taken care of. I don’t think you can operate.

Focus is a little different than some other organizations. And I

don’t know quite how you would fit into this, but I do need to ask

the question. All of you pretty much, except Tom, dealt very strongly with these practical aspects of hiring and lobbying, talked about

the importance of your faith and your Christian values and prayer

and that kind of thing. And I agree with everything you said. I

think you do a great job by using all of those techniques. But the

government is not going to pay you to use those techniques, probably, in a faith-based initiative. And I use the example, and there

may be someone here from the Salvation Army, I don’t know. But

the Salvation Army has been able over the years to bridge this gap

31

by saying, ‘‘Oh, yes, we have a church. And the church, we push

our faith in. But we also have community service where we don’t

push our faith.’’ That doesn’t mean they deny their faith. But they

hand out the food. They hand out the coffee to soldiers. They provide the beds for the homeless or whatever they do in terms of social service without the pushing of the faith.

And this is the reason they’ve been able to be part of the United

Way all over the country, and on occasion get government grants

for various things.

Could you and most faith-based organizations divide this? Again,

not denying your faith, but not pushing it either. Not trying to disseminate Christianity in your social service aspect. Could you do

that, or do you think other faith-based organizations could do that

if the government did give you grants to do a certain service? Tom.

Mr. MINNERY. Well, I think Focus on the Family could not. Because the provision of services is integral to faith. It’s integral to

the person and work of Jesus Christ.

Just for the record, Focus on the Family has not, and the board

has said we will not accept government money for the services we

provide. Our funding comes from small donations of many thousands of people around the country who support the work.

And our founder, Dr. Dobson, believes that if those supporters

believe that the work we’re doing is no longer worthwhile, then

they ought to stop sending us money, and we should go do something else. We do not want to have a stream of funding that will

subject us perhaps to later strings.

Now, let me tell you, Congressman, where the problem comes in

with an organization like the Salvation Army, since you brought

that up. Several years ago, I believe it was, the city of San Francisco required that, in order to avoid anti-discrimination laws in

the State of California, the Salvation Army must begin paying

health benefits to same-sex partners of employees of the church.

Not necessarily church members themselves. But employees who

may or may not be religious, who were employed by the church to

hand out these services. It created great havoc within the Salvation

Army, because, as you know, the Salvation Army is a church.

Nonetheless, the policy was changed. The Salvation Army decided

nationwide that it would comply with what the city of San Francisco had required and decided that its entire population of officers

and employees would abide, and then would begin paying health

benefits to same-sex partners.

There was a great upheaval in that church to the point where

the policy was changed. This is how onerous even a local jurisdiction can be to a national organization doing work that everyone

claims is good.

Do not allow the oppression of government to impact the relationship between a person who needs Godly help and his ability to

get that. Please.

Mr. HEFLEY. Well, you’re absolutely right, Tom. And this is another extremely important aspect. And a sticky issue for this legislation is that when the government gives you money to do a certain

job, they usually have a lot of strings attached. And it’s a matter

of whether you would want to accept those strings or not or whethVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:43 Aug 02, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\94492.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
32

er we can restrain ourselves from the amount of strings that we

attach to it.

And I think as well as I know Focus on the Family, I agree with

you that you probably do not want this kind of thing. But there are

a lot of faith-based organizations out there that have an extremely

good drug treatment program, for instance, or an extremely good

unwed mother program or these kind of things that they’re faithbased, and they’re living out their faith, but they’re not pushing

their faith on the people that they deal with. I think if we get into

a faith-based initiative, probably this is the approach that would

have to be taken.

We don’t want too many strings put on there either, but I’m almost sure the government is not going to grant grants to people

whose main purpose is to promote their particular view of religion.

Mr. MINNERY. Congressman, Your Honor, it is possible and reasonable for a soup kitchen to have the soup paid for and the kitchen paid for by government money. Inappropriate, however, to have

the evening sermon or the devotion or the religious exercise to be

paid for by government money.

I don’t know that any faith-based organization wants that to be

the case. Separation must, can, and has, is, being made all around

the country now.

The concern is that much of what is being put in place and has

been put in place is by Executive order. There are not onerous

strings attached now in the Bush administration, but, of course,

Executive orders can change with the Executive, and strings can be

placed in the future for organizations that have built up a clientele,

built up an employee base on the basis that their provision of soup

and blankets and bedding using Federal money will not have any

interference by the Federal Government with their provision later

in the evening of a religious exercise.

We’re on thin ice doing this all under an Executive order.

Mr. HEFLEY. You’re very right. I think we get a little carried

away with the separation thing sometimes when you realize that

the chamber of the House of Representatives was used as a church

on Sunday for 50 years after the capital was built. It was used as

a church.

Thomas Jefferson, who is considered to be one of the least religious of the founding fathers, attended that church regularly on

Sunday mornings. And yet now we run in horror if there seems to

be any connection at all between the two.

And it’s hard to imagine. I think there have been some very bad

Supreme court decisions over the years regarding this. But your

testimony, at least to me, is very helpful. Thank you.

Mr. SOUDER. Thank you.

I want to go back into some more kind of specific questions before we go on. Let me make one generic statement and state one

of my concerns with what’s happened with the faith-based initiative.

I believed from the beginning, from the time I was with the Children and the Family Committee in the House as a Republican Senator and serving with Senator Coates, that the No. 1 part of the

initiative is the tax credit or deduction part, because it reaches everybody, and we avoid this argument.

33

And we got so much into the debate on the government funding

side that we forgot the achievable side. The most significant part,

even in a compromise, is getting a foot in the door for an additional

tax credit.

The second most important part, in my mind, was the capacity

building. Particularly for Black and Hispanic, small neighborhood

organizations who don’t have CPAs and attorneys in their churches

many times or on their board. And it helped them build capacity

so they can go to private foundations.

As we heard at our last hearing in Los Angeles, I think it was,

that the private donations in the United States, philanthropy, is

greater than in all the State, local, and Federal Governments combined in social services. And if we can do more matching of those

private sector groups, that we should do that.

Now, many of us believe that there is a role in Federal funds,

as well. But one of the questions we often get is, ‘‘Well, why can’t

you just have everybody fit that definition?’’ Faith-based organizations have been receiving Federal funds for at least 20 years. Probably longer than that. But part of the reason when we had this discussion about Focus being on the first panel is because you don’t

take Federal funds, and you don’t want Federal funds.

Why are you here? Because it’s a chance to illustrate for the

record. We had a great debate down in San Antonio between

Freddie Garcia and Life Fellowship and their drug counseling,

which is completely integrated with their faith, and the head of the

Jewish federation or foundation there, out of Dallas or Houston,

about whether or not they should be receiving any type of Federal

help, even indirect. So we have that.

But I wanted to establish, again, some of the particulars. That

was part of my question on the counseling. You can’t really separate counseling like you can soup.

If I can ask you one other question, Mr. Wooten. I don’t think

you said this, but we have it in your written statement, in response

to how you compare secular organizations and their delivery.

You say, ‘‘It’s a difference between fast food and fine dining. Because you combine heart, mind, and body.’’ Would you like to elaborate on that?

Mr. WOOTEN. Yes, sir. When you mentioned soup, that is basically for the body. And a lot of people can distribute that in a lot

of ways. But I talked about fine dining, it really has to do with the

filling out the whole person, as far as of the their emotional wellbeing and the spiritual aspect.

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Keller, in your division, how many people do

you have handling correspondence?

Mr. KELLER. It’s a staff of approximately 500 staff that do the

phones, mail, and e-mail.

Mr. SOUDER. And you also handle the tourists coming in.

Mr. KELLER. That’s right.

Mr. SOUDER. You elaborated on people that come into Focus, that

their faith can’t be separated going through the visitor center. Your

videos are integrated in. It would be very tough, but I guess the

pizza’s kind of secular. But other than that, it would be tough to

secularize.

34

In the correspondence, how would you even conceivably separate

the faith part from the nonfaith part, and how would you have a

staffer who didn’t understand that do the correspondence?

Mr. KELLER. Well, we couldn’t. It’s very consistent with what

Willie said. So often the contacts that come into Focus, people are

including in their conversations, ‘‘Where is God in what’s happening to me?’’ So that supports the importance of the staff understanding that concept. And that’s the faith-based, or the employee,

to connect with that person. We just hear it so often that people

will start a conversation that way, by saying, ‘‘Where is God?’’ And

also, as I mentioned in my statement, more often than not, the people who contact Focus will ask for prayer. And in order to connect

with that, there has to be that understanding and faith relationship connected to prayer.

Now, I will also help you to understand that the staff at Focus

on the Family that I work with never do any questioning of the

people who contact us: ‘‘Are you a believer in Jesus Christ?’’ Unless

that comes up later. In order to for us to give them service, that’s

never a condition.

But the contact folks are the ones that will initiate that. Because

Focus is known for that approach to service.

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Minnery said that you depend on thousands of

small donations. What would be the reaction if, in the correspondence back, there was a line saying, ‘‘God, whoever he or she may

be,’’ or something suggested that somehow you had kind of lost

some certainty?

Mr. KELLER. I’m not sure I understand.

Mr. SOUDER. In other words, if you had a diversity on your staff,

and didn’t have the consistency, which I understand partly is what

Dr. Dobson has said in the past, and you put that through both

faith counseling and other counseling.

I’m not suggesting each person is totally free on their own merits

to say whatever they want in the correspondence. But if somebody

doesn’t subscribe to that faith, and you started to see forms of contradiction to your faith, or less than both statements about your

faith, do you think that would impact back in at some point into

the support for the ministry.

Mr. KELLER. Are you referring to the staff?

Mr. SOUDER. Yes. In other words, the standard question is, well,

if you just have somebody down at the loading dock sorting through

the different documents and people who are doing the mail, people

who are doing the counseling, can’t be they be, in effect, a nonChristian believer and still just follow your orders in getting the

stuff out?

And what I’m suggesting is wouldn’t this, particularly in a purely

voluntary ministry, potentially have a huge impact?

Mr. WOOTEN. Can I respond to that?

Mr. SOUDER. Sure.

Mr. WOOTEN. Of all the formats of all of calls or letters that come

in, about 10 percent or so come over to Frank’s area, and the top

1 percent come over to counseling.

I think the critical basis is the confidence in that faith that they

are calling about. That’s not what we focus on. We focus on the

35

need that they’re presenting. But if that is not appreciated or respected or shared in some way, absolutely that would get out.

And not only would it affect the donation base, it would affect

the confidence that people have in the ministry as a source of help.

Because people talk to other people. If you go to a restaurant and

go back to the food part—maybe it’s getting close to lunch. I don’t

know.

But if you go to a restaurant and you get food poisoning twice,

and somebody asks you for a referral, are you going to refer them

to that restaurant? Probably not. So there needs to be a consistency

of what’s presented. So does that answer your question.

Mr. SOUDER. There are different types of ministries. But one of

the things that repeatedly comes up, I believe, is a lack of understanding that, at least in some conservative social support ministries, that the faith is so integral and inseparable that the proposals aren’t going to work.

And in addition to government granting, I want to pursue this

a little bit more across the board. Because I want to make sure it’s

more thoroughly aired at this hearing. For example, the media a

lot of times asks, ‘‘Is Dr. Dobson a tele-vangelist or does he do social service?’’ He is not predominantly a tele-vangelist. He is in the

delivery of services. But it’s the delivery of services that are intertwined with evangelistic outreach.

So, Mr. Haley, for example, if your area, if you could not deal

with moral questions, and could not deal with things that are rooted in faith, how would your ministry work?

Mr. HALEY. Well, it wouldn’t. And that’s one of the things that

we have to look at. Even the secular social research scientist, Dr.

Robert Spitzer, who was of the architects behind having homosexuality taken out of the Diagnostic Statistical Manual in 1993,

who considers himself to be an atheist humanist, has seen that

those individuals who have successfully attempted leave homosexuality have done better when their faith has been a part of that

process.

So we see that this is just a benefit for those individuals whose

lives are hurting, for them to find the added forgiveness that’s

found in Jesus Christ.

Mr. SOUDER. We had a Catholic activist at the Chicago hearing

who works with male prostitutes on the streets in Chicago. And a

Democrat colleague on the committee, Dan Davis, asked him,

‘‘Well, can’t you do your ministry’’—because clearly, to help these

people out, they, very tragically, didn’t have much money, were

struggling, were at high risk of disease on the streets.

He said, ‘‘Couldn’t you separate that from changing their head

and their heart?’’ And he said, ‘‘Well, no. They’ll just go right back.’’

Can you illustrate a little bit that challenge? Not everybody will

agree with your goals or with your ministry.

But if you have those views on homosexuality and you wanted

it to change, how would you do that?

Mr. HALEY. I think that’s one of the things that you have to look

at. I’m familiar with the ministry that I think you’re talking about.

John Greene with MAS Ministries in Chicago. Very dear friends of

that ministry, as well.

36

But we can’t separate, you can get people to change actions, but

one of the things that we want to do is we want to change the

heart. We want to go to the very core of the individual.

And what we find is that when you base something on feelings,

the recidivism is very much something that we have to deal with.

So if you’re, again, using Willie’s analogy, dealing with the body,

mind, and soul, as well as their spirituality, we just see a much

greater success rate occur in the lives of these individuals.

And we also are able to help the families that need to know how

to balance their response to individuals in the homosexuality community. Oftentimes, the church has not known how to respond, and

has further pushed the gay and lesbian population away from the

very belief that we support, that those people need a savior.

Mr. MINNERY. Mr. Chairman, if I might take a crack at that, as

well. I believe that the essence of Christian witness and Christian

conversion in the process of struggling out of homosexuality is essential, because it inputs into someone a huge transcendent idea

that, ‘‘My sexuality is being acted out not the way God wanted me

to have it. Not the way I read about it in the Scripture.’’

And giving one’s self over to the belief in God, and the belief that

what God wants for him or her is what he or she should be doing,

and is not what he or she is doing now in the practice of homosexuality. It’s the transcendent belief in Godly wisdom and Godly

power, and a belief that the practice of homosexuality is sin, and

it is forgiven by conversion to Jesus Christ.

This is the essence of the power that allows somebody to begin

the struggle. And it is indeed a difficult struggle, even with the

power of God.

Mr. SOUDER. And when we deal with, for example, direct government grants, there’s a difference between ministries that will provide shelter and assistance to someone who has AIDS or is homeless, and someone who is directly trying to transform a life.

And what we’re trying to work toward is where are the different

lines as to how we approach the tax part? Can you provide bussing

help? Can you provide computers, but not the software? Can you

provide direct help for software.

And there are lots of court decisions about this. But one of the

things that we’re laying out here today is that there are ministries

that, quite frankly, shouldn’t be applying to government, because

the government is going to undermine their intentions and, quite

frankly, in a very diverse society, probably wouldn’t get any support for direct funding. But we have all kind of nuances in between

here.

I wanted to establish that Dr. Larimore had some very interesting stats on why faith actually in spirituality can make a big difference. And I wanted to ask a couple of technical questions.

Does your data break this out, I’m trying to think. Way back in

the 1980’s, Dave Larson——

Mr. LARIMORE. Dave Larson.

Mr. SOUDER [continuing]. Was one of the first researchers with

this when we first raised this. And I assume there has been continuing research. I remember when we found him and got him over

to HSS and Mental Health Services and started doing more grants

and research with it.

37

Does the research show differences by types of religion. Does it

show differences by commitments and faith?

Mr. LARIMORE. Dave is a good friend. We trained together at

Duke. And I’m sorry we’ve lost him to this effort. There’s very little

research on the differences between denomination or different religions.

We’re just seeing the beginning of that research. The vast majority, over 1,600 studies, that have looked at the relationship between physical and mental health and spiritual health have been

among adherence to the Judeo-Christian traditions, particularly

Christian traditions. We do find that denomination is not a particularly strong prediction of health. The researchers talk about the

difference between intrinsic spirituality and religion and extrinsic

spirituality and religion.

And I reference that in my written comments, along with citations that would support what I’m going to say. But the evidence

is overwhelming that people who claim to have a personal relationship with God are changed from the inside out, as opposed to just

attending services or having a utilitarian approach to religion or

spirituality. It is the intrinsics who are the ones who benefit physically, emotionally, mentally from their spirituality. So apart from

organized religion, this individual transformation appears to transform not only individuals, but families and communities.

When we look at community-based organizations and where their

volunteers come from, far and away the volunteer services that are

provided in this country are provided by those of intrinsic spirituality. It not only changes them internally, but it changes their actions.

So that the volunteers of even secular organizations are three

times more likely to be people who have been transformed individually and spiritually.

At Focus on the Family, we believe the greatest transformation

is a personal relationship with God that comes through Jesus

Christ.

Mr. SOUDER. What are the statistical measures of how you get

the intrinsic? Is it asking someone a sufficient measure, or would

you do it by frequency of church attendance? Bible student.

Mr. LARIMORE. Good question. There’s a variety of research on

that. And it centers around what the researchers call spirituality

assessment or spirituality history.

The research is so clear that with as few as three or four very

simple questions, the position of a client or a patient can be established, that the Joint Commission for Accreditation of Healthcare

Organizations began in 1996 with a quality assessment or requirement of certification that all in-patient facilities, all in-patient mental health facilities, all outpatient mental health facilities take a

spirituality assessment to every client that presents there for services.

And the reason is not in any way to try to push some sort of faith

upon them, but to find out where they are spiritually, and what

services can be provided to them that would help them in their

healing, help them in their compliance. To reduce the return rate,

if you would.

38

We see this in drug rehab programs. Narcotics Anonymous, for

example. Alcoholics Anonymous. The 12-step programs that concentrate on intrinsic spirituality. Transformation spirituality to see

the highest effectiveness rates.

And in healthcare institutions, the needs of patients are massive

in this area. Just as one example, there was a study that’s not at

all unusual. This was done at Rush Presbyterian St. Luke’s medical center in Chicago, where they found that 70 percent of the medsurg patients, and 88 percent of psychiatric in-patients had at least

three religious needs during their hospitalization.

And the three most common were, No. 1, a desire to speak with

a chaplain or a pastoral professional during their stay. And, No. 2,

an opportunity to attend a hospital worship service. And, No. 3,

spiritual resource reading materials, or someone to pray with.

And that bolsters what Mr. Wooten was saying to you earlier.

That those who understand this research and have been transformed by a personal relationship with God cannot separate this

from quality professional activity.

And to the extent that the government would in any way impede

the free exercise of that, is not only personally foreign to me, but

it appears to me that the literature is clear that our society would

be less healthy.

Not to establish our pushing on someone what they don’t want,

but to simply ask, ‘‘Is this important to you?’’ And if so, via referral

or provision of services, we’ll help you find it.

Mr. SOUDER. Obviously we’re going to pursue this more longterm. Let me ask one more question, and if you don’t know the answer, if we can kind of look at this. And I understand this is a difficult research question. But is there data that would show that

somebody who, in other words, the obvious critique historically of

religious behavior is that it’s a form of screening or skimming.

One of the same arguments we hear in private schools, that

those people are that way for other reasons. You genetically

changed the pool. You have mother and father there. Stability of

family. Higher income.

One of two ways, either freezing other variables and/or doing it

this way, taking somebody who is at 40, and has one type of social

problem or another, and then changes their religious beliefs. Understanding there’s a potentially higher risk, because of adding a

not-fair sample either, do you still see the same patterns? And are

there any research studies that would suggest that?

Mr. LARIMORE. There is a huge data base, meaning that it compares populations and looks at a large variety of demographic, behavioral, and other variables, and then controls that. That’s called

multi-variable research.

And in those population studies, the 1,600 and some odd studies

that I referred to earlier in my testimony, the vast majority of

studies showed that in intrinsic spirituality, positive spirituality,

transformation religion positively impacts physical, emotional,

mental, and relational health and relationships. That is only in association. It is not in any way saying that there is a cause and an

effect. So researchers, over the last 5 to 6 years, have gone looking

in a randomized fashion. Whether it is in relationship with heart

failure or breast cancer or drug treatment, looking in a randomized

39

fashion as to whether this makes a difference. And we have very

little of that research that’s been published today.

Mr. SOUDER. I want to ask one other question of Mr. Wooten,

and then we’ll go to Mr. Minnery for the end of my public forum.

Mr. Wooten, in your counseling, beyond the materials that you

can give and the treatment you can, do you refer people to people

at their local level? Do you have systems in place so that you can

do that?

Mr. WOOTEN. Yeah, absolutely. That’s one of the cores that we

do, besides providing initial kind of supports and help counseling

when they call, we provide resources to them, Whether it’s books

or tapes.

And I think as I mentioned in my present role, we have over

2,200 licensed Christian counselors throughout the country, and we

continue to add to that we can refer in that local community.

Mr. SOUDER. Do you do similar things if somebody has physical

health problems or financial needs or housing needs? Do you have

any other kind of referral system or a clearing place you might

send them to be able to assist them, of how might you approach

that?

Mr. WOOTEN. We are not as broad that way, but we refer them

to a local church or another community-based program that can be

helpful to them.

Mr. SOUDER. Because one of the things I just wanted to establish

for the record, when we have national/international headquarters

testify, and we’ll have a few others today, and we’ve had them in

a few other places. If it’s not a local agency, they’re often interconnecting, and that gets people to connect up with other faithbased ministries.

So having you start another process leads to strengthening faithbased ministries around the country. And that kind of sets up one

of the things that came up in our last hearing, Dr. Keith Phillips

of World Impact testified that he had 17 suggestions other than direct government funding that faith-based organizations, things we

might be able to do out of the Federal Government.

Among those, and I’d be interested, not only today, but if you get

some feedback, and we’ll get a full list. Maybe we can get some

written response from some of your network organizations.

One is, for example, we have excess military property or other

government property. Could we put at the front of the list that

nonprofit organizations should get first bid, if they’re providing

services to the poor?

Because we have a Federal disposal process for all sorts of equipment in the United States. And if somebody is working with the

poor, not just faith-based, although there would be a faith-based

eligibility, but why wouldn’t we put them toward the front?

Another thing was similar with Federal property. Some may be

from base closings and military-type establishments, others are

other government buildings that move to another location. I wrote

the paper on lighthouse disposal properties, and we put nonprofit

groups at the front of the line.

Why couldn’t something like this happen in disposal of Federal

property, if you’re providing services to the poor? Another that was

really interesting is where we have military bases or large governVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:43 Aug 02, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\94492.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
40

ment facilities and have buses. Could buses or other pieces of

equipment like that, but buses is what came up here, could they

provide some of those type of buses to nonprofitable, chairtable

groups, including faith-based, that can be used to take kids to

camp from an inner city area that haven’t had that access?

In other words, there are many ways to do faith-based here. And

that’s why it isn’t necessarily direct government funding, which

clearly your organization doesn’t seek, want, nor should you touch.

At the same time, there are a number of indirect things that your

affiliates or even your organization might be able to utilize. And

another one that came up was medical liability reform for low-income health clinics. In Watts, almost all of them are closing, because they can’t get anybody to take the liability, and nonprofit

groups won’t come in and do that.

Can you comment on some of these other types of things, Mr.

Minnery, and then be willing, if we provide you with a list, to kind

of test some of this? Because this shows you how widespread this

can be, in addition to kind of where the public debate currently is.

Mr. MINNERY. Well, certainly, Mr. Chairman. I’m trying to figure

out how we would use a lighthouse if the Federal Government

would give us one. I don’t know that I’ve got an answer to that.

What immediately comes to mind is what President Bush saw in

Texas when he was Governor, and that is the changed lives of the

prisoners when prisoners voluntarily are allowed to join wings of

prisons in which religious exercises, Bible teaching, becomes the

order of the day.

I believe that the first evidence of vastly reduced recidivism are

now being authenticated to show that something as little as allowing a prisoner to do one thing during the day rather than making

him do something else can greatly change his future once he or she

leaves prison.

So it seems to me that striking down the barriers in a Federal

prison system to this kind of Bible study, religious exercise would

greatly enhance the ability of prisoners to live productive lives outside of prisons. And I do not think that this would require any vast

expenditure of Federal money, nor would it require significant entanglement of the government with the private sectors.

I do believe that most of these programs are being run by volunteers in prison, and certainly not prison chaplains themselves. So

the prison ministry is one.

Beyond that, I’m sure that we can come up with some other ideas

for the subcommittee.

Mr. SOUDER. OK. Thank you very much.

Mr. Hefley, do you have anything further?

Mr. HEFLEY. I don’t think so. I think this has been very helpful.

You know, Focus on the Family does a marvelous job. It reaches

untold numbers of lives out there across the country, and you

should keep doing what you’re doing without government entanglement. And I think what you’ve illustrated for us here today is that

there are some faith-based organizations that simply would not

participate in a government program.

I take it you’re not opposed to that for those who can participate

in it? And let me just illustrate. I refer to Mr. Dan Ford, who

formed the Ralston Purina company. He believed there were four

41

sides to the person. There was the spirituality, there was the physical, there was a social, and there was a mental side.

And the reason he did the checkerboard square logo is he

thought people should have a balanced life. And if you over-emphasize one or the other, or you skew the square, it’s not very pretty.

And what you do, it seems to me, is you deal more with the spirituality, social, and mental. And faith-based organizations that do

that probably can’t separate the depth of their religious belief from

their service.

Those who deal primarily with the physical, that was illustrated

by the soup and all of that kind of thing, probably can.

Young Life would not take their deep spiritual roots out of their

normal ministry with high school kids. On the other hand, maybe

they could with their ministry at the Dale House project, where

they’re providing services for troubled kids, and maybe they

couldn’t. I’m not quite sure on that.

So what you’re showing me is that there are some organizations

that are simply not going to be able to do this.

Mr. MINNERY. Congressman, you are correct when you say we do

not oppose this for many other organizations. In fact, we are so

pleased that the President has brought the power of religious faith

back into the public square and made it an essential part of our

national debate.

And just as soon as he formed his faith-based initiatives office in

the White House, we invited one of his deputies, Don Eberly, to be

a guest on Dr. Dobson’s program, and explain what it is the President was trying to do.

Mr. SOUDER. Thank you very much. Let me thank you again for

your testimony. If there’s anything that any of you want to add, if

you’ll submit that to us. I didn’t go through some of our standard

questions to try to make each of our hearings have some commonalities. So we may send you some written questions too.

Thank you for your time. Thank you for your years of work. The

second panel will be very diverse. We’ve had the Sugarland people

from the Houston area in the fellowship in the prisons. We had

people in California from the Saddleback church, and what they’re

doing now in the California prisons.

So we’re looking at a very diverse range of things. And it’s very

important to have your organization here today that helps illustrate the range of faith-based services, and how different things

range, from tax coverage, hiring practices, and kind of the diversity

that we face. For example, it was very important to learn on the

physical and mental health centers, the plain truth is that hardcore Muslim organizations are very effective at drug abuse. It isn’t

unique just to Christianity when we’re dealing with these kind of

issues.

So I thank you very much for your testimony. We’re going to take

a brief recess. If the second panel could start to come forward, let

me read their names in the order that we’ll have you testify. We

have Larry Jones, president of Feed the Children from Oklahoma

City will be the first witness. Second, Dean Tollefson from Community Minister Outreaches. Third will be Sharon Littrell, Interfaith

Hospitality Network. Fourth will be Reverend Dean Cowles. Fifth

will be Jean Robinson from Denver Urban Ministries. Sixth will be

42

Mr. Ed Anderson from Compassion International. Seventh, Jackie

Jaramillo, director of Faith Partners, Colorado Springs. And eighth

will be Mr. Bob Cote, executive director of Step 13 from Denver.

We will stand in recess.

[Recess.]

Mr. SOUDER. The subcommittee will come back to order. If each

of you will stand. If you’ll raise your right hands. This committee

historically asks each witness to take the oath.

[Witnesses sworn.]

Mr. SOUDER. Let the record reflect that each witness responded

in the affirmative. We certainly hope we don’t have perjury questions at faith-based hearings. It’s more a historical precedent of the

committee. I thank you all for coming. Most of you were here during the first panel and got a general drift of how we’re doing these

and what we’re trying to do. You have 5 minutes. You can see that

we then try to save questions for a period of time after that.

Your full statement will be inserted into the record. If you want

to supply additional materials, supplementary, anything that you

refer to, we’ll ask you for copies to put into the record too. We’re

going to start with Steve Whetstone from Feed the Children in

Oklahoma City.

STATEMENT OF STEVEN WHETSTONE, FEED THE CHILDREN

Mr. WHETSTONE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for

the privilege of being here.

Mr. SOUDER. We may have to do a mic sharing here.

Mr. WHETSTONE. Thank you, Chairman Souder, and thank you

for the honor and the privilege of appearing before you here this

morning. In 1979, Larry and Frances Jones founded Feed the Children while walking through the streets of Haiti. Larry Jones had

been visiting some of the local churches and came face to face with

the devastating effects of poverty in Haiti.

Also, he had just read an article about a surplus of 35 million

metric tons of grain stored in warehouses throughout the United

States at taxpayers’ expense, and was struck by the stark contrast

between these two mental pictures. Why couldn’t things just get

from point A to point B? And we were given the idea to do just

that.

25 years later, Feed the Children has grown to the 19th largest

charity in the United States, 10th, if you count just private funding. Through our faith, through our commitment, and through their

vision, that remains the heart of our ministry.

We work through a network of more than 50,000 local food

banks, churches, feeding centers, homeless shelters, rescue missions, and other organizations of faith-based and community groups

in order to move that food from point A to point B. To take it from

areas of surplus to where it’s needed most.

While we’re a Christian international relief organization, our

faith plays a great role in the work that we do. Prayer is a standard part of everyday operations, as well as our long-term and strategic planning.

We were founded by faith and we operate under Biblical principles of caring for those in need with compassion and love. Our

staff are professionals who recognize the fact that the things that

43

we accomplish are only because of the grace and provision of God.

And we recognize that every day, and give him all the glory. Most

people know Feed the Children for our work in disaster relief.

Often we’re the first trucks there on the scene to provide needed

relief to families who have been victimized by flood, fire, tornados,

hurricanes, and so forth. But most of what we do is to offset the

greatest tragedy of all. The greatest everyday tragedy of child hunger in America.

In fact, more than 12 million children struggle with hunger every

month right here in the United States. That’s one in five. Government programs like TEFAP, WIC, food stamps and others go a long

way to provide assistance to these families who are experiencing

temporary problems. But unfortunately these programs don’t go far

enough.

Often many of the people who receive these benefits find they

run out of assistance before they run out of month. Single moms

often have to pay at least half of their take-home pay just for

childcare and other necessities so that they can hold down those

jobs.

And now with State facing major fiscal crises, many States have

had to reduce access to these programs to those who need them

most. Now, in our network of 60,000 church and other faith-based

community organizations we were able to provide over 70 million

pounds of food and other necessities just last year.

Additionally, we sent 14 million pounds to the same type of organizations overseas in 62 different countries. These organizations

live in the heart of poverty. They know the problems. They know

the communities. They know the families. They know the programs

that are available, and how to access them, and they stand shoulder to shoulder with us in our efforts to accommodate those families.

We measure our accomplishments with names and faces, not just

numbers. Last September, the Secretary of Agriculture, Ann

Veneman, and the director of the White House Office of FaithBased and Community Initiatives director Jim Towey, and Feed

the Children president Larry Jones announced the National Nonprofit Humanitarian Initiative.

It’s a nationwide program to provide nonfat dry milk to organizations like Feed the Children outside the normal scope of the

TEFAP program. Last month, we distributed more than 14 million

pounds to needy families across this country through organizations

like the Salvation Army and others who you’ll hear from today.

We have to be efficient with the resources that are provided to

us. Our donors expect it. Our faith requires it. Our donors won’t

want to give to—they don’t want to pay our utility bills. They don’t

want to pay our rent. They want their donations to go to move food

to hungry children. And that’s what we do best.

Last year, more than 88 cents of every dollar went to direct family expenditures for programs.

As much as we do, there’s always more that needs to be done.

We raise funds through a weekly television program and through

direct mail solicitations. But these funds are used to move those

trucks; 54 tractor trailers that carry food and other supplies from

point A to point B.

44

Those trucks cost money. Fuel, insurance, licensing, and many

other factors take a big bite out of what we could otherwise provide

the families. And that’s where we see other programs coming in.

The Denton Amendment is an overseas program that comes in

when USAID declares a disaster in foreign countries. Military and

other government modes of transportation can be utilized to move

humanitarian aid by organizations like Feed the Children.

We would call upon Congress to replicate this program for domestic use in the United States, and not just in times of disaster,

but as I said earlier in times of disaster for everyday hunger relief

by American children. We’d like to see the National Nonprofit Humanitarian Initiative expanded in order to provide more food and

different commodities and other government services. The bottom

line is faith-based organizations have demonstrated time and again

to be more efficient than large government programs. We can deliver. And with your help, we will.

Again, thank you for your leadership in this area. And we stand

shoulder to shoulder with you and offer our assistance in any way

to make these initiatives and others a reality.

Mr. SOUDER. Thank you very much for your testimony.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Whetstone follows:]

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

Mr. SOUDER. And we have two reasons why we have eight of you

in one panel, and I’ll ask questions for each of you at the end of

your testimonies. We have to be out of here at 2.

Also, we are still putting witness panels together, which is why

some of you have prepared and some you have less prepared cards,

as we were accommodating more requests and trying to make sure

we had a good mix of the panels.

It will make it a little chaotic in the questioning, but it will also

enable us to have a good discussion. I also wanted to say directly

to Steve that, in addition, Fort Wayne, IN, is my main base, but

Elkhart, where you’ve recently taken the Bay area facility for distribution of food, is an area I’m familiar with. Welcome to Indiana.

And I know you’ve had lots of support up in that area. And we’re

working hard in the farm belt with lots of ways to help a very committed region in that area with Mennonite Relief and the HEPA

project and many other organizations. And I think you’ll find it a

great place to work with. Now we’ll go to Mr. Dean Tollefson from

Community Ministers Unlimited here in Colorado Springs. Is that

correct?

STATEMENT OF DEAN E. TOLLEFSON, COMMUNITY MINISTERS

UNLIMITED

Mr. TOLLEFSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Souder, and your

staff for helping to deal me in today. I found out about this yesterday morning, and I’m pleased to be here.

I am a former college administrator and teacher. My name is

Dean, but I was one once.

Mr. SOUDER. So it’s not like the senator in Lake Wobegone where

his parents named him Senator?

Mr. TOLLEFSON. No, it’s a nomination. I’m a former officer in the

Marine Corps, and a legal officer. I wanted to lay out two things

today after talking about where I’m coming from.

The first one is the context for the work here in this community.

And the second one, specifically, are the problems associated with

what we are doing here or not doing, as the case may be.

You touched on the legal matters and the legal issues, but you

also said you’re functioning under an Executive order. My guess is,

as a former exec, you’re very much interested in the good management of that order. And I want to address that.

First of all, I’m head of the administerial service here. We serve

those that are excluded, ignored, or who don’t conform to some interest or litany, or really just mantra. What I’m concerned about

in my work is that an increasing number of people who are coming

to me say because of that narrow view, they are losing their sense

of the sacred.

It’s really dangerous for a nation to lose its sense of the sacred,

because somebody decides what is religious on very narrow

grounds.

Second, I want to say that I am a long-time member of the Pikes

Peak Inter-Faith Council. This includes a broad range of religious

faiths and belief among us. It includes Native Americans, the oldest faith in the area. It includes Orthodox, Catholics, main-line

Protestants, Muslims, Unitarian universals, Bahais, etc. All of us.

56

We are excluded from celebrating the National Day of Prayer in

this community by people that you have just heard from. Remember that the lady who heads that is either an honorary chairman

or a chairman, and just really doesn’t want to have anything to do

with all other main-liners and all of the other religious traditions,

some of which have a very long history in both western and the

eastern world.

I forgot to mention Buddhists and Hindus, and we should have

done that. We are all included in that, and we are excluded from

the National Day of Prayer in this community because of our

breadth and depth. You want to think about that in terms of what

that means in this community, and what is the direction that we

take because of that very narrow and exclusivist view.

I regret very much Tom Minnery saying that you have to hire

according to your own will. If he were to participate with us, he

would see that faith is not narrowly understood.

And that when hiring, one ought to think about competence, not

merely conformity.

I want to read, first of all, in the context of what we’re doing

here and the Faith Partners in our town that is working on the

issue that you’re here to explore. First of all, a quote, a commentary from Mr. Barry Torvag. This is a transcript of what I first

saw on PBS, and then read about in a transcript from National

Public Radio.

He said, ‘‘The first step is to love them.’’ I’m not sure this is a

quote. Oh, yes, it is a quote. ‘‘The first step is to love them’’—he’s

member of the board of directors of Faith Partners—‘‘and to care

for them, and not to attempt to share with them necessarily any

of the concepts surrounding the Christian faith, but just be there.

Love them and accept them, and then take a few months of the

program’’—‘‘and that takes a few months in the program. And

that’s Phase 1. And then the next phase is inviting them to explore

the concept of faith in God through Jesus Christ, which is the

Christian faith.’’

I think it’s somewhere between 85 percent range that’s come to

some relationship with God through Christ as a consequence of our

participation with them. Do you have the transcript? Yes.

Ms. Jaramillo says subsequently, she calls it a covert religious

mission. ‘‘I think it’s covert, because as I use the word ’covert,’ 95

percent of the Christian world is uncomfortable sharing their faith

with people.’’ That statement, Ms. Jaramillo, is an unmitigated outrage. It’s arrogant. It’s mean-spirited. It is totally inappropriate in

a religious community. ‘‘And why do you have to tip-toe around

that,’’ Mr. Schwartlein says, the interviewer. ‘‘Why do you need to

be, you know, covert in your work?’’ And then, ‘‘Because we’re

using government money.’’

Well, you can see the problem. And I don’t need to go on with

that. What I want to do now is go on. That’s the context in which

we work. Am I on red already? I wanted to talk about the contract

that the Faith Partners is totally in violation of.

Mr. SOUDER. Well, why don’t you briefly run through them.

Mr. TOLLEFSON. The first one is they should contact organizations from various religious backgrounds. We have 150 people representing about 24 religious organizations in this community, and

57

we have never been contacted by Faith Partners ever. None of us.

Ever. On any grounds. Not on our program or anything. Second,

the contract shall be monitored to ensure that no participating organization discriminates against any client in offering and providing services to them. They don’t even have an inclination to do

that. Their intention is not that.

‘‘The contractor shall provide evaluation of the content and application to be sure that they meet client needs, and do not violate

the client’s right to choice of nonintrusive secular services.’’ It’s another violation. They don’t do that.

Another one is No. 18. ‘‘The contract shall provide outreach services and presentations to the entire faith community.’’ It hasn’t

happened. It’s only to their own. This is real trouble to us. I’ll stop

there and honor you.

What we’re dealing with is narrow, self-righteous, and even selfservice issues. And it may be, sir, that the worst place for you to

try to make faith-based initiatives work is in Colorado Springs, because of the very narrow interpretations of what faith, even Christianity, means.

Remember 23 centuries ago, we heard Aristotle say that, ‘‘The

first way to screw up your mind and to enforce all the possibility

of knowledge is to exercise the fallacies of mere assertion.’’ Just because somebody says something is true doesn’t make it true.

So you want to think about where you’re applying what you’re

attempting to get. When government controls faith, faith doesn’t

work because free enterprise in the marketplace of belief builds

faith and faith communities. And what is being compromised here

is that free enterprise expression of faith.

When faith controls government, you get recession that is utterly

diabolical, and we see that everywhere in the world. And we have

seen it in our own country. Do you remember what the faith community said of Blacks? ‘‘The only way to save them is to enslave

them.’’

Mr. SOUDER. With all due respect, that was not the entire faith

community. Abolitionists were also led by the church.

Mr. TOLLEFSON. That was the heavy view in the south, and it’s

only as they got away from that have they begun to grow and be

progressive. So we want to be very careful about promoting one

point of view.

Mr. SOUDER. Thank you for your testimony.

Because it’s important in the hearings to have some diversity,

you made some specific charges with Ms. Jaramillo’s testimony on

a couple of particulars. But I don’t want to get into a heavy debate

over one organization. But it is a little bit enlightening as to how

it actually gets applied on a specific basis.

But I don’t want that to be predominant the rest of this hearing.

Next we’ll go to Ms. Littrell from Inter-Faith Hospitality Network.

STATEMENT OF SHARON LITTRELL, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF

INTERFAITH HOSPITALITY NETWORK

Ms. LITTRELL. Thank you very much for having me. I am Sharon

Littrell. I am the executive director of Interfaith Hospitality NetVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:43 Aug 02, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\94492.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
58

work here in Colorado Springs. We are a secular nonprofit organization that houses homeless families in existing facilities.

Generally, we use church buildings to house the families that

come to our program, though that is not always the case. In some

places they use hospitals. And, in fact, Penrose Hospital has offered

that, if necessary, we could house our families there.

So we are Interfaith in that we work with many, many different

religious organizations to house these families, and what we do is

keep our overhead very low by not having to build buildings.

As I said, by our name, we are not a religious organization. We

do not arrange for hospitality or fix up lonely individuals with

places to assuage their lonely feelings or needs.

At Christmas-time, I had somebody call me up and say, ‘‘I don’t

have a place to go for Christmas, and I would really like some companionship. Would you be willing to tell me where to go?’’ So you

can see that we get some mixed views about who we are.

We are a community-based organization that has experienced

wonderful partnerships with over 30 area churches and synagogues

in this community. The partnering religious facility provides a

place for IHN families to sleep. It provides members to fix and

share hot meals every night of the year.

This helps the four to eight families that must use our facilities

to save money, and locate affordable housing. The national organization to which IHN formally belongs was formally called National

Leadership Hospitality, recently changed its name to Family Promise, because the national board feels that Family Promise more accurately defines who we are. In Colorado Springs, IHN appeals to

many religious organizations that have an outward mission. They

help those who are in need, regardless of religious involvement.

IHN guest families are often relieved that we do not require a

statement of faith before we offer shelter, food, and hope.

They also appreciate that the folks who help, volunteers and

staff, do so because they are acting out their faith, not pushing it.

Many of the people who participate providing services have their

own religious faith. They just use their actions to show it, as opposed to words to prove it.

In the past 4 years, IHN has received HUD funding through the

continuum of care, which is a supernova stream of funding. We

have applied for and received city of Colorado Springs funding, and

presently have a Health and Human Services grant to initiate a

jobs program for the homeless who use the services of IHN, Ecumenical Social Services, West Side Cares, or the Pikes Peak Community Action Agency.

We also qualify for and receive FEMA funding. In other words,

we do have a lot of Federal funding, and that helps us to be able

to provide for the services that we give to people in this community. And by having that type of funding, we agree that we will do

so, provide services without religious means or qualifications.

Our services are provided without means testing for staff or clients, and they have positive results. During 2003, our families

maintained an 86 plus percent success rate, as high as a 92 percent

success rate toward the end of the year.

That is, families entered IHN as homeless people. They worked

at jobs to get back on to their feet. They saved money, and they

59

located affordable housing. The Federal funding allowed IHN to

provide expert case management services, a family day center for

weekends and days when no work was available. It provided diapers, some clothing, cars for several families. And we did it by

teaching, not preaching.

Upon leaving IHN, several of our families were sufficiently impressed with the help and support that they received from the

churches where they had slept that they returned to join that

church. They did this on their own, without being pressured.

Moreover, they now give back to the homeless community by

helping at IHN or helping house homeless families at their place

of worship.

As a director of a nonprofit agency in Colorado Springs, I join

other agencies seeking funds that would further our programs. IHN

seeks a level playing field where we have an equal chance of receiving funds. Not one that stacks the favor in one group or another

based on an artificial measure of religiosity. I appreciate the opportunity to be here, and would welcome your questions later.

Mr. SOUDER. Thank you very much for your testimony.

Reverend Dean Cowles is president of the YouthPartnersNet in

Denver, CO. You used to be in Indiana.

STATEMENT OF REVEREND DEAN COWLES, PRESIDENT,

YOUTHPARTNERSNET

Rev. COWLES. I was for 10 years, and then I found religion when

I got to Colorado. My pastor said, ‘‘You know why you’re moving

to Colorado? You can’t get close to God unless you’re 5,000 feet

above sea level.’’

But I did have 10 years experience in Indianapolis, starting a

local faith-based ministry on East Washington Street there, and

Mayor Goldsmith was our mayor. Over the years that I have been

involved in urban faith-based ministry, and starting a homeless

center, and a litany of other projects, it’s my firm belief that the

present administration is on the right track with leveling the playing field as the faith-based White House paper came out calling it.

It’s time for faith-based organizations to be able to have a chance

to share what works. We’re not talking about, you know, debating

here who’s better, who’s right, who’s wrong. We’re just talking

about what works. And if it works, great.

And we have found thousands of organizations that I represent

around the country through YouthPartnersNet and other compassionate ministries, that these programs work, and they work with

far more impact for less money than the war on poverty welfare

programs that have been pushed by government over the past 30

to 40 years.

As I said, I was a founder and director of Shepherd Community

Urban Ministry in Indianapolis. I was also the founder and director

of Crossroads in the Westwood neighborhood of Denver. In 2000, I

became the director for the Compassion USA Ministry Program,

and just recently we have spun off that division of Compassion into

YouthPartnersNet. We are trying to build capacity with hundreds

of faith-based local grass roots organizations that don’t have the sophistication to apply for government funds or private funds for that

matter. They pretty much do it as volunteers, with tithes and offerVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:43 Aug 02, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\94492.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
60

ings from their local church, and do a tremendous work in their

local communities.

Thousands and thousands of these grass roots organizations have

continued this kind of work long before this debate ever began.

In a book called the Tragedy of American Compassion written by

Marvin Okasky, which is in my written testimony, which I don’t

have time to read my whole testimony, but he makes a great point

in that before government entered this, it was the church that was

doing it.

But in the 1920’s and 1930’s, the 1920’s and 1930, the church got

out of that and government got into it. And we have seen some

problems since then. So he’s advocating, as I am advocating, that

we level the playing field, and get more resources back into these

local neighborhood and community faith-based organizations.

And it can be done, and we have proven that it can be done without this whole debate of do they have to go to religious services?

Do they have to do this? No, no, no.

As you’ll find throughout the country, these kind of services are

provided with the most genuine spirit and love, and without coercion in most cases. Sure there will always be a few that take advantage of that. But I have seen across the country that these

groups do it in a wonderful, loving, compassionate way.

And we believe in the President’s initiative. In fact, I served for

the last few years on the Compassion Capital Fund review. And it’s

been a wonderful experience to see grant applications come from a

variety of faith-based organizations to impact their communities.

And we have gone through those applications, and have rewarded those with very excellent programming without a whole lot

of money. Our encouragement to the Congress is to continue to

fund that fund, as well as the other faith-based funds through

other departments that have other faith-based provisions, and to

continue to raise the level of funding for those faith-based groups.

It provides more bang for the buck and anything else that we see

coming along in the 20 years of my experience. We also, here in

Colorado, have experienced some good funding locally from the Colorado legislature to the grant money for after-school programs.

That’s been very successful. And the great thing about the funds

that have come through Crossroads of the Rockies for $163,000, is

that enables them to employ four staff full-time. And they worked

with 350 youth. And, in addition, they have $350,000 of volunteer

time that comes in every year.

This is repeated around the country, and we’re very excited

about continuing to enhance those relationships. The winds in

Washington are indeed changing, and we’re grateful for that.

20 years ago my wife and I would have never dreamed of being

invited to this type of hearing. So my hat’s off to you and the other

Members.

I’d also like to highlight in my last 16 seconds that the work that

Mayor Goldsmith did was a national model in Indiana. But in his

two books that I wanted to highlight for the record, Mayor Steven

Goldsmith wrote Putting Faith in Neighborhoods: Making Cities

Work Through Grassroots Citizenship and the 21st Century City

and Resurrecting Urban America.

61

Our mayor was a tremendous help to us, saved money for the

city, employed homeless and teenagers, as well. And we have seen

over the years that these faith-based partnerships work in a wonderful way. And we look forward to our continued discussion.

Thank you.

Mr. SOUDER. Thank you very much for your testimony.

[The prepared statement of Reverend Cowles follows:]

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

Mr. SOUDER. Next is Ms. Jean Robinson from Denver Urban

Ministries.

STATEMENT OF JEAN ROBINSON, DENVER URBAN MINISTRY

Ms. ROBINSON. I am Jean Robinson with Denver Urban Ministries, and we appreciate being heard today. Denver Urban Ministries is a 501(c)3 human service organization. We provide emergency services and basic needs such as food and clothing, as well

as infant items, rent, and utility assistance.

Through our job services, we provide the tools needed to provide

employment. Through our education and advocacy programs, we

provide ways for people to get back to their community.

We were founded in 1981 by the Methodist church, and continue

to serve as their mission arm in the community. We receive our

funding from a variety of sources, including private foundations, individuals, and about 70 congregations, most located in the Denver

metro area.

We were founded by the Methodists, but we are non-ecumenical. Our annual budget is about $500,000 a year.

The purpose of DenUM is to nurse the spirit for community. We

provide resources for people in crisis, and create opportunities for

individuals in community growth and service. We have many different faiths represented by the staffing volunteers at DenUM. We

do not discriminate in hiring in any way. We do not proselytize in

any way. And we do not believe in putting any condition on the receipt of our services. People that come to us are in crisis, and they

are vulnerable. They need assistance, not prayers and coercion and

extra stress. They need common sense solutions to their problems.

We do work, we do the work we do because we want to put our

faith into action. We feel good about the work we do, because we

see results which are measurable. There has never been any discrimination in faith-based agencies receiving government funding.

The government has always provided funding to religiously affiliated organizations that provide social services. We were on a level

playing field with every other agency that had a quality program

and did not proselytize to their clients or discriminate in their hiring practices.

The government has funded large faith-based organizations such

as Catholic Charities and United Jewish Communities and smaller

agencies such as DenUM. There is an important difference between

being affiliated with a religion and being a religious organization,

and I think that’s an important distinction to note.

By enacting faith-based initiatives, the government has actually

taken away the level playing field and given faith-based organizations an advantage, or at least a leg up, and this is wrong. If you

can’t do the work to apply for the grant, you can’t do the paperwork involved in accountability.

Another result has been to take much needed money away from

direct services to put into technical assistance for small agencies or

churches to learn how to access these funds. There’s a Web site.

There’s been government sponsored workshops at Federal and

State levels.

In the meantime, there has been little change to the amount of

cash assistance people receive when they are in programs, such as

74

Social security or disability. Many people believe that all faithbased must be in favor of faith-based initiatives, but many of us

are not.

Many faith-based organizations are very concerned about the

rights of our most vulnerable populations. At DenUM, we believe

that if you help stabilize a family through income and housing, people will have time to explore their faith.

We have witnessed many forms of religious abuse on families

who are trying to get through a tough time only to be contacted

with additional obstacles to attaining their goal by organizations

who put conditions upon receiving their services.

For example, an agency in Denver requires someone to attend religious services to partake in an evening meal. This may seem like

a small requirement to some, but that’s the point. If you are hungry or in need of shelter for yourself or your family, you will do

anything required to get the services you need. It’s wrong to require that people conform to your belief system in order to access

to basic needs.

It is not only wrong to insist upon these requirements, but it is

a clear violation of the separation between church and State if you

are receiving government funding for that program.

There are pros and cons to government funding. We have had experience with two different funding sources. Neither are a part of

the faith-based initiative or Colorado Compassion Fund.

The Emergency Food and Shelter Program formally known as

FEMA is a grant. We were awarded the money for rent assistance

and food purchased. The money is deposited in our bank account.

We document the money, spend the money, and report on the

money.

If you have good recordkeepers, this is an easy program to monitor. Contracts are more difficult. An emergency shelter that we

run was granted a contract awarded to us by Denver County in

which you will be reimbursed for funds. Our contract was for $14,000 for rent assistance to prevent

homelessness. During the contract year, we paid upfront $14,000

for rent assistance to clients that were reimbursed. This works out

fine as long as the agency that is reimbursing you does so in a

timely manner.

Denver Department of Human Services reimbursed us on a

monthly basis. Contracts do not work well when you are a small

agency, and you have a contract that’s not reimbursed in a timely

manner. Our negative experience came in the form of a welfare

work grant in 2000 to 2002. The problem was that it was our intent to use this grant to serve our existing population.

Unfortunately, qualifications were so intense that few in our existing program qualified, and we ended up serving a new population. The second problem was the reimbursement schedule, which

was not timely. At one point, we were fronting the government

$16,000, they were 3 months behind in reimbursing us, and I didn’t

have enough money in the bank for payroll. The third problem is

paperwork. You have to have qualified staff who can handle the

documentation and the bureaucracy involved, and checks and balances in place to ensure that this documentation is done, before

you tack on the responsibility of government money.

75

The paperwork is immense and repetitive. None of this is to say

it should be easier. It is a serious responsibility to be good steward

of taxpayer dollars. Faith-based organizations should have to jump

through the same hoops and have the same work. Tax dollars

should not be spent on promoting religion.

Religious organizations and organizations with religious affiliations should not be exempt from accountability. If organizations

want to promote their religion, they should use private funding to

do it.

We need to remember that all citizens are guaranteed their civil

rights, even if they are poor, uneducated, mentally ill, addicted to

drugs, non-Christian or non-White. Thank you.

Mr. SOUDER. Thank you.

Next we have Mr. Ed Anderson, vice president and chief financial officer of Compassion International.

STATEMENT OF ED ANDERSON, VICE PRESIDENT/CFO,

COMPASSION INTERNATIONAL

Mr. ANDERSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the invitation today.

I’ve been with Compassion for about 25 years now. And our organization takes us to the most difficult living situations, the poorest

communities to minister to more than 550,000 children through

over 2,500 local church partners in 23 countries.

Each child has a name and a future, and each partner sees a

promise within each child. We believe there are four characteristics

that set Compassion apart. Our organization is Christ centered,

church-based, and committed to integrity.

We partner with local churches to teach, train, and mentor children in a safe environment together with the parents and the community. We directly engage each child as a complete person. We

teach the life-changing gospel to every child in a culturally relevant

way. And in all of our work, we are committed to the highest professional, financial, and biblical principles.

In addition, Compassion speaks out for children who can’t speak

up for themselves, informing, motivating, and equipping others to

become effective advocates for children.

In the United States, our challenge to advocate for children is

aired on our radio program ‘‘Speak Up with Compassion’’ on nearly

500 stations every day. Through efficient and effective child development programs, we enable children to become responsible, fulfilled Christian adults. More than 80 percent of dollars go directly

to child development programs. Compassion’s field office staff are

primarily nationals who speak the local language and understand

local culture.

A key to our success and sustainability in our child development

programs is that we partner with the local organization that has

been in existence for decades, and will continue to be present for

generations to come. We partner with the local church. This provides us with a sustainable infrastructure at a very low cost.

Compassion has been recognized by the American Institute of

Philanthropy with an A rating, is a member of the Better Business

Bureau Wise Giving Alliance, and is a founding member of the

Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability.

76

In addition, we conduct regular internal and external audits to

ensure children are receiving the opportunities and benefits promised.

During Compassion’s 52-year history, we’ve seen many approaches to breaking the cycle of poverty in children’s lives, and

over the decades we’ve discovered that changed circumstances rarely change people’s lives, while changed people inevitably change

their circumstances.

At Compassion, we believe in changing the world one child at a

time. Through our leadership development program, qualified

young people have the opportunity to attend university in their

country and field of their choice.

In addition, these young people are mentored and taught time

management, provided spiritual training, and Christian leadership

skills. These compassionate children grow up to become leaders

and influencers in their own cultures. Changing their communities,

their countries, and ultimately the world.

The world’s poorest children are often defenseless. Some are brutally forced into labor, others are driven into the sex trade, and

still others are coerced into service as soldiers. Children face illiteracy, abuse, and hopelessness at almost every turn.

Never in Compassion’s 52-year history have we encountered an

enemy with the prospect of totally destroying the God-given potential of millions of the world’s children.

That is until now. The HIV/AIDS epidemic threatens millions of

African children today. In Africa alone, more than 14 million AIDS

orphans are homeless and financially desperate.

We’ve seen children as young as 8 years old care for themselves

and their younger brothers and sisters. No one organization, no one

government, and no one strategy by itself can completely address

the needs of those affected by AIDS. We call upon every person,

every organization, and every government to meet the challenge of

this epidemic.

We serve a God of miracles. We believe we can harness human

ingenuity and resolve to meet this challenge.

Compassion applauds President Bush and Congress for their historic commitment to reach out to the global community impacted

by AIDS, and we urge the President and Congress to release full

funding to help our brothers and sisters in Africa impacted by

AIDS.

Compassion also congratulates the President and Congress for its

important work in the faith-based initiatives. We know that many

nonprofits efficiently and effectively use this critical government

funding to change and save millions of lives every year.

Despite AIDS, despite poverty, despite the enormous challenges

facing today’s children, Compassion sees the world as a place of

hope, and we see daily how tiny seeds of faith transform the lives

of individual children next door in our communities and halfway

around the world.

77

Working together with other nonprofit organizations, church

partners, and child sponsors, Compassion will continue to deliver

God’s promise to each child, and everlasting hope, strong faith, and

a bright future. Thank you.

Mr. SOUDER. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Anderson follows:]

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

Mr. SOUDER. With the Senate passing an appropriations bill, one

of the most important categories was for the AIDS funding. We’re

nowhere near full funding, but at least it’s a significant bump up

tied directly to the vote yesterday.

Next, Ms. Jackie Jaramillo, executive director of Faith Partners.

If you want to give both your general statement and then if you

want to make any specific comments, I’ll give you a little bit extra

time, because I also gave a little bit of time later.

STATEMENT OF JACKIE JARAMILLO, FAITH PARTNERS

Ms. JARAMILLO. Well, thank you. I’m Jackie Jaramillo, and I represent a coalition of a little over 100 churches in Colorado Springs.

And Faith Partners wouldn’t exist without—Faith Partners is actually the faith community’s response to welfare reform in our community.

Many of us were working, those of us in the faith community,

were managing and working with benevolent ministries like West

Side Cares and ESM and Catholic charities and Salvation Army.

We were working in the community, and we began to read about

how welfare reform would be implemented, and how there would

be time limits. We felt that the people who were in generations of

poverty would really not know where to go after they got cutoff. So

we started a dialog with the county to really ask the county what

their safety net would be. And as it turned out, that dialog, which

took place over an 18-month period of time, turned out that we

were trying to discover what our responsibility would be.

We knew that our pockets were not deep enough to sustain people in the way that welfare sustained them. And so at the time,

David Burns was the director of the Department of Human Services here locally. And he challenged the churches to find a way to,

No. 1, work together.

He didn’t want to, there were lots of agencies who had been contractors with the county before. They could have come alongside

and formulated some kind of response to help families break the

cycle of poverty in their lives. But David Burns was insisting that

we work together. And that really was the catalyst that formed the

coalition. So we formed a coalition, and we were very inclusive and

everybody was invited to the table in the early, beginning stages.

In the beginning when we started that dialog, we were Interfaith,

and we did have other faiths, non-Christian faiths, at the table in

the dialog with us.

In addition to that, I cannot forget to mention the fact that the

community was well-represented, because David Burns and many

of the people from the community from the government side were

also involved in the dialog, and never missed a meeting.

So as we began to formulate our response, we decided that, we

came to the conclusion that, the way that we would respond to welfare reform is not with our pocketbook, but with our lives, and that

we would provide hope and purpose for families in the community

that were trying to break the cycle of poverty in their lives through

a monitoring program.

So we developed and we examined mentoring programs from

across the country, and we borrowed the best practices from those

mentoring programs. I’m sure you’ve heard about many of them.

85

Pathfinders in Texas and a lot of others, various, all secular, by the

way. And we took the best practices from those, and we’ve formulated what has now become Faith Partners.

Faith Partners is a faith-in-action program. We do not evangelize. We do not proselytize. We serve anybody who requests our

services. It is a ministry of the church itself. The people on the

staff provide training to the mentors. We provide training to the

families prior to them coming into the program, so that they understand what they’re committing to, and then the two form a team.

We have a team approach of four to six mentors that work exclusively with one family for an entire year. We have an evaluation

system in place that we started from day one to prove our effectiveness, and we have proven effectiveness in all of the families that

we’ve served.

We’ve witnessed behavioral changes, attitudinal changes, and

economic changes. And so we’ve taken a very skill-based approach

to mentoring these families.

We have a better than 89 percent success rate for the families

that we’ve worked with. And in the 5 years that we’ve been in existence, we’ve served over 150 families.

So we believe that what Faith Partners has created in their partnership with the Department of Human Services is a good model.

And we believe that it is working, and it is very satisfying work,

and we have found a way in which both sides can benefit.

The faith community has their response, in terms of bringing volunteers that provide the mentoring services. And the county, of

course, provides the funds for us to operate.

Our funds are a little over 100,000 a year, and they haven’t

changed significantly over the 5 years that we’ve been in operation.

I’m a little bit taken aback by the comments of the panelist earlier. I have never heard that you had that kind of reaction to the

Bill Moyer show, and I’m really sorry. I’m totally accessible to you,

and you could have come to me with those concerns, and I would

have been able to explain to you, as I did in my response to Bill

Moyer after the show was aired, how disgusted I was with how he

twisted and turned and took journalistic liberties on that show.

He actually filmed, his production crew filmed 20 hours of work

that Faith Partners did, and he chose to give a show that sort of

strapped us with this separation of church and State debate, which

was really unfair to the work of Faith Partners and all of the people involved in the partnership locally.

In addition to that, I have two and a half staff people. And with

those two, we support over 300 volunteers and 30 families that are

being mentored in our program, and we are totally open.

If any congregation, whatever faith they are, come to Faith Partners and want to have a mentoring team, we would embrace that

completely. It’s part of our constitution. It’s part of how we started

this, to be very inclusive. And we’ve never turned away anybody.

It’s part of who I am in the community, as well. I represent a

lot of churches that really are in conflict with each other theologically, but that’s not my concern. I’m working with those individuals who come forth to give of their time to help families break the

cycle of poverty in our community.

86

Bill Moyer had a particular point that he wanted to drive. And

in terms of my using the word ‘‘covert,’’ I was trying to explain to

the interviewer how we were a faith in action, and not evangelical.

We were not evangelical in our approach to working families. And

I was talking about a book that was written that was called the

Kindness Conspiracy.

It’s written by an author, and it talks in that book about how

Christians are very uncomfortable speaking and talking to somebody else about their faith, but they are not uncomfortable with

acts of kindness. So he took that conversation completely out of

context. That was an off-the-record conversation we were having,

and he threw a question at me during the interview, which brought

that word ‘‘covert’’ up again. And so I actually used the word ‘‘conspiracy’’ not ‘‘covert.’’ And it’s a conspiracy of kindness, and it’s

what all of us operate under. We all are in the work that we are

in for the acts of kindness that we give and that gives our faith

purpose. It gives us purpose. And so end of story.

Anybody who wants to contact me and know further what that

interview was all about, I’m totally willing to spend time explaining the true intent of Faith Partners and what we’re trying to accomplish in the community. Thank you.

Mr. SOUDER. Thank you.

Thank you. Our clean-up panelist for today is Mr. Bob Cote, executive director of Step 13 in Denver.

STATEMENT OF BOB COTE, STEP 13, DENVER, CO

Mr. COTE. Yes, my name is Bob Cote.

Mr. SOUDER. That’s the English pronunciation, Cote (pronouncing)?

Mr. COTE. Bill collectors say that. I started Step 13 20 years ago,

because I was an alcoholic. And I look out my office at the bar, Los

Compadres, where I poured out half a fifth of vodka, which at that

time would have probably took five good men to get away from me.

And at that time, I was beginning to realize that I was committing suicide on the installment plan. And I went from making

$100,000 a year to drinking on skid row. But there was a rhyme

and reason. I got to know all those men down there, and I started

running a restaurant for $450 a month. And I made the deal with

the board of directors that we would never take any Federal, State,

or city moneys. Never solicit for United Way money, Season to

Share money. That we’re going to do it on our own. If it was meant

to be, it would be. And that was 20 years ago, and we’re here. So

we’ve done pretty well. Our budget is around $480,000 a year. We raise 50 percent of

that. We have three in-house businesses. We’re two blocks from

Coors Field. I have an auto detailing car wash business. And during the Rockies season, we’re pretty busy. I pay them $10 an hour.

All of my staff consists of residents of Step 13, with the exception

of one. I have a young lady that helps me administratively. And I

believe it takes a duck to deal with a duck. If you have a fox start

dealing around with some ducks, you’ve got a problem. And we

have a lot of that in this country.

And I think what we’re leaving out of this, I believe you mentioned Marvin Okasky and Bob Woodson, and what happens, and

87

this has been going on for years, everyone says programs are faithbased and community-based, but nobody says community-based. It

all says faith-based, and everybody gets jacked out of shape. ‘‘Uhoh, we’re going to be dunking them in a tank of water,’’ and doing

this and that and whatever.

I’m not a minister. I named Step 13 Step 13 because of Jesus and

the 12 apostles, and the original 13 colonies. God and country. That

is what did it for this guy. Because I was invited to the White

House 7 years after I poured that vodka bottle out. What other

country could that happen in, or could you envision to have this vision in your mind and have this work?

Our success rate is 39 percent. But I’m not dealing with all the

boys. I’m dealing with hard-core drug and alcoholics that have been

on the street 10 years, 15 years.

And you mentioned Pastor Freddie Garcia down in San Antonio

or Houston. And I’ve known him for many, many years, through

Robert Woods and the National Center for Neighborhood Enterprise. And when Newt Gingrich was the speaker of the House, we

used to meet with him once every 4 months. And we’ve brought up

all of these things that I’ve been saying.

Here today, years later, we’re still doing it. But I think it comes

from, why don’t you give vouchers? John Walter spoke about this

a couple months ago. And I believe that Congress has approved it,

and that they’re waiting for the House, or they’re waiting for the

Senate, but it was a couple of hundred million dollars for alcohol

and drug treatment.

I have a church. It’s not mandatory. And I’ve had Rabbis there.

I’ve had priests there. I’ve had Mormons there. Whatever. I rotate

them. And they act as mentors.

They don’t have to go to the church. They can go instead to the

meeting room downstairs and watch a 4-hour Father Martin movie

or go to the church and listen to the music or whatever.

And the tickets to the Rockies have been very good to us and so

on and so forth. But I truly believe that vouchers would be the answer. What would be the difference if a Catholic went to a Baptist

shelter or whatever? And ‘‘shelter,’’ I don’t like that word. We shelter horses and cows and things like that. We should do more for

people.

And I don’t have a time limit. The longest I’ve had someone stay

there is 3 years. But they have to get a bank account, and there’s

a pecking order. And we’re in the process of purchasing an apartment house for the next step.

But faith-based, that’s a great idea. Catholic Charities, Mary

Bolan, at one of those congressional hearings, she said, ‘‘If we have

to adhere to these rules, then we’re not going to accept any government money.’’

Well, I beg your pardon. Two-thirds of their budget nationally

comes from the Federal budget. They don’t want anyone—it’s like

territorial. And that’s the problem.

This isn’t that complicated. You know, I think we’re all here to

help people, you know? And there’s always a barrier or an ‘‘if,’’ or

you’re a right-wing, mean-spirited Christian fanatic. And I’ll take

that.

88

Is it mean-spirited to ask someone that’s ruined his life drinking,

with drugs and alcohol to get his act together and go to work and

take care of himself and be responsible for his actions? To ask children to stop having children. Is that mean-spirited? I don’t think

so.

If it is, I’ll take it. But we have to get real, and we go around

and around and around. And you’re going to another city. Let’s just

put the hammer down and say, ‘‘Let’s try it.’’

We have this President at this time, and I don’t think we’re

going to get this chance again. While the President is in office, you

and I know that Senator Samtorum, who I talked to in the first

year he was elected—I testified before his subcommittee. Senator

Cohen was President Clinton’s Secretary of State. But we got something done.

See, there’s three kinds of lies: Statistics, statistics, no, lies, lies,

and statistics. And people know these numbers all over the place.

And we need to be accountable.

If you’re going to get faith-based funding, then you need to be accountable for every person and what happens with that person, and

stop shooting numbers all over the place. Be honest, and I think

it will work.

We’re not talking a lot. Why not give it a chance? If we’re wrong,

we’ll take our medicine. If the other side is wrong, I doubt they’ll

take theirs.

I see the red light. This faith-based bird, say it’s a bird. You’ve

got the left wing flapping 90 miles an hour, and the right wing has

got a little crazy glue on it with a little feather, and not quite get

going. So the bird is never going to get off the ground. So what are

we going to do.

We’ve got to get the left and the right wings flapping together,

and let’s get this thing going and help some people and do some

good. That’s all I have to say. Thank you.

Mr. SOUDER. Thank you very much for your testimony. Very diverse testimony.

And let me just lay out a couple of general comments to try to

fill in the blanks before I start with a process of some questions.

Let me make just a couple of things clear, because I’ve been

working with this issue since the early 1980’s. So let me put it in

a little bit of historical context, so we don’t have to revisit some

points in the debate.

First off, faith-based initiatives are not new. And here’s why.

They’ve historically given to groups that didn’t direct faith as part

of their delivery of services.

In other words, some of what we’ve talked about is as long as you

don’t overtly share your faith as part of those services, there’s

never really been a question.

And one of the fundamental questions I’m going to ask is how

is that different than a Christian working for the welfare department? Because there have been Christians, Jews, Muslims who

have worked for the welfare department. So what makes a faithbased ministry that doesn’t have faith as part of it different than

a secular ministry manned by people of faith?

The next question is the first expansion to kind of faith-based

ministries, where they shared their faith, where we got into the

89

legal question of could you have a crucifix posted? Could you have

a collar? Could you share a prayer. Could you start sharing with

your faith with somebody and not lose your grant? That came

largely through the pressures of Bob Woodson and Jack Kemp

under President Reagan.

Because at that point, hardly anybody would deliver those social

services, except people who viewed a higher value to eternal rather

than present.

And so all of a sudden, grants went out from HUD to overtly religious groups with no questions asked, because nobody else would

provide the services.

Something similar started happening with homelessness. It’s

clear Congress will never appropriate enough money for homelessness. And without overtly religious groups being part of the homelessness problem, there wasn’t going to be an ability to meet that.

So grants have gone out in the homeless area and the AIDS area

long before there were overt pieces of legislation to address the

faith-based organizations. Then we started to expand that into

other categories. When the Republicans took over Congress with

welfare reform, that was the first initiative where faith-based

groups were coming into more traditional source type of things,

where you start running into, ‘‘There’s a limited pot. Should some

of this pot be diversified.’’

We passed it on welfare reform. It passed in the House under

Rick Laslow’s committee when we first took over Congress. We

passed in the House at least five other bills.

I think, as I mentioned, I believe four became law. And the restrictions got narrower and narrower.

For example, as we started in the education committee to deal

with some of the things, when you’re dealing with the Head Start

program, it’s a little different than other things. So we had to

have—you couldn’t have prayer any closer—the amendment that I

agreed to was any closer than 5 minutes before it started. So there

was a clear break, so nobody was made to feel uncomfortable. You

couldn’t have prayer during the session, so there would be no proselytizing.

The Head Start program was the Head Start program, but that

doesn’t mean that the people that were running the program didn’t

have, ‘‘a covert part of that.’’ They were reaching out and covering

part of their mission with their behavior and their religion.

But there are different rules depending, and fundamentally, on

the faith-based things, that we get this clarified. Unless there’s

choice, unless a recipient has a choice of services, there won’t be

government funding that allows any direct involvement of religion.

Except where nobody’s providing services, that becomes a different challenge. And that’s where we’re getting into some of these

international questions. We’re starting to explore that, because if

nobody else is delivering it, do you treat it differently?

You can’t, if you have government money, discriminate on who’s

receiving it. You can’t do that. Now, one debate is can you put any

conditions on it? But you can’t say, in other words, they have to

attend a talk. You can’t say, ‘‘You have to be a Christian. You have

to be a Muslim. You can’t be a Jew.’’ You can’t do that with government funds. These things are agreed on. There are already court

90

rules. So we’ve got a much narrower debate that’s occurring here.

Now, as we move into areas, and this is why we constantly have

these hearings, to the frustration of the grass roots movement. I’m

going to go through and sort out here how we’re going to go

through the questioning process.

But let me just say that part of the reason—let me give you a

couple of political comments, so when you hear followup discussion

on this, you can put this in context.

Some of the problem is here that, I remember we had a meeting

with Steve Goldsmith when he was putting together this initiative

for President Bush, when Governor Bush was still running for

President. And he said, ‘‘Why is this so hard getting this through

Congress.’’

Let me tell you, Democratic constituencies are less amenable to

faith-based organizations than to overtly religious organizations.

And Republican Congressmen and Senators tend to represent suburban and rural groups, not urban ministries.

Therefore, there is no overt constituency that is in Washington

that says, ‘‘How do we reach the poor through faith-based organizations?’’ And the faith-based has a pattern, though Focus on the

panel said they didn’t want it, neither do lots of the other big ministries want direct government funding.

That’s not what this was designed for. But it’s been very hard,

because, bluntly put, when many Republicans figured out this

wasn’t going to be money going to their districts, they were less enthusiastic about it. And the Democrats weren’t backing it from the

beginning, with very few exceptions. So it’s been very hard to move

it through, except piecemeal. But people like myself who have been

backing it from the beginning believe that contrary to statements

that groups have been eligible for years, because of the government

bureaucracy, Black and Hispanic groups particularly in America,

who live in the neighborhoods, have not been part of the process.

Getting them to be part of the process requires some minimal investment of government funds and capital. And, quite frankly, we

have a bill that’s co-sponsored by Jerry Nadler, Bobby Scott, Chet

Edwards, Barney Frank, who support the compassion capital idea,

as long as they aren’t getting government funds and aren’t able to

receive government funds with it.

In other words, part of it is to build the capacity of groups like

Step 13 to go to private foundations to get the money, not just government funds. And in the context of tens of billions of dollars, putting some money into developing the capacity of organizations that

are often unheard, which is what Mr. Cote was referring to.

You heard a long-time frustrated example of, ‘‘We don’t even

know how to get included in the process of the United States. We’re

too busy working out in the street, and we don’t know how to go

about it.’’

Steve Goldsmith, who is Jewish, did these initiatives in Indianapolis, because he didn’t know how. He knew he wasn’t going to

get any more tax revenue. He didn’t know how to meet the revenues. He said, ‘‘Any comer that wants to do this, come on board.

We don’t know what to do about homelessness. We don’t know

what to do about health care.’’

91

And the challenge in front of us is, is there enough room at the

table that, in some form, faith-based groups can be included. And

I want to reiterate, as I did in the first panel, there are tax breaks

we already agreed with. We have that in Federal law. Compassion

capital fund is more debateable. What the administration is currently doing through Executive order with some of the grants is

even more debateable. And, quite frankly, it’s headed for pork.

It’s just where the decision is going to be, and where it’s going

to go, because there’s a little bit more. Because for some of them,

there are choices, and for some of them, there aren’t. And then

there’s another category where the voucher word is almost as controversial as saying an overt Jesus Christ word.

The voucher word in Congress is about as debated as you can

get. But nevertheless, this is a different ballgame when there’s a

clear choice of somebody with a voucher. But that requires there

to be program choices. Because a voucher for Head Start doesn’t

work in eastern Colorado where there may only be one Head Start

center in several hundred miles. So we clearly have to, as we work

through the voucher question, work this through.

Now, with that as kind of a background of what we’re doing, I

want to establish, first off, Mr. Tollefson, let me ask you a question.

Does your organization provide social services?

Mr. TOLLEFSON. Only in the work we do. And we do not discriminate on any basis.

Mr. SOUDER. But you provide social service.

Mr. TOLLEFSON. No, we do. The services we provide to are to

families who are in some celebration. It might be a memorial service, it might be christening, it might be a wedding, it might be

some kind of counseling.

Mr. SOUDER. But you do provide counseling or some kind of services? It’s not just a meeting services.

Mr. TOLLEFSON. Yes.

Mr. SOUDER. I wanted to make sure.

Mr. TOLLEFSON. And I have a response to your question.

Mr. SOUDER. I didn’t have a question yet. My question was——

Mr. TOLLEFSON. What makes them different than social services.

Mr. SOUDER. I’m going to come to that question in a minute.

First I wanted to establish that you all provide some sort of services.

My first question is an assumption. And rather than taking a

long time with each answer, I just want to correctly see if I identified that.

Mr. Whetstone, for Feed the Children, hiring practices and ability to openly share your faith would be a problem if you couldn’t

do it?

Mr. WHETSTONE. Not necessarily.

Mr. SOUDER. It depends on the type of program that you’re particularly involved in.

Mr. WHETSTONE. Absolutely. We recognize the diversity of faith.

It’s a holistic approach.

Mr. SOUDER. So, for example, if you were doing a food bank, you

could theoretically set up a food bank where you would hire people

of different faiths in your food bank.

Mr. WHETSTONE. Absolutely.

92

Mr. SOUDER. You could have a Muslim working in that food bank

and distributing food, and that would be considered. Because you

don’t require a statement of faith from all employees.

Mr. WHETSTONE. That’s exactly right.

Mr. SOUDER. But as a mission, your primary mission, for example, if somebody wanted to be on your board of directors, or part

of your corporation, do you presume that they have a Christian

mission in that?

Mr. WHETSTONE. I think it’s part of the Christian mission. And

having a heart for service as we’re taught in the Bible.

Mr. SOUDER. So would you function with a board that was majority non-Christian.

Mr. WHETSTONE. We don’t, but we could.

Mr. SOUDER. So your organization, I would put in the mixed

forum. We would have to identify that more clearly.

And as I understand, Mr. Tollefson, you would require a statement of faith.

Mr. TOLLEFSON. Absolutely not. The issue is not whether they

conform to my faith, but what is their sense of the sacred. That’s

what’s really important. Because people do have different views of

what that is.

Some will follow Jesus. Others will follow Buddha. Others will

follow the natural path of nature. The issue is what is sacred, and

not just materialistic.

Mr. SOUDER. But that is your opinion of the issue.

Mr. TOLLEFSON. That’s who I serve and what I would not expect.

Mr. SOUDER. Ms. Littrell, my understanding is you would have

openness as to who would be on. There wouldn’t be a requirement

of a statement of faith?

Ms. LITTRELL. There’s no requirement for anybody.

Mr. SOUDER. And, Reverend Cowles, in your organization, would

you have an overt statement of faith about any organizations you

had?

Rev. COWLES. Yes.

Mr. SOUDER. So you have some organizations that don’t? For example, would you be to able segregate. Conservatives have complained about this for years. That Planned Parenthood will get

Federal funding, even though it’s banned for abortions.

They’ll get abortion counseling in one section, and non-abortion

counseling in another section. So anybody that argues that religious organizations shouldn’t have that spread, will also cutoff Federal funding for Planned Parenthood.

Because, in fact, if you have separate divisions, you allow that

to occur. But you’re saying you would have a consistent statement

of faith.

Rev. COWLES. Our ministry hires their own people, but I can

speak for them that the majority of their leadership would have

definitely a statement of belief. And, in fact, most of them hire

right out of their own congregations.

But further on down the line, cooks and helpers and janitors, you

know, no. Many of them hire, in fact, lots of people hire people that

come to their program from whatever background they come from.

Mr. SOUDER. It probably depends on what the mission is.

93

Rev. COWLES. And whether their job description is critical to the

ongoing leadership and development and strategy of the organization.

Mr. SOUDER. Ms. Robinson, my understanding is you wouldn’t

have a statement of faith.

Ms. ROBINSON. No.

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Anderson.

Mr. ANDERSON. We do.

Mr. SOUDER. You do?

Ms. Jaramillo, my understanding is you had a broader—as far as

this particular program?

Ms. JARAMILLO. That’s correct. We do not have a statement of

faith. We have core values. And as long as the people who apply

for work with us embrace these core values, that is good for us.

And these core values are all related to how we treat the families.

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Cote, what would your position be?

Mr. COTE. We don’t care what they are. We don’t have a statement. We just take whoever the best person is.

Mr. SOUDER. If somebody was an atheist, would they be part of

your staff?

Mr. COTE. Just about every guy that comes in there is an atheist.

Mr. SOUDER. I don’t mean the people that you serve. I mean the

people that counsel.

Mr. COTE. I don’t have any counselors and therapists, because if

counseling and therapy worked, they wouldn’t need Step 13. They

lead by example.

I do not have a time limit. Somebody that comes in there out of the gutter, and he’s buying a 2-year-old car, and he’s got $5,000 in

the bank, and he’s got a loan to pay back. I made a deal with Wells

Fargo.

Mr. SOUDER. Do you have any paid staff?

Mr. COTE. None of them make less than $20,000 a year.

Mr. SOUDER. So your organization is nothing like a traditional

hierarchal organization because of the way you use them at the

Rockies game and other things? In effect, your staff is going to be

much more diverse, your key people are going to share your shared

mission and vision of the guy coming in, but he would still be paid

staff.

Mr. COTE. All of my staff are either ex-addicts or drunks or what

have you. And it takes a duck to know a duck. And if I took government funds, I’d have to have some foxes sitting around, and then

my ducks would get all upset.

Mr. SOUDER. So we have an illustration of the diverse hiring approaches. And without changes in the law, at least two groups

wouldn’t be directly eligible without some structural changes or

separate 501(c)3 to move it.

Your group, which you don’t want the funds, but, for example, if

the government had an excess building somewhere in the area of

your ministry, would you be interested in having your organization

be able to bid for that? In other words, to claim if for whatever

back taxes are, or just claim the building.

Mr. COTE. I thought about that. But someone earlier was talking

about vacant government buildings. With the Stuart McKinney

Act, I get flyers from, I think it’s the General Services AdministraVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:43 Aug 02, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00097 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\94492.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
94

tion. And at the old Stapleton, no, Lowry, when they converted that

over, nonprofits got first choice.

Mr. SOUDER. Yes. What I proposed earlier and what I said came

about. We take what’s in the homelessness act, and apply it to

other kinds of programs, such as drug treatment, juvenile delinquency, and other types of things.

Mr. COTE. I think that’s great. And I think faith-based organizations should be—I know a lot of them that are small. It’s a mom

and pop organization. They don’t know how to write a grant. They

don’t have computer skills. And maybe you could direct some of, instead of the funding, just some experience and some help.

Mr. SOUDER. Let me go back to my question and start with Mr.

Tollefson.

How would you delineate that a faith-based organization is faithbased, if there is no statement of faith in that mission? And how

does it differ from a person of faith who works for a welfare office?

Mr. TOLLEFSON. Well, first of all, the difference for me is whether

there’s proselytizing versus personal choice or personal decision.

When people are in trouble, they need to make some decisions

about themselves. And when you’re giving them the answer, that

may not be their answer.

Mr. SOUDER. But that’s not the question I asked. The question

is, that’s true for the welfare department too, right?

Mr. TOLLEFSON. They would not proselytize.

Mr. SOUDER. So how does someone who has a so-called faithbased ministry who’s providing ministries differ from somebody of

faith that’s working at the welfare department?

Mr. TOLLEFSON. What this lady said and what that lady said.

Mr. SOUDER. How is that different?

Mr. TOLLEFSON. You live your faith. You don’t preach it.

Mr. SOUDER. But you do that at the welfare department.

Mr. TOLLEFSON. If that staff member were in my organization,

they would be fired yesterday. Because social services are to do the

work that this gentleman is talking about. Do the work. Find the

place to live. Get the food. How do your children get the shots?

Help them to live their life, and to help them organize that.

And there are a lot of conceptions that we can use that will help

us do that.

Mr. SOUDER. But whatever, first of all, if it doesn’t have faith,

and it’s not part of the faith-based discussion.

[Discussion off the record.]

Mr. SOUDER. First off, let me clarify. You don’t believe that people of faith who work for government entities aren’t doing a good

service?

Mr. TOLLEFSON. Yes, many of them are. But they don’t do it

when they wear their religion on their sleeve.

Mr. SOUDER. But that’s not the question I asked. How does a person of faith who’s doing a good service by working in the local

homeless department who’s distributing immunization shots differ

from a faith-based organization where they also don’t talk about

their faith and do a good service by doing immunizing? What is the

difference between those two people living it, not talking about it?

Mr. TOLLEFSON. Well, I would say being competent. I’d like to

say——

95

Mr. SOUDER. But you’re not saying government people aren’t

competent.

Mr. TOLLEFSON. There are some that aren’t.

Mr. SOUDER. Well, there are some in the private sector that

aren’t also.

Mr. TOLLEFSON. Of course. If your faith is vibrant, it seems to

me that you would really work at being competent. Ever more competent. It’s like the counselor trainer said at a Christian related

university. He said, ‘‘If you have a choice between a Christian

counselor and a good counselor, choose the good counselor.’’ That

makes sense. See, it’s competence.

Mr. SOUDER. Yeah, I don’t—even though——

Mr. TOLLEFSON. And if your faith is vibrant——

Mr. SOUDER. I’m not comfortable having the record say—I believe

we can do a better job of delivering social services, but I don’t think

it’s fair to say that government employees aren’t competent.

Mr. TOLLEFSON. I’m not saying that.

Mr. SOUDER. But if competence is the only measure——

Mr. TOLLEFSON. Competence comes from a lot of directions, sir.

Mr. SOUDER. Let met ask Ms. Littrell the same question.

Mr. TOLLEFSON. Yeah, please.

Ms. LITTRELL. Well, I don’t believe that anybody is more or less

competent because of their faith or because of their expression of

faith. I believe their competence is because of their education and

their experience. And so I would say that you can be—the people

in my organization all have faith. They just don’t have to tell somebody about their faith.

Mr. SOUDER. I understand that part. But that’s not what my

question is. I understand you don’t feel they need to tell them. So

how are you different from somebody who shares your faith that’s

working for the welfare department?

Ms. LITTRELL. We’re not.

Mr. SOUDER. So why would you call yourself a faith-based organization, other than a social service?

Ms. LITTRELL. First of all, we work with a lot of churches. We

really are a community-based organization, rather than faithbased. We really are not a ministry.

Mr. SOUDER. That’s important. Because there are government

entities. There are nonprofit entities which are all-inclusive. There

are community-based organizations, which one of the things that I

like to keep threatening to put in, and everybody panics, is the ZIP

code test.

So at least a fair percentage of the people live in the neighborhood when they get the grant. But nobody seems to want to touch

it. And then groups that have a component to it that’s more faithbased, and I’m trying to sort out here which groups are faith-based,

where there’s a faith component, and whether that makes them different than government. Because that’s what part of the debate is.

You all are already eligible. That isn’t the question. It is, are

groups where faith is a component either in a set-up where it’s

kind of what I would term there, but less direct—in many cases,

like the like Feed the Children and Mr. Cote, where they would

say—I don’t want to put words in your mouth. Is this a correct

statement? Because we’ve had this come up in different hearings.

96

Even though you don’t require a statement of faith, you would

say that the reflection—you would still refer to it as a ministry?

Mr. WHETSTONE. Yes, sir. Absolutely.

Mr. SOUDER. And what you’re saying is part of God’s call, as

Keith Phillips said, is there’s a service side to the poor and to the

hungry, not to just save a soul?

Mr. WHETSTONE. That’s exactly right.

Mr. SOUDER. And, therefore, there is a service. There is a ministry.

Mr. WHETSTONE. And, in fact, that’s a component of a host of the

religions around the world today. Not just Christianity.

Mr. SOUDER. Yes and no.

Ms. LITTRELL. It seems like it’s really difficult to describe, to differentiate between what is a ministry doing the work of social services, and what is an organization doing the work of social services.

And, you know, it might not—you have to have some kind of a

statement of faith, but it’s not a statement of religious faith. It’s

a statement of faith that we can get the job done, because of what

we do, and because we have a desire to help people, and because

we’re good people, and we’re do-gooders and all of that sort of

thing.

Mr. SOUDER. I don’t believe that’s a correct analysis of the program. We had this come up at one of our other hearings. A faith

that isn’t defining is not the dictionary definition of faith.

In other words, faith that there are mountains because I can look

out there and see it is not what this public debate is about. This

is about whether or not you can have faith in a power higher than

an individual, and whether groups that believe that should be eligible for government funding.

And if you don’t believe that, that’s fine, but that’s a different position than whether there’s a faith-based position.

Ms. LITTRELL. And I think it’s the articulation of the faith.

Mr. SOUDER. Let me move to a couple of other people now. Reverend Cowles, give your view on it.

Rev. COWLES. I think I can illustrate your question in a quick

story. Darrell, who’s an alcoholic, came to the food ministry, got an

apartment. He came to his church meetings. He gave his life to

Jesus Christ. Wants a higher power.

Darrell called me yesterday morning and said, ‘‘Pastor Dean, my

first day on the job is today. Would you pray for me?’’ And of course

I did.

Carolyn in our church works for social services, but he could not

have called her at her office that morning and asked her to pray

for him, I assume, because if she was found praying over the phone

on government time, I would assume that would bring a problem.

Not because she doesn’t care as much for Darrell as I do, but because of her limitation in her workplace.

She could not provide that. I could, because there were no restrictions on me. And I think that is why faith-based organizations

that we work with are very successful. Because they can devote

their full time, and don’t have to dance around that. It’s effective.

And Darrell got to work, and he came back and called me afterwards and said, ‘‘I kept my first day on the job, and I’m sober.’’ So

I think you can do it more overtly in a faith-based organization.

97

Mr. SOUDER. Let me ask, Ms. Littrell raised another issue, Mr.

Cote, that was almost directly opposite of what you said a little bit

ago. She believed that people who are eligible for, she didn’t even

say ‘‘eligible.’’ She said people are more effective if they have the

appropriate education and training. Do you agree with that.

Mr. COTE. In some ways. Like I say, my staff consists of, I’ve

seen guys that, I can think of one right offhand. He has a hard

time speaking English, so I put him on the front desk. He wasn’t

the best person I could put up there, but it helped him, and he

worked through his fear of the phones.

Mr. SOUDER. This really came up in San Antonio in the debate,

because one of the men, even though we were at Freddie Garcia’s

place, said Freddie’s people shouldn’t be talking to drug addicts, because they don’t have any training to work with drug addicts. In

fact, that whole Victory Life Fellowship program all through Texas

was nearly decertified under the Governor of Texas, not named

Bush, because even though they granted a mental health division,

and it was the most effective single program that ever existed in

the United States for getting people off the street, the fact is they

didn’t have licensed counselors.

Mr. COTE. And they tried that in the Houston challenge and Bob

Woodson and myself and Roger went to the Alamo. Because they

were trying to put Freddie out of business for decertification.

Mr. SOUDER. Do you basically agreed with my suggestion, I know

Bob initially did, on the ZIP code? You’re suggesting that there’s

something else that’s effective in the community, other than just

having a college degree or certification?

Mr. COTE. You have to personalize it. I don’t go for this some

places taking a number. I was with Marvin in a shelter in Austin,

and I wanted to see someone, and they called it D17 or whatever

it was. And that’s so depersonalizing and dehumanizing or whatever.

I call everyone Mister. That’s what they’re called at our shelter.

And I have as my staff either the residents or former residents.

Again, because I say, it takes a duck to know a duck. They’ve

walked right where they walked. Who better to know how to relate

to them than someone that’s been there.

Mr. TOLLEFSON. Mr. Souder, may I ask to be excused, please? I

have a grandson that needs my attention.

Mr. SOUDER. Sure. And I skipped over, do you want to make any

closing comments before you leave?

Mr. TOLLEFSON. Yes. I think you would be stronger in your position to advance the services of churches and synagogues and temples and other places if you would refer to this as religion-based,

not faith-based. Because when you get into faith, you get into

issues of chosen-ness, and the Belief. And it becomes exclusivist

and destructive.

So if you could refer to it as religion-based, I think it would be

stronger.

My apologies, sir, for leaving, but I’m going to pay attention to

my grandson.

Mr. SOUDER. I appreciate that. And let me assure you, as we

work through this, that one of the things that has come up, and

98

this needs to be understood, as I’ve told people originally in the administration, I said, ‘‘I don’t think this is going to work.’’

I have one area of my hometown that is where the main housing

complex is. It’s half Bosnians, which is Muslim, and half Burmese,

which is largely Buddhist. And if there had been a, quote, faithbased organization, and they had either bowed to Allah or had

some kind of a tribute to Buddha, the community would have exploded if somebody senior had been in that area that was a Christian.

If we do this in Federal funding, everybody, including Orthodox

Jews, who are very rigid in their beliefs, or Muslims, when we get

into this area, this is causing a lot of consternation. The direct government funding. But it’s these kind of discussions that are helpful.

Thank you for participating. I’d be happy to excuse you.

Mr. TOLLEFSON. Thank you. It’s been my pleasure.

Mr. SOUDER. I wanted to ask you, Mr. Anderson, you’ve been listening to some of this. You have a statement of faith, as well. Do

you think that people, because in some of the organizations, clearly, I’ll have to ask Ms. Robinson next to comment.

But in her organization and Ms. Littrell’s organization, as I understand it, they would welcome people that don’t necessarily share

their statement of faith. And they presumably get volunteers where

that isn’t necessarily the driving issue.

Would your organization, if that wasn’t the driving issue, would

you get the volunteers to be able to administer it in the same way?

Or is it so intertwined as part of who you are, who gives you the

money, and who gives you the support, that you can’t really separate it for those who say, ‘‘Why you can’t separate it?’’

Mr. ANDERSON. For us, that can’t be separated. And I think I’m

hearing some confusion between an individual’s statement of faith

and an organization’s statement of faith.

Individuals can be believers in different environments, secular

and nonprofit and religious organizations, and express their faith

and live with their values. But what we’re talking about here is

faith-based organizations.

And for Compassion, the integration of sharing values, of sharing

beliefs as a part of ministering to and taking care of the needs of

children around the world is completely integrated.

All of our donor base, I would say 95 to 98 percent of our donor

base are people of faith. So for us to then try to segregate and say

these are activities with faith components and these are activities

which aren’t really wouldn’t work in our organization.

Mr. SOUDER. And do you believe part of the power of your organization is that commitment of faith?

Mr. ANDERSON. Absolutely. It goes to the core of our belief of

what we’re trying to cure, in terms of poverty around the world.

Many organizations meet the needs of what we would call symptoms of poverty through food, clothing, medical needs.

We do the same. But to ignore the component of a spiritual aspect of someone’s life we believe is missing a large component of

what poverty is all about.

Mr. SOUDER. And one of the common things we’ve heard at the

hearings, as well as outside and particularly from media debates

99

is that, well, if had you an overt goal to evangelize, that should be

done with purely private funds, and that’s a different goal.

But part of the problem here is that this is the goal of church

on Sunday mornings, and evangelizing ministries, such as Campuses for Christ, the four-step plan to give your soul, from a Christian perspective. Clearly other groups evangelize. But this isn’t

evangelizing, per se. It’s dealing with the spiritual. But it’s part of

a mix that’s also helping people who are hurting, reaching out in

the social service side without parking the spiritual over in this

corner.

The specific question is, can it be in the public arena, other than

outside the church building in straight evangelism? Is that a fair

statement?

Mr. ANDERSON. We really are fully integrated. I think our society

is trying to say, can we compartmentalize a faith component in a

doing well and doing good component? And if you study the philosophy of how we believe people develop, those things can’t be separated.

So for us, that would be very difficult.

Mr. SOUDER. Ms. Robinson, when you hear some of what we’ve

just said, and clearly the Methodist tradition was mixed. John

Wesley would have shared that view. Leadership kind of varies

church by church. We have a lot in my district that would have a

somewhat similar view.

How do you say to people like that say you ought to stay out of

any arena that involves direct government funding or any kind of

delineated funding? You can’t even have inadvertent proselytizing

with indirect government funding. Should they not be able to have

part of the program?

Should Catholic schools not be allowed to have a bus, as opposed

to educating? Which right now they can’t have a bus, and they

can’t get moneys for the teachers. The Supreme Court rules the

computer is nonsectarian. The software is sectarian.

Should they be able to bid on an abandoned building, even if

they have an overt religious message? Do you favor tax deductions?

Ms. ROBINSON. I don’t have a problem with separating programs.

I think it’s hard for me to really understand how you can’t, because

we always have. So I’ve never, even though we’re Methodist, there

was never any intention on promoting religion in our organization.

I mean, what happened was in 1981, they saw a need, and we

opened the food pantry in a church basement.

A few years later, they saw a need with ex-offenders getting jobs.

We opened a job center in another church basement. Soon we

moved into one building. And it was never a part.

We really address common sense basic needs for people. And religion is just not part of that. The people who come to us are in such

crisis, they don’t even talk about religion.

And for myself, what I witness in our organization is when people get stabilized and don’t have that crisis pending is when they

will ask you, ‘‘Do you know a good church I can go to?’’ Or, ‘‘This

is my interest. Can you tell me which church in this area that I

live in might be a good place for me to go to?’’ And that’s as far

as it goes.

100

And we might not even refer them to a Methodist church. We

don’t have any kind of——

Mr. SOUDER. Now, that’s your view. What I’m curious about is

what do you think of other people at the table who don’t have that

same view? Should they be shut out.

Ms. ROBINSON. I think everybody here does good work. And I

think everybody here does work that is needed in communities. But

there has to be a distinction between someone who says, ‘‘You need

to go to this church service and then I’ll give you a meal.’’

Mr. SOUDER. So do you favor the tax deductions for these groups.

Ms. ROBINSON. I don’t know that I understand the tax deductions.

Mr. SOUDER. Currently if you write a donation to a church, you

get a tax deduction.

Ms. ROBINSON. Because that’s a personal choice. I’m choosing to

send my money to Step 13.

Mr. SOUDER. So you would support where nonitemizers could

give money to——

Ms. ROBINSON. Sure.

Mr. SOUDER. What about Compassion Capital funds, where

groups that aren’t going to receive government money, like Mr.

Cotes or Mr. Anderson, if he had a local affiliate, could go in and

learn how to set up these different organizations, that could then

do it for private philanthropy?

Ms. ROBINSON. I have mixed feelings about that. I believe in capacity building. Obviously, DenUM has had a lot to do with that

in the last 20 years. But I have a problem with redirecting direct

service money.

We have huge needs in Colorado for child care. If we’re going to

have 10 recipients go back to work for 20 hours and possibly up

to 40 hours in the reauthorization bill, we’ve got to pay for child

care for that. And I have a hard time diverting $30,000 for somebody to go to learn computer skills when you can go to your library

to learn that.

I learned on-line skills at the library. I don’t know. It’s hard for

me to say, ‘‘Yeah, that is well worth it,’’ particularly when our clients at DenUM, more than 70 percent of them, are in some kind

of government program. So old-age pension, Social Security, disability, some kind of housing, some kind of government assistance.

And that’s not enough.

We’re always going to need programs with community programs,

or if you choose to go to one of faith, whatever works for the client.

Mr. SOUDER. Let me throw out another statement, and then, Mr.

Cowles, you’ve worked with this a lot, and you’re sitting on the review panel, so I’d like to hear your reaction to this.

As somebody who’s been involved in and out of government as a

staffer in the Senate and as a Member of Congress, what’s become

clear to me in local volunteering communities is it doesn’t matter

whether the Republicans or the Democrats are in power. The social

spending is flat.

People can claim that it’s a partisan issue, but the fact is social

welfare spending is an inflation adjuster in almost all categories,

except for AIDS funding, breast cancer, and things like that.

101

In general, they’re not anxious to promote tax increases. Education always gets money, whatever the latest disease is gets

money, and when we have war and national security, we have financial demands.

So we’re looking at relatively flat spending. We’re looking at flat

funding. Nevertheless, the problems seem to be getting greater.

Part of the idea is to try to get other groups involved, some of

whom may or may not be more effective, because they can deal

with it holistically. Because at least a segment of the groups believe by dealing with it, there are medical results, like we heard

on the first panel, and otherwise.

And domestically, this is most directly related to those who don’t

have resources. In other words, in the suburban communities, they

theoretically go to the private sector and raise funds. And then

take the United States and go internationally.

We can’t even begin to address the AIDS question if there

weren’t more groups like Compassion arguing out there. And, to

me, if they get excluded from the debate, that leverage is lost on

those of us who are voting in Congress. Or Feed the Children.

If Feed the Children wasn’t out in the world right now—do you

know what percentage of the United States is providing the most

world aid right now?

Mr. WHETSTONE. It’s more than 80 percent.

Mr. SOUDER. And if we didn’t have that, and we exclude these

groups, the world would roughly collapse. And my concern and

some of the recent debate is we’re actually going backward. That

some of these funds that have been going back to the various

groups are going to be tightened up.

You’ve been sitting in looking at the applications, you’ve worked

on it in Indianapolis. You’ve now been in Denver. How do you see

some of what’s sorting through here?

Rev. COWLES. The funding is flat. I don’t think the direct subsidies are going to work any longer. We’ve tried that. We’ve seen

it. It’s not going to work. It’s going to work when local groups get

together.

We’ve long advocated this approach to the intermediary, to the

capacity building, and it’s wonderful it’s finally happening with this

President. Of course, it’s $26 million the first round and $30 million the next. But it is working. Dr. Ashton is here from VJVA who

got part of the capital fund in Colorado. And she’s working with

361 organizations. Mine is one of them, Crossroads of the Rockies.

Welfare moms, crack addicts get computer skills to become grant

writers. They never did that before, and they’ve lifted them up.

And bang for the buck in stewardship is another key thing for

me. This money, this $26 million that we have authorized spread

across the country, did far more. And Bobby Polejo would tell you

story after story after story of organizations that have benefited directly by increasing their ability to see funding from the private

sector, from individuals.

Which really, like I said in my opening statement, all came before the great welfare society came about.

Not to say government isn’t responsible to do things. I’m not advocating that. But I am saying that this kind of approach is cost

102

effective, and it reaches the most people for the least amount of

money, and it increases the organizations like Faith Partners.

$100,000 and two staff members are doing all of that great stuff

they’re doing. $100,000 in government bureaucracies are gone in a

toilet seat on a B1 bomber. So we’re very, very excited to see this

kind of thing happening.

Mr. SOUDER. Ms. Jaramillo, do you have lots of small organizations in your coalition too? And were they included before? Could

you describe a little more in-depth your Faith Partners group?

Ms. JARAMILLO. Faith Partners was basically the church leadership. It includes the evangelical line, as well as the main line that

operate downtown and serve groups like the homeless, and EA

Sam, and all of those groups.

But when we first started, we started with a dialog of how we

were going to respond to welfare reform in our community. And we

really felt that there was a spiritual component to breaking the

cycle of poverty. Any good welfare administrator could lower the

caseload of any FAFDC caseload or TANIF caseload. But to really

help those families escape, in terms of leveling the playing field for

those individuals, we knew that it was going to take more than just

a handout.

Many people in churches are so tired of feeding the same people

for 15 years. You feed the same families coming to the soup kitchens. And you get to know them like they’re your neighbors, because

they become familiar with you.

If you work in those ministries, you see the same people over and

over again. So what you’re doing is you’re alleviating the suffering

of poverty, but you’re really not breaking the cycle. And in order

to do that, we knew we had to give of ourselves. Pour out who we

were. We’re not trying to make them like us. What we’ve learned

in the mentoring process is the person who’s changed the most at

the end of the mentoring term are the mentors, not the families.

Because we have learned so much about surviving, and about the

whole system of welfare, and our mentors become the strongest advocates for these individuals.

And we have both—one of the positive things that came out of

the Bill Moyer show was we made a strong commitment to seeking

mentors in secular organizations, like Rotarian clubs and lots of

different clubs. So we are in the process of developing teams, mentoring teams from service clubs.

Because if people come to us and want mentoring, we’d like to

have a choice between a secular team and a faith-based team. But

it’s difficult. The most difficult part of our work is trying to get the

mentors to commit to 1 year of mentoring these families.

And so without the motivation of the scriptures and the compassion that you have from your own faith to motivate you to do that,

there’s no reason on Earth for you to want to do that. There are

so many disappointments. So many times that families make the

wrong decision and don’t progress, and so without your faith, you

can’t bring closure to those relationships.

Everything we do is relational. And that’s a piece we bring to social services that isn’t there now. The department here can provide

so many resources to families.

103

They can provide avenues for education, for transportation, for

childcare. And, yes, those are limited funds. But honestly, the people who really need them are getting them.

But what they can’t provide is the coaching, the encouragement,

and the nurturing that’s required for some of these families who

are so broken that they need that additional assistance to break

the cycle of poverty in their lives.

And we don’t just mentor the head of household. We mentor the

entire family. So we have people that are mentors that are coming

into the homes and tutoring two and three times a week a family,

the children of these families, and helping the parents understand

how structured study time helps to improve the skills of the children in school, and their ability to achieve academically.

So we’re not ignoring the needs of the children. We match a mentoring team with the family. We examine and assess the entire

family’s needs, and then we link them to additional community resources that they may need, and we pour our lives into them. And

then as a result, our faith and everything that we give is just deepened and returned back to us. I don’t know if I answered your

question or not.

Mr. SOUDER. Reverend Cowles, I had a—given that you’ve

worked with a number of programs, and you’re working with some

of the Compassion Capital fund directly, one of the concerns I had

as a sponsor of the faith-based amendments, and why I’m kind of

backing up a little bit, is at one of our hearings in Washington, we

went through a panel and said, ‘‘Would you take Federal funds?’’

And everybody expressed an interest. And it’s on the public record.

The administrator in Indianapolis that was recommended by

Steve Goldsmith, when the question came through, ‘‘Would you

hire a Jew,’’ since most of the members were Christian, Teen Challenge said no. A couple of others said no. They’d certainly service

them, treat them well. They—just like an Orthodox Jewish organization wouldn’t hire a Christian.

But the African American leader said, ‘‘Well, is that the only way

I can get the money?’’ And he’s one of the biggest churches.

Rev. COWLES. Eastern Star probably. Pastor Johnson.

Mr. SOUDER. Well, I guess there’s a Judeo-Christian tradition.

‘‘Maybe I would if that’s the only way I could get the money.’’ And

that prompted the question, ‘‘Would you hire a Muslim?’’ But basically those that didn’t have a religious variable said no. Those that

did say yes.

But when we ran into the question of whether they would even

change their ministry in order to get the money, even if previously

they didn’t have those guidelines—which has been some of the fear

some of us have had. ‘‘Even if currently not restricted, if we get the

money now, will new regulations come in that will undermine it?’’

Which leads to a second question. If you can take a few of these

together, and Mr. Cote may have a response for this too. If the

church is more integrated, which I actually believe is good, in the

Black and Hispanic communities often more than in the White

communities, therefore it’s the only social entity left.

They don’t control the local schools in the neighborhood. The only

services left in the neighborhood are at the church. And if we exclude the churches, we, by definition, exclude the people that live

104

in that ZIP code often. We exclude the people that are delivering

the services. Which is one of the reasons that we had a Capital

Compassion fund, so we can tell how many 501(c)3 won’t affect that

church.

Would you describe some of what you’re seeing, and how this

changes things?

Rev. COWLES. It takes a long time to change what you’ve accepted. We’re trying to train our folks that’s not the environment anymore. Yes, the environment is you can’t use those funds to pay Pastor Williams, but you can use those funds to hire Sister Williams

to distribute food or do the after-school program that helps with tutoring, that doesn’t have any religious proselytizing.

She’s doing a good job for the community. You do have to have

a separate board. The church board. A separate 501(c)3. And this

is what JVC board is doing here in Colorado, to teach them how

to set up systems and structures that don’t compromise the church.

And in my written point I’ve said I don’t know whether it’s a

curse or it’s last rites. Because too many organizations have, you

know, chased the money, and they’ve diluted their passion and vision, and consequently their outcomes have been compromised.

So, yes, it’s changing, but it takes a long time to change those—

it’s like a quote I use in my book. It only took Moses 4 days to get

the Hebrews out of Egypt. But it took 40 years while they were

wandering to get Egypt out of the Hebrews. It takes a long time

to understand there’s a new day. There’s a new way to do it that’s

a win-win for everybody.

Churches have to be careful. Don’t compromise your position, and

don’t just accept money and change your policy. Because that dilutes who you really are. Mary Nelson in Chicago is a great example of that.

She took a little Lutheran church that was 100 years old that

was dead, dead, and dying. Nobody else would come into that

whole side of Chicago. And now it’s Bethany Recycling Enterprises.

And now it’s doing the whole 9 yards through the faith-based organization. This with all the appropriate fire walls if you will.

We’re urging people in our organization to continue to seek it appropriately.

Mr. SOUDER. This is mostly focused on domestic. We’re just looking at the edges of this internationally. One came down in Central

America as far as guidelines. But I want to followup on two things

with you, Mr. Whetstone, and then I’ll see who wants to make any

kind of concluding comments here.

You mentioned in the—in your opening statement about the Denton amendment on international. And you were wondering would

we be able to do that domestically.

Can you describe that? What would prohibit us from doing that

domestically now?

Mr. WHETSTONE. A good example was when Hurricane Mitch

struck Central America, the Denton Amendment provided that

when the USAID declared a disaster somewhere in the world, the

United States will help provide aid, and government resources can

be used to transport commodities and assistance to those areas. We

used government paid freight on ships to move containers of shelfVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:43 Aug 02, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00108 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\94492.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
105

stable milk and other nonperishable foods into Honduras, Nicaragua, El Salvador, and Guatemala.

The Oklahoma National Guard has a fleet of C130’s. Every day

those planes fly training missions. Most of the time they go out

with sandbags to simulate having cargo on them, so that the pilot

can be used to what happens when you do this maneuver with

cargo on it, as opposed to an empty airplane.

Obviously, they don’t have to take military equipment every time

they go up, but why couldn’t they take assistance from Feed the

Children in to Elkhart, IN, or into a small group or collection of

churches in West Virginia, or to an Indian reservation in South Dakota? It’s just basically the same concept.

You had spoken about the disposition of Federal property. That

can be taken one step further in a program like the Denton amendment, where you could actually utilize government resources and

government equipment and government property short-term for the

need of that circumstance.

Mr. SOUDER. One of the things that I have figured out is that—

maybe I was a little slow on the uptake. But as we moved from

AIDS and homelessness into areas where there were existing

groups that wanted the money, for example, drug treatment, there

are very high-paid organizations that don’t want any drug money

to go to these little neighborhood-type groups. They’re very worried

about the competition. It’s different than the other.

My sense—and I’d first like to lay this out to you and Mr. Anderson. When I recently spoke with Tony Hall about the world food

question, he said in Ethiopia there was an organization out of my

hometown, because a former Congressman had been an ambassador to Ethiopia. So there was a whole bunch of Ethiopians who

had only heard of Fort Wayne, IN.

Through that, Senator Marah became involved. And she formed

an organization down in Ethiopia for food distribution, which he

said is the most effective program in that area that he had seen.

And one of the problems was when often the U.N. or the US tries

to organize some disaster relief, or they try to distribute that food,

the corruption level is incredible. The efficiency levels are a huge

problem.

And part of the reason they started to turn to faith-based organizations in reaching out with this type of thing is that there is

forum. For example, in Ethiopia, they were finding most of it stolen. Senator Marah said, ‘‘We’ve never distributed food before.’’ The

two people that the government had found guilty on stealing—she

said she would do it, ‘‘Only on the condition that I can use them.’’

And she included them in the organization, with accountability.

Who later, by the way, after seeing the actions, I believe they then

became Christians in the process, which was covert, not overt. Because they couldn’t believe somebody forgave them and included

them in the operations, and put a process in place.

What I want to know is OK, that’s an Ethiopia story. Are you

seeing this in other areas of the world where the Federal Government, the United Nations, and other entities are coming to your

two organizations and saying, ‘‘Look, we’re having problems with

distribution’’?

106

And it’s one of the things we worry about in Congress. Because

one of the reasons it’s politically hard to do is people back home

are saying, ‘‘Man, we’ve got a virus, and you’re sending money over

to Africa,’’ and then they read somebody about putting a Swiss

tanker down or stealing from it. It’s a political nightmare. They

weren’t excited about it in the first place.

Can you elaborate a little bit about what you’ve seen in your two

organizations?

Mr. ANDERSON. We’ve really experienced that most people are

desperate, and even governments are desperate to find organizations that they can trust and rely on to have delivery mechanisms

that are dependable. You have to work very hard to make sure that

happens.

I think faith-based organizations, like Compassion, who are

working for the local infrastructure of the church has a real advantage in that respect. Those organizations have value that many

times are very against the culture that they live in, in terms of accepting bribes, accepting corruption as a part of their lifestyle. So

no organization is immune from that. I’m sure everyone in this

panel that you’ve listened to has experiences that are bad. But I

would say the faith-based organizations probably have an advantage in that aspect.

And Compassion has developed a history of integrity, largely because of the partners we work with. We also put a lot of time and

energy into auditing and quality control issues and training issues.

Almost every one of our staff around the world are nationals. We

don’t put ex-pats out in the field and ask them to manage the programs.

And there are qualified nationals around the world who are

faith-based individuals working with our organization who have

high standards. And that’s part of what we teach and train as we

develop our partners around the world.

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Whetstone.

Mr. WHETSTONE. That’s exactly right. And it’s not just limited to

Africa. The former Soviet Union is probably even worse than our

experiences in Kenya and South Africa. And you’re right by providing our services through nationals.

We can provide so much more and we can avoid some of the

problems in places like North Korea, where they need it worse now,

because worldwide funding is drying up. That still doesn’t mean

millions of children aren’t starving to death—we don’t hear that

story very often in America—because there is no aid for them.

One of the things that we experience is not just the corruption,

but because those organizations are so big, like the World Food

program and the United Nations—UN HCR and other organizations, is they can’t respond quickly enough.

A real good example of that was right after Afghanistan hostilities broke out, millions of IDPs, internally displaced people, fled

out of where conflict was going on into western Afghanistan, and

out into the community of Herat.

In the Maslakh camp, the World Food program set up camps to

house these people, to provide shelter and sanitation and food and

that sort of thing. But they were arriving after several days of

walking, carrying anything they could carry. Carrying children,

107

carrying infirm adults, carrying whatever possessions they could

carry with them. And they got there after several days exhausted,

and so many in even poorer health.

The U.N. wasn’t equipped to handle 5,000 to 10,000 people a day.

But at the same time, to ensure that we weren’t helping enemy

combatants and other people involved in the conflict, you had to be

registered with the World Food program before you could get aid.

So what do you do with these people that are coming in 10,000

at a time? These little informal camps sprung up around the main

camp of 500,000 IDPs. That’s where we went in.

We recognized it immediately. We didn’t try to take over what

the World Food program was doing. We didn’t try to change what

they were doing. We didn’t go in and cry, ‘‘You’re not taking care

of these people.’’ We saw the need. We stepped in. We were flexible,

and we ministered to them.

Mr. ANDERSON. I would add one more observation that you reminded me of, the anecdotal evidence that we’ve experienced in our

organization. We began 50 years ago in South Korea during the

Korean conflict. Many of our organizations started during that

time, and many of them focused on South Korea.

We were able to focus on computers, advertising programs were

used to program and manage the data. And today, South Korea is

one of the largest economies in the world. And we’re certainly not

taking credit for that. But 25 plus percent profess to be evangelical

Christian.

Compassion has been to North Korea several times, where faith

has completely been eliminated as part of the equation in people’s

lives. It’s not allowed at all. And the values and the corruption that

has happened since those two countries have gone two different

paths is quite a contrast. And I believe there’s a lot to be learned

from watching those two different decisions.

Mr. SOUDER. Have either of your organizations been in Iraq?

Mr. WHETSTONE. We’re currently in Iraq.

Mr. ANDERSON. We’re not.

Mr. SOUDER. Are you in Afghanistan?

Mr. ANDERSON. No.

Mr. SOUDER. Have you expressed an interest in getting into either of those countries?

Mr. ANDERSON. We’re really slow. We’re not a relief and development organization. We’re a long-term investment into individuals.

So when we start somewhere, we’re going to be there 20, 30 years.

We follow the lives of children. So we’re very slow to go into new

countries. And the second factor is we partner with the local infrastructure and churches. And that has to be fairly well developed.

Mr. SOUDER. Is there anything more? One more question, Mr.

Whetstone. Since we’re heading over there and we’re going to be

meeting with the President and the former king, besides making

them aware that you’re there, do you have anything you want me

to raise.

Mr. WHETSTONE. Again, Iraq is a very touchy situation right

now, because it is hard to get in and do the relief work that’s needed to be done. It’s hard to get things across the border.

108

But anything that can be done to facilitate that through means

other than just the United Nations would be appreciated. Because

we’re efficient and we’re effective.

And I think that’s really what the whole debate around the faithbased initiative ought to be. Who’s effective and who’s efficient.

Mr. SOUDER. It’s interesting to add the international component,

because it’s very difficult in the United States. But when you go

into a Muslim community with a Christian organization you have

to say, ‘‘Look, the people wouldn’t come here if they weren’t Christian in their motive.’’

And trying to explain to Momar Khadafy that we’re going to be

able to do in 2 days what others couldn’t do in months. Weapons

of mass destruction are important, but there are other values. He’s

going to question Christian values and other things related to

Israel, related to Christians, and what rights you have, women’s

rights in these countries, and how if they want our engagement beyond just minimal, and yet their culture is not going to change.

In eastern Europe, this is a huge question too with Orthodox, at

least women. The Orthodox faith, the missionary church, they’ve

been invited to Bulgaria, because they are interested in opening a

hospital. But looking at the missionary church, some of those people might actually give somebody a Bible.

It doesn’t mean that they push it hard. But it means in your own

town, you now have evangelicals in your midst. These people are

giving up their careers because they have a strong faith. So the

limit is far more than just domestic. And we’re playing it out on

the domestic end.

Let me give you each, if you would like to take anything at the

end of the concluding comments, and we’ll go through again with

Mr. Whetstone starting.

Mr. WHETSTONE. Again, just thank you for the opportunity to

come here and bring these issues. I think, as the debate has shown

today, there’s a lot of difference of opinion. I think there’s a lot of

misunderstanding of what the faith-based initiative is all about.

At Feed the Children, we’re a little bit different from most. However, we recognize the importance of that in the work that these

organizations do. And we want to support that.

We recognize that the assistance that we provide is a simple,

short-term assistance. And that doesn’t change people’s lives.

Maybe the fact that we gave it to them might change their lives.

And our example might change their lives to help break those

bonds of poverty. But it takes more, and we want to support those

churches and those rescue missions, and help them and enable

them to do more with less.

Again, effectiveness and efficiency, regardless of how you accomplish those means. Again, if faith is involved, that shouldn’t be a

discriminator in accessing funds to do more for the poor, and to

help eliminate the problem.

So that’s our standpoint is to help us do more. And if we can do

it more efficiently than the government, so be it. If we can’t, let us

fill those gaps. And if the government can assist with limited resources, so be it.

Mr. SOUDER. Thank you. Ms. Littrell.

109

Ms. LITTRELL. I too appreciate the fact that you listened to us

today, and hopefully the diverse input that you got will have some

bearing on what goes on.

I would like to say that I basically think what we’re all after is

success in the work that we do. That we want to see that the people that come to us have the opportunity to go ahead and lead a

middle class life, if that’s what they choose.

And I don’t think that there’s any reason that a church can’t do

that work. The only thing that I would like to see is that the opportunity be there to do that without strings.

That people be offered services that feed them, that clothe them,

that help them when they need medical attention. That when they

have a tooth that needs to be pulled or whatever, that be done

without strings.

That people that come there get the services that they need. If,

in the meantime, they say, ‘‘Boy, I would really like to have religious direction,’’ let that be offered. Let it be available for them.

Mr. SOUDER. Thank you.

Reverend Cowles.

Rev. COWLES. Well, again, thank you, like all the rest, for coming

from Indiana, and welcome to our beautiful State.

And as a person that—our partners all across the Nation, they’re

mom and pop, and they don’t get on the radar screen of anybody

except the local community. And they are desperate for this kind

of training, this kind of support. And they can do it well. They can

do it efficiently.

And I guess my comment would be let’s try it. I think as Bob

said earlier, if it works, let’s do it. Let’s try it. Because for too long,

these other programs and approaches haven’t worked. We know

that, and the populous knows that. That’s why they’re asking for

change. That’s why they’re changing administrations. They want to

change it. They want to open the doors.

And I think we need to look toward the business world in adopting a more competitive model. If it works, you get the contract. And

if you can produce, great. It doesn’t matter how you do it. If you

can do it, it works. That’s why businesses rise and fail. Some make

better pasta than others and people go there.

So I think this is toward that end. I sense that this kind of initiative is getting there. To raise up, make a level playing field, everybody has equal opportunity to get to the resources. And if they can

produce, then wonderful. And we’ll all be better for it in the next

30 years.

Mr. SOUDER. Thank you.

Ms. Robinson?.

Ms. ROBINSON. Of course, thank you very much for listening to

us. And I think it’s been a very interesting debate today. And I’ve

learned a lot, I know, about international issues and things like

that.

But I still will hope that the committee takes seriously the separation between church and State when they’re making their final

decisions. And, you know, it’s hard. We have to think of our vulnerable population, and putting them in the hands of people who truly

want to help them without strings attached.

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Anderson.

110

Mr. ANDERSON. Thank you. I guess I would like to encourage you

that true faith-based organizations are not going to be able to segregate their thinking and their organizations. If they can, they

probably aren’t faith-based. They’re faith-based individuals, but not

as an organization.

There’s a Haitian proverb that says, ‘‘A hungry stomach has no

ears.’’ And I think all of us are here and recognize that people have

needs, and we’re here to meet those needs.

Some have faith-based programs and others have components in

those programs.

I would encourage you not to have fear of propagating what

might be a very efficient and effective organization.

Mr. SOUDER. Thank you.

Ms. Jaramillo.

Ms. JARAMILLO. Thank you very much for allowing us to testify

today. And I just would probably say in closing comment that Faith

Partners really organized a response. It was the faith community’s

response to welfare reform in our community, and that we became

the poster child of charitable choice in our community.

It has been very difficult for us to continue getting help from our

supporting churches. They’ll give us volunteers, but it’s very difficult for them to let go of some of the funds that they really should

be giving us.

And I see that they need to shore that up in order for it to be

a true partnership. I feel uncomfortable with being totally supported by a government contract. However, I’ll get the work done

however we can get the work done. And we outsource the work

that we do.

I’m not mentoring families. It’s the wonderful volunteers from

those churches. And the work that we produce could not be done

by the welfare department. And the effect that we have on families

could not happen without our presence in their lives.

So we stepped out in faith and tested the waters of charitable

choice, and we’re still in testing that. And I don’t think we’re going

to see results. We didn’t get into this public policy issue overnight,

and we’re not going to get out of it overnight.

So in the wisdom of Mark Okasky, he says, ‘‘It’s taken generations, decades since we ushered in the entitlement mentality with

our social policy in this country. It’s going to take decades for us

to reverse that.’’

So those of us that are just brave enough to weather the storm

are out there. And I don’t know where this debate will end up, but

I’m glad to be a player.

Mr. SOUDER. Thank you.

Mr. Cote.

Mr. COTE. I commend you, Congressman, and your staff for putting this together and having us here today. Step 13 will not accept

Federal, State, or city moneys as long as I’m around. But I pray

that you take a real, real hard look at these faith-based organizations, because I hope that they do get some money, a piece of the

pie.

You know, try it and see what works and why, and go with it.

That’s what we need to do is start fixing people instead of just

feeding them, and solving problems.

111

Mr. SOUDER. I thank you each for your testimony. My interest

in this issue arose when one of my friends got elected to Congress,

Dan Coates. And he became the senior Republican on the Children

and Family Committee.

And we went to hearing after hearing on this problem, and it became clear to us that unless we could figure out how to get a

broader base of support, other than just government, we weren’t

going to be able to deal with the social questions.

And I think there’s wisdom in the words of Bob Woodson: ‘‘Don’t

be a typical White guy who sits on your duff. Get out and meet people.’’

I couldn’t believe the story in San Antonio. And I’ve gone to see

it, and I go back every few years and say, ‘‘Are you still here?’’ Kim

Gray and Gene Watkins in Los Angeles, and Richard Guiness, and

lots of grass roots organizations. Because even in the toughest

areas of the United States, there are flowers blooming. And we

need to figure out, ‘‘OK, how do we nurture those flowers?’’

The debate will never end. I remember I met one guy in Newark

who told me he was with International Harvest. ‘‘I came here to

save New Jersey, and then to save south Newark, and then to save

my community area, then this block, then this house, and now if

I can just get to one kid,’’ he said.

Because it’s important what we’re trying to do, and to reach people.

And I ran for Congress partly because of this issue. I believe in

trying to resolve it. Not just with direct funding, but in this whole

range of things. It’s clearly important. And it’s too easy to ignore

those that have been unfortunate. And I’ve told this story multiple

times. But Juan Rivera, who was part of Freddie’s ministry, the

first time I went down there, the first thing he said was, ‘‘Are you

hot? Can you I get you some water?’’ He then said, ‘‘Can I tell you

how I met Jesus?’’

And I went into one housing area after another. And I met about

50 or 60 people working in homeless shelters who went through

this same process, who had been addicts, and then later I met another group of 50, and then met another 100 later who went cold

turkey, in some cases, off cocaine and heroin.

And I had just been at John Hopkins, where they said you

couldn’t do it. Look, there are multiple methods of doing wonderful

work. Others are doing wonderful work. But for many people, the

spiritual side is a critical component of a really huge transformation. How do we do that.

And I’m reminded of the days we were at this shelter where people were going through the drug rehab. And this was in part of San

Antonio where American Beauty was based off of, the movie. They

had one lonely tree in the back yard.

And Juan Rivera said, ‘‘After I got off of drugs, they gave me a

Bible, and I started to read the Bible. And every time I come back

here, it reminds me what transformed my life and how my life

transformed. And I praise God every day.’’

And I said, ‘‘I feel so ungrateful because of what I’ve been given.’’

And Juan said to me, ‘‘My dream is that someday my kids can be

like you, and have the opportunities that you have. And that’s my

goal.’’ And I said, ‘‘I feel so ashamed.’’ And he said, ‘‘Well, you

112

should be ashamed. You’re ungrateful.’’ I said, ‘‘No, I’m

unashamed.’’ He said, ‘‘You should be ashamed. People who have

been given much, much is expected.’’

And in trying to do that, and in trying to figure out how we can

do this with our Constitutional provisions, how to do this with the

fact that lots of Christians wouldn’t want their tax dollars going to

people that hit the mat and pray to Allah at 5 is a condition for

getting sued.

This is not an easy matter to work through. And we’re trying to

work through it and yet say, ‘‘Look, there are not enough people

who are focused on helping people who are in need. And we can’t

have these divisions and bitterness among us, because we’re so

few.’’ And we’re trying to work that through. And it’s going to be

very difficult to get anything done.

This year will be like this, but I’m hoping as we get through the

election year, we can come back through and move some of these

things, at least move in the executive branch.

Last statement. I feel compelled to say, and I’m sorry Mr.

Tollefson is not here, but the National Day of Prayer is not funded

by the Federal Government. It has not nothing to do with it. And

Shirley Dobson and some other people formed that.

And they’re required to have all kinds of people in it, because it’s

a private sector project that anybody can join from different programs. And you can argue about that, but it really wasn’t relevant.

And I didn’t feel that was a fair statement to have in the record

unresponded to.

And I also think Colorado Springs is a good place to come to have

a public hearing. There is a lot of diversity in Colorado Springs, as

you broach the different issues. And I wanted to put that on the

record.

Thank you for taking time out of your busy day. And more importantly, thank you for each of your organizations working to help

people who desperately need your help. And if you could express

that to those people who are working back in your organizations,

because without them, there would be people who would be both

hungry and hurting and also need spiritual help too.

With that, the subcommittee stands adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 1:16 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

[Additional information submitted for the hearing record follows:]

113

114

Æ