Congressional Press Conference
Federal News Service
April 1, 2004 Thursday
HEADLINE: CONGRESSIONAL PRESS CONFERENCE
SUBJECT: BIPARTISAN HIGH-RISK NON-PROFIT SECURITY ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 2004
SPEAKERS: REPRESENTATIVE GEORGE R. NETHERCUTT, JR. (R-WA); REPRESENTATIVE JERROLD NADLER (D-NY); REPRESENTATIVE ELIOT L. ENGEL (D-NY); REPRESENTATIVE CHRISTOPHER SHAYS (R-CT); RICK POLLACK, VICE PRESIDENT, AMERICAN HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION; CHUCK KONIGSBERG, VICE PRESIDENT, THE UNITED JEWISH COMMUNITIES
LOCATION: HC-7, THE CAPITOL, WASHINGTON, D.C.
BODY:
REP. NETHERCUTT: Ladies and gentlemen, good morning. I want to thank you all for being here. Here's Jerry Nadler. Come on up, Jerry. Glad to have you here. Nice to see you, sir. Thank you for being here. I'm pleased that all of you are here, and certainly pleased that Congressman Nadler and Congressman Eliot Engel are here, Christopher Shays-Mike Pence I think will be here soon.
We're here because we're proud to introduce the High Risk Non- Profit Security Enhancement Act. Since September 11th the federal government has dedicated significant resources to improving the security of government facilities across our country, and we've successfully deterred attacks against this nation for more than two years, but we must remain vigilant and continue to devote resources to potential targets. We don't want to become victims of our own success. We've effectively created a security gap because of the vast divergence between government preparedness and preparedness in other parts of our society. As government facilities have fortified against the threat of terrorism, terrorists may turn their attention to less fortified but equally symbolic targets.
Leading non-profit organizations may become targets as an unintended consequence of our efforts. They represent the heart and soul of our communities, and the forces that want to destroy America and undermine our values understand, I believe, the importance of these organizations in our culture and in our society. Attacks by terrorists throughout Iraq and most recently in Madrid demonstrate the tendency to go after the soft targets, and once it becomes risky, to go after hardened targets.
Terror organizations prefer mass casualty events as it grabs headlines, and as we've seen, can even change governments. Government facilities are harder to hit, so they will be looking elsewhere, we fear. I don't want to see the war in Iraq fought in American streets, and neither do any of us-none of us do in this country. And certainly we don't want to see bombings at our schools, our hospitals, and our places of worship. We've worked hard to secure key government facilities, and that work is ongoing, but this legislation gives us an opportunity to address and equally real need. As we have worked to protect our troops and government leaders, now we should work to protect our children and our churches, our schools and our synagogues.
I want to turn this over in one minute to Mr. Nadler, but I also want to recognize, for comments in due course here, Rick Pollack, the vice president of the American Hospital Association, and certainly Chuck Konigsberg, the vice president of the United Jewish Communities. So we're pleased that all of you are here; especially pleased that the members have worked together on a bipartisan basis to introduce this bill, and we hope it gets early and quick consideration and is enacted and provides all the support and security that we need for non-profit organizations in our country.
So I'll turn to Jerrold Nadler from New York. Glad to have you here, Jerry.
REP. NADLER: Thank you, George. Let me begin by thanking my colleagues and the United Jewish Communities, the Orthodox Union, the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism, the American Jewish Congress, and the other organizations that have worked in helping to draft this legislation.
The High Risk Non-Profit Security Enhancement Act should be adopted immediately to protect schools, places of worship, and other soft targets on which, as stated recently by CIA director, George Tenet, "al Qaeda is increasingly focused." The United States has an obligation to protect organizations that are potential targets of terrorism. Recent bombings of synagogues in Istanbul and Casablanca show that the terrorist threat continues to be very real. We must provide the means to help non-profit organizations defend themselves from potential attacks by those who espouse hate and violence.
In my own district, Mayor Bloomberg and police officials have made the very wise decision to take steps in protecting non-profit organizations that may be potential targets for terrorists. Recent threats made by Hamas and al Qaeda are taken very seriously. To defend potential targets against this threat, the mayor and New York City police are deploying foot patrols and armed units to keep watch over high-risk non-profit targets. This defensive action is necessary and smart. There is absolutely no reason why the nation as a whole should not follow suit.
This bill, the High Risk Non-Profit Security Enhancement Act would authorize the secretary of Homeland Security to provide up to $100 million in security assistance in fiscal year 2005 to 501©(3) organizations that are at risk of being attacked by terrorists. After funds have been directed to high-risk institutions, federal loan guarantees would also be available through a new office in the Department of Homeland Security that will work with vulnerable non- profit organizations. One-hundred-million dollars is not a lot to ask. It is, in fact, a very modest amount when considering the need to defend target properly against al Qaeda. The funding will be used for security enhancements as well as technical assistance to assess security needs and develop plans.
As you know, when it comes to the president's Faith-Based Initiative, some of us have had serious disagreements and have opposed it. The legislative battle going on in the Senate right now is a case in point. This bill is different, and I think that is why you are seeing broader support than you might otherwise expect. This legislation will not provide direct assistance, whether in the form of cash grants or vouchers, to any religious institutions. It breaks no new constitutional ground. While the government will have the ability and the funding to protect potential targets of international terrorism, it will be the government spending government money to pursue the important public function of protecting Americans from terrorism. The government will set the priorities and select those potential targets that deserve the highest priority of attention. This is no different from the government providing police or fire protection for private institutions, whether religious or nonreligious.
The threat is real and serious. Communities around the world have been targeted simply because of who they are. Charitable institutions and houses of worship are targets precisely because of what they represent to the terrorists. If the duty of government to protect citizens from terrorists has any meaning, it must include the obligation to protect potential targets from terrorism. By accomplishing this critical national security function without in any way getting involved with the kind of issues raised by giving federal funds to faith-based institutions-which, again, this bill would not do-we have struck an appropriate balance and further assured the safety of all Americans.
Again, I thank my colleagues for joining me in introducing this legislation. I urge the Congress to adopt it speedily. Thank you.
REP. NETHERCUTT: Let me introduce Eliot Engel next, who is a leader on issues relating to human rights and non-profit organizations.
Eliot, thanks for supporting this.
REP. ENGEL: Thank you. Well, good morning, everyone. As you can see, this bill has strong bipartisan support, which is really so important. This isn't a Republican bill or a Democratic bill; this is an American bill and good for America, and that's why so many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle are joining together to support this legislation. And I'm very pleased to be joining my colleagues in introducing this legislation, to be one of the original sponsors of the bill.
I think it's important that we recognize that many organizations and places in our country are potential targets for terrorist activities. As a New Yorker, September 11th, 2001 was a defining moment for all of us. As I watched from my home in New York City that day-I was not in Washington, I was in New York-I saw a beloved symbol of America's prosperity crumble to the ground. I saw a great symbol of American military strength wounded. The horror of the lives lost washed over me, and I watched-as so did millions of others-in stunned silence. As the numbness faded, the anger welled up inside. I knew that we would rebuild and emerge stronger as a people, as the American people.
During the past two and a half years, we've also made a concerted effort to be smarter in the war against terrorism. This bill is the next step in that effort. There are many areas where I believe the government must be directly in charge of security, such as airports and nuclear power plants. The government cannot do it all. It can and should help, though, and that's what this bill does. The bill provides grants and loans to organizations and sites that are high- risk targets, sites that make the most sense, sites that need the help. Any 501©(3) that demonstrates it meets the definition of high risk will be eligible for a grant or loan. Organizations like hospitals, schools, symphony orchestras, Broadway show houses, churches, synagogues can all look to this program for help with the mounting cost of providing security at their facilities through no fault of their own.
So I'm pleased to be joined, again, with joining my friends and colleagues here, and I hope that we can pass this very sensible legislation and that it will soon be on the president's desk. Thank you.
REP. NETHERCUTT: Let me introduce Christopher Shays of Connecticut, who also has been a strong leader on human rights issues, and certainly supports non-profit protection.
REP. SHAYS: Thank you.
REP. NETHERCUTT: Thanks, Chris.
REP. SHAYS: Delighted to join George and Eliot and Jerry on this very important bill. I think it's fairly clear that soft targets are no April Fools joke. They are very real targets and they are very soft targets. They are very vulnerable targets. And for me it's not a question of if, but when, where, and of what magnitude our charities and organizations that are serving the communities will face very catastrophic events. That is the reality. And I think we've put a lot of focus on helping first responders, we've put a lot of focus on helping governments find ways to assess the terrorist threat, and I know we need to make improvements in all of those areas, but we've left vulnerable, very frankly, organizations that are out in the community that are such very tempting targets.
So I thank Jerry and George for their work, and Eliot, and I can't think of three people, and others that have joined them, that I would rather be part of an effort on. And I agree with you, Eliot, this is something that needs to happen. It's certainly not partisan. We're talking about $100 million, which is a lot of money, but in the realm of what we're spending on homeland security, it's not.
Thank you.
REP. NETHERCUTT: Every speaker so far has mentioned hospitals, and Rick Pollack is the vice president of the American Hospital Association and has a special interest in this. Rick, thanks for coming today.
MR. POLLACK: Thank you very much, Congressman Nethercutt. We're pleased to be part of this bipartisan effort and we appreciate your leadership as well as that of Congressman Shays and Congressman Nadler and Congressman Engel.
I think we all recognize that today's world is so very different from the world that we were in on September 10th of 2001. Today we have new threats to our safety, security, and our ways of life, and we must be prepared to respond to these threats. America's hospitals stand in the front lines of responding to any disaster that might occur, including the unthinkable, and we work to be ready 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year. And clearly we must do everything to be prepared to help the communities that depend on us. But in today's world we are facing more than threats outside of the hospital. We also must prepare for the very real threat that hospitals themselves can be targets of terrorism, given the critical role that we play as part of the public safety net. That's why we need to ensure that these important community assets are as secure as possible, not only to protect the dedicated caregivers and the patients that are in our organizations, but also to protect the hospitals' ability to respond as an essential part of a community's disaster response team.
The legislation being introduced today is unique. It's unique because it addresses the physical security of the hospital itself. Since September 11th many hospitals have upgraded their physical plants, but there is much more that can be done. This legislation is a great step in the right direction of enhancing the safety of communities and the hospitals that serve them. It would provide funds that would allow hospitals to purchase and install security devices such as concrete barriers, reinforced windows and doors. It would provide resources to train staff and to upgrade other critical security systems. I think we all know that disaster readiness requires that we always be vigilant, but it also requires a consistent investment in technology, equipment and training.
Again, we appreciate being part of this bipartisan effort and we encourage support and passage of this legislation as soon as possible. Thank you very much.
REP. NETHERCUTT: Thanks, Rick.
You know, as I listened to Rick speak, it's sad reality that we have to think about protecting and hardening these facilities of churches and hospitals, synagogues, which are some of the most sacred and vitally good agencies of American society, and it's too bad that we do that. But I want to have Chuck Konigsberg, the vice president of the United Jewish Communities, speak to this issue. And we're delighted you're here, Chuck. Thanks for coming.
MR. KONIGSBERG: Thank you. I'd like to thank Congressmen Nethercutt and Shays, Nadler and Engel for sponsoring this very important legislation. And I'd like to also thank all the members of our broad coalition of non-profits, which includes the American Association of Museums, the American Association of Homes and Services for the Aging, the American Hospital Association, the American Jewish Congress, American Red Cross, American Society of Association Executives, American Symphony Orchestra League, Association of Art Museum Directors, the Jewish United Fund of Chicago, National Assembly of Health and Human Services Organizations, the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities, the Theatre Communications Group, the UJA-Federation of New York, the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations, the United Synagogues of Conservative Judaism, the United Way of America, and YMCA of the USA.
At this point we're all available for questions if you have them. Thank you for coming.
Q I've got a series of sort of -- (off mike) -- questions. On the loan guarantees, is there any dollar limit on that, or was that --
REP. NETHERCUTT: No. I think that will be under the discretion of the Department of Homeland Security to make those judgments about what's necessary.
I think what we really want to do is set a standard for providing protection to facilities, not put all the protection in one facility, but obviously spread that money out. But there will be different costs in different cities and different communities. But as a first step I think the Department of Homeland Security will look very closely at what's the right formula, what's the right combination of dollars and loan guarantees?
Q Okay, and will the department also be determining the definition of high risk? What is high risk?
MR. KONIGSBERG: High risk is actually defined in the --
MS. : Use the microphone, please.
Q I took a fast look and I didn't see it, so that's why I was asking.
REP. NETHERCUTT: Chuck.
MR. KONIGSBERG: The bill actually sets forth criteria for determining high risk. High risk is based upon specific threats of international terrorist organizations, prior attacks against similarly situated organizations, the vulnerability of the specific site, the symbolic value of a site as a highly recognized American institution, and the role of the institution in responding to terrorist attacks.
REP. NADLER: Also, in addition to what Chuck just read, the institution has to show that it has had, within the past few months, gatherings of more than 100 people; in other words, it's a place of public assembly.
Q And what's the history on this bill? Where did this come from?
REP. NETHERCUTT: Chuck, do you want to answer?
MR. KONIGSBERG: Back in December we convened a group of non- profits, who are on the list that you have today, and began discussing the vulnerability of non-profit organizations to international terrorist attack, and the bill has been under development for the past three to four months. We've been working closely with the bill's sponsors and this results in the bill that you see today.
REP. SHAYS: I'd like to speak to that issue if I could. I chair the National Security Subcommittee and we have asked so many different government organizations and businesses and non-profits to begin to have an assessment of the terrorist threat, and this is what's starting to happen and then they learn the threat and they logically come forward to Congress. They should be as well going to the Department of Homeland Security to say we feel these are our vulnerabilities.
One of the problems with the Department of Homeland Security is it has taken a while for them to begin to have an assessment of the kinds of the threats that are out there and so what we are doing, as member of Congress, is we are saying clearly these non-profit organizations are major targets. They don't have the resources and we want you to deal with it, and we did it in a way that, I think, makes sense. We didn't define what the grant should be, how much grant versus loan in general. We want the department to set up these regulations but we don't want them to wait much longer and we want to have this set aside of $100 million. Eventually, I think, it will be even more money.
REP. NADLER: Just picking up on where Chris left off, the coalition that developed the bill, the coalition of all these different non-profits, did a survey and they estimate the total need for security enhancements for non-profit institutions at somewhere between $1 and $2 billion. This bill asks $100 million plus loan guarantees. It's a start, a start in the right direction.
Q And the money, where is it going to come from? Are you looking for new money or are you looking for money --
REP. NADLER: There would be a-we would seek an authorization and an appropriation, yes. But it's only $100 million, which in the budget of the United States is not a big problem.
Q Congressman Shays says that's just a start.
REP. NADLER: I just said it was a start. Well, the bill would appropriate or authorize and appropriate $100 million and we'll see how that goes obviously.
REP. SHAYS: And let me just, if I could, be clear. I mean, it's going to take a while and thank you for these questions. Sometimes we come and no one gives a damn. In the end, what we're saying is let's get this process started but there are rules and regulations that have to be established. These non-profits will have to go-there's no way they could spend, even with the demand, a lot of money in the beginning but in the future we'll see how this program works and we'll evaluate it. So I'm just-of all the legislation I've been asked to be supportive of, this one to me is a tremendously important piece.
REP. NADLER: Let me add one thing that you didn't ask that really follows on from what you were asking.
Q I was going to get to it.
REP. NADLER: (Laughs.) Maybe. The legislation-among the criteria in the legislation is that security enhancements that would be funded by this legislation cannot be dual use. In other words, it cannot be the kind of things that you might put in because of ordinary crime like a surveillance system or something. This has to be things that are useful really to protect against terrorism, things that in the absence of a terrorist threat you wouldn't think of doing.
REP. NETHERCUTT: And let me just add to that, too. I happen to be on the Appropriations Committee. Our committee and the subcommittees of appropriations are going to pay, I believe, very serious attention to this issue because the consequences of not doing something to appropriate adequate funds and authorize this level of funding as a start could be catastrophic for the country. I mean, just think about the consequences of having a hospital or a synagogue or whatever else might be targeted.
So I think it's very important that the Appropriations Committee consider it. I think it will. And in saying that let me turn to Susan Davis-Representative Davis from San Diego. We're delighted you're here, and say a few words if you'd like.
REP. SUSAN DAVIS: Thank you, George. I'm very pleased to be here and join in this really bipartisan effort, I think, that's critically important. You know, one of the thing that's really important about having grants out there is it helps people get their house in order essentially, and I know on the school board and others people don't always get the grants but they learn a lot from that process. And we want to be sure that they get the funds and they get the resources because we know they absolutely need them but I think there's a process in play that this begins and we need to send that message to everybody that we support the efforts that they're doing and we hope that the resources will be there, but even if they're not, the important work that they're doing is valued and I think we need to demonstrate that in what we do.
Thank you.
MR. KONIGSBERG: If I could just add on the cost issue. The president has proposed a 10 percent increase in the Homeland Security budget for fiscal year '05, and the request that we've made here, $100 million, is one-fifth of 1 percent of the Homeland Security Department budget.
REP. NETHERCUTT: Let me just add, we haven't, in the last couple of years now since September 11th and the development of the Department of Homeland Security-the Appropriations Committee has not earmarked funds and directed the department to spend them one way or the other. We're leaving that to the department, but I think we're going to get to the point where we as a legislative body can emphasize in a bipartisan way to the Department of Homeland Security some priorities of the spending that the department is doing and this is, in my judgment, a very important priority.
REP. ENGEL: And let me just say that the point that George is making, I think, is very, very important. Look, this is new. The-I'm sorry.
The Department of Homeland Security is new and we made it that way so that as things unfold and we see where needs are-creep up that we're going to respond to it. This is obviously an attempt to respond to needs that everyone knows is there and the organizations that will be applying for this-it's not simply a matter of getting money and then they can take some other money and use it for some other purpose.
Organizations are going to have to demonstrate that they need this money for security purposes and that's a very, very important criteria. So we're very careful with this. It's not a huge slush fund. It's a fund specifically so that organizations which have, obviously through no fault of their own, find themselves needing the resources and only the federal government can provide those resources.
MR. : We have a question over there.
Q Two questions actually for Chuck. First of all, is this also being introduced in the Senate today? And on the church-state issue, Congressman Nadler if you can answer this too, is there a concern that this law, if it becomes law could be challenged in court because of the church-state issue?
MR. KONIGSBERG: We do anticipate that the bill will be introduced in the Senate as well today by Senators Mikulski and Specter, and on the church-state issue we do not anticipate a court challenge. This bill, as Congressman Nadler said, has been very carefully crafted. It does apply to all high risk 501©(3)s, which would include synagogues, churches, mosques, day schools and other types of religious institutions.
The legislation has been very carefully crafted to fully respect the separation of church and state. Under the bill no federal funds would flow to non-profits selected for assistance. Instead the secretary of Homeland Security would enter into contracts to install security enhancements and provide technical assistance. An additional constitutional safeguard is that the assistance under this bill is strictly limited to extraordinary measures, as the congressman said, required to protect high risk non-profits from terrorist attacks such as concrete barriers, blast-proof doors, and Mylar coatings over windows.
Consequently, none of the protective measures installed by the federal government could in any way contribute to the sectarian purposes of the synagogues, churches, mosques or day schools.
REP. NADLER: Let me add to that. As some of you know I've been one of the strongest opponents of the Charitable Choice legislation that some people here may support because I take the separation of church and state perhaps further than some other people do. I do not believe that the way this bill is drafted implicates any of those questions. Number one, there's no direct grants to sectarian institutions, no vouchers. Their privity of contract, the relationship between the-the contractor gets paid for doing the work is with the federal government. The synagogue, the church does not deal with them at all. They get no funding. It can only be for protective purposes. From a constitutional point of view I think it's equivalent to the practice of having a cop stand in front of a door of a church or synagogue during a service to provide protection.
Some of the issues that are raised by the Charitable Choice legislation, such as the ability of a church or a synagogue to discriminate in hiring with federal dollars, are not raised here because they get no federal dollars. And on that legislation some people think that's terrible, some people think it's okay. It's a different debate. We don't get into this here.
I think this is well within the constitutional ambit and I don't think-some people will disagree but I think it's well within it and I think this meets the real test that we ought to meet, which is that government ought to be scrupulously neutral. We should not be promoting religion; we should not be opposed to religion. We should be dealing with religious institutions exactly the way that we deal with anybody else. We provide protections against an external threat. Religious institutions should have no higher but no lower degree of protection. If they are more threatened, then they should have a commensurate protection.
Did you have a follow-up question?
(Audio break, tape change.)
Q Honestly, there is a decision that has to be made somewhere by some agency about where to put the money. So how do you determine-how do you weigh threats-I guess a hospital versus say St. Patrick's Cathedral? Or how do you --
REP. NADLER: You weigh it not on the basis of whether you think a hospital is more important than the cathedral or vice versa. You weigh it on the basis of how real a threat do you think it is, what is the degree of threat and how much protection can you provide, and those are the criteria, or those are the bases behind the criteria spelled out in the bill.
Now, obviously there's going to be some judgment because you don't have enough money presumably to protect every conceivable institution against every conceivable threat, but people have to make decisions. That's the function of government. As long as you don't make those decisions on the basis of some religious factor but on the basis of at least an objective criteria: what is the degree of threat; what is the degree of harm from this threat as against that threat; how many people are likely to be here, how many people are likely to be there? And that's the way we ought to do it.
Q Would it be similar for judging between, say, and anti- Semitic bigot who want to attack a synagogue versus a real sort of terrorist threat?
REP. NADLER: Well, this is directed against terrorism. This is not --
Q Who makes that call?
REP. NADLER: The Department of Homeland Security and the local agencies that they will be dealing with for that purpose.
REP. NETHERCUTT: Let me add to that. You know, we put some resources into trying to protect universities and research and biomedical research facilities against domestic terrorists, so this is consistent with that. I mean, we're looking at-and we're doing that across the country in terms of hardening targets that are government related. We can't have every little town around the country be protected in the same measure that maybe a bigger town or a vulnerable city is.
So those are judgments that Homeland Security is making. They'll make the same kind of standards in this issue.
MR. KONIGSBERG: And if I could just add that the legislation specifically focuses the assistance on responding to international terrorism.
Q Congressman Nadler, would you support the use of contractors in terms of giving federal dollars to religious programs -- (off mike)?
REP. NADLER: I'm sorry, for what services?
Q Would you support the use of contractors for, say, faith- based institutions if contractors are controlling which faith-based charities received federal aid? Would you support that?
REP. NADLER: If the contractor were controlling it? I don't think so. I don't think anybody would. I don't think you'd want to give a contractor-I think discretion that this synagogue should get money for something and not that synagogue or that church --
Q But aren't you doing that in this --
REP. NADLER: No. Contractors aren't making those decisions; the department is making decisions. In other words, you've got three different types of organization here. You have government, you have contractors, you have beneficiary institutions that might be a faith- based institution or a non-faith-based institution. We don't want to give government money to a faith-based institution. Some people would like to, but we're not doing it in this bill. (Chuckles.) That's a separate sphere.
MR. : Don't go there. (Laughter.)
REP. NADLER: Right. All right, we're not giving money or vouchers, the equivalent of money, to faith-based institutions.
We're not telling contractors, you make a decision. The contractors have no decision to make. What we're saying is the Department of Homeland Security makes a decision on which are the most threatened institutions, faith-based or non-faith-based; which are the most amenable-I mean, some may be threatened but there's no practical solution, but which, by building a wall or a blast-proof door or something practical, can you properly protect for a reasonable, doable cost?
The department then selects a contractor. Actually, we say in the bill that they should pre-select-have contractors on call in each locality in the interest of speed. You don't want this to take forever. They decide that. So government is making a decision based on criteria set forth in the bill, which are religiously neutral criteria, have nothing to do with religion, based on threat as to who should be helped. And I would not want a contractor to make such decisions.
Q What I guess I'm asking, is that a model-could that be used as a model for faith-based institutions?
REP. NADLER: I think-well, it is used here --
Q The Faith-Based Initiative.
REP. NADLER: All right, now let me put on my hat speaking for myself and not for anybody else here because I take a different position than some people here do, and let me make my view clear on this.
Faith-based institutions, from my point of view, I support many of the faith-based initiatives but not the Charitable Choice provisions of the Faith-Based Initiative. And one key aspect here is that churches and synagogues-and again, this does not implicate this bill. This bill was designed not to get into these questions. Churches and synagogues are exempt by law from Title 7 of the Civil Rights Act. They can discriminate on the basis of religion in hiring. We don't complain to the Catholic Church that you don't hire women ministers. We don't complain to the Catholic Church, you don't hire Lutheran ministers. I mean, they're obviously, for obvious reasons, exempt from that Civil Rights-and that exemption applies to the minister and the janitor.
However, we also do not give direct money grants to churches-at least we haven't until now; that's the current dispute-we give them to 501©(3)s set up by churches, to the Catholic Charities, Lutheran whatever, the Jewish Federation, or the 5th Avenue Baptist Church Homeless Shelter, Inc, which they set up. That 501©(3) gets the federal money. They are not exempt. They cannot discriminate on the basis of religion in employment, which the church could, which is why we don't give the church money.
The Charitable Choice Initiative would change that and would give the church money directly. And the proponents say that in the pursuit of its ministry of let's say curing-if the church thinks that it helps in curing drug addicts to say Jesus wants you not to use drugs, that's a valid thing and that's okay. Opponents such as myself say that breaches separation of church and state. That's a very different dispute. We're not getting into that in this legislation because no money is going directly to a faith-based institution, no money is going to anything controlled by a faith-based institution.
We're simply making the government make a decision as to who's threatened-I mean, they have to apply, but who among those applicants is threatened, and the government then contracts with a private contractor to do the work, to build the wall or whatever. And this implicates no questions of religious discrimination, of hiring or any of the other issues that are raised in some of these other bills.
REP. NETHERCUTT: Let me just say bottom line-we're going to cut this off here. I know I have things to go to and I know the rest of us do. Bottom line, this protects charitable non-profit organizations, including churches, synagogues, hospitals, those very important social entities within our society that may be vulnerable to international terrorism. We're going to let the Department of Homeland Security make these judgments with input from Congress. And that's really what this is. It's providing an extra layer of security to an awful lot of people who are targets in this country who don't happen to be government.
So thank you all. Anybody else who wants to say anything, that's great, but I'm going to have to leave.
MR. : Thank you all for coming.