n hopes of salvaging the federal faith-based funding initiative, House lawmakers have modified current legislative proposals that would subsidize religious groups engaging in social service programs.

   Citing problems of constitutionality, Rep. J.C. Watts (R-OK) told the Washington Times, "I think we've finally gotten the wrinkles ironed out."

   The House Judiciary Committee is expected to vote today on the revised version of Watts' H.R. 7, originally dubbed the "Community Solutions Act." The measure would pave the way for initial funding of President George Bush's White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, which has an expansive goal of aiding religious organizations seeking to operate social services which include a sectarian component. It would have the effect of expanding the so-called "charitable choice" provision of the 1996 welfare reform act, which invited religious groups to apply for federal grants in order to administer faith-based social programs without having to dilute their sectarian character. Despite backing from a number of civic and religious organizations, H.R. 7 has stalled in the House. Last week, HJC Chairman James Sensenbrenner Jr. raised concerns that as originally crafted, the measure was not "constitutionally airtight."

   Over the weekend, the White House dispatched Attorney General John Ashcroft and Solicitor General Theodore G. Olson for a round of lobbying on Capitol Hill. Key Representatives, including Mr. Watts, Mr. Sensenbrenner, Majority Leader Dick Armey of Texas, House Majority Whip Tom DeLay, and Speaker Dennis Hastert then huddled on Tuesday with White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card. The result of that meeting is what the administration hopes is legislation that can at least clear the full House.

   John Bridgeland, director of the White House Domestic Policy Council, told reporters that with the new modifications, it is hoped that the bill will "be in line with the Constitution."

   How "revised" is this new legislation, however?

   ¶    The measure will include a provision that at least on paper, will allow participants in any religion-based social program to "opt out" of any component involving proselytizing and preaching. There is no provision for how that will be enforced, though, and critics worry that religious groups may not adequately inform recipients of social services that they have this option. The provision could also discourage many of the organizations president Bush seeks to subsidize, such as Teen Challenge, a Christian drug and alcohol rehab program that makes no secret of the importance religion plays in its regimen.

"JUST WHAT IS A 'CATHOLIC' FOOD SERVICE?" Ellen Johnson, President American Atheists

   "If you're not proselytizing, then there's nothing to opt out of," groused Virginia Democrat Robert C. Scott. "Either way, the rationale for charitable choice will collapse. If you're not proselytizing in the program ... you don't need charitable choice. Fund the (government) program."

   ¶    The new proposal would require organizations accepting federal funds to keep proselytizing separate from social service, and would have to segregate grant money from that being used to promote religious observance and activities.

   "This is a sham," declared Ellen Johnson, President of American Atheists. "For years, religious groups have been taking government money to operate social programs, and there has been little or no oversight to ensure that this money is not used for preaching and religious indoctrination."

   Johnson added, "this bill is just window dressing, re-packaging of a scheme which already had serious constitutional problems."

   "Even if these provisions were obeyed by religious groups, we're still funding a faith-based component, even if participation is 'voluntary,' said Johnson. "By that rationale, we could have taxpayers funding construction of churches and mosques, and Bush would say this is fine since the decision to walk in and pray is 'voluntary.' "

   ¶    Finally, the bill would allow religious groups to discriminate on the basis of faith when hiring employees, but states that the religion, if any, of those applying for social services cannot be considered. This provision, too, may encounter problems in both the House and Senate. Rep. Scott told the New York Times, "Charitable choice offers the chance to discriminate in hiring with federal money. Religions can discriminate in hiring with their own money, but not with taxpayers' money."

   Rep. Watts tried to put a different spin on the problem. He said that the legislation "is making serious progress," and "We've ironed out the wrinkled, addressed the concerns of the faith-based initiative and fully expect the House to clear the Community Solutions Act before autumn." Regarding the problem of bias, though, Watts declared: "You can consider religion in hiring, but you cannot consider religion in issuing services. You might have a Catholic food service, but you can't say, 'Because you're a Baptist, you can't eat here.' "

   "Just what is a 'Catholic' food service?" asked Ms. Johnson. "If this isn't about funding religion, and is -- as Bush says, only providing a secular service -- why is the federal government going out of its way to have churches, mosques and temples take over the welfare system?"

   Despite claims that the new measure will not promote religion or violate the separation of church and state, the ambiguous language and statements by supporters still raise serious questions.

   Earlier this week, Mr. Bush took his case for public funding of faith-based programs to the United States Conference of Mayors in Detroit where he received a luke-warm reception. Bush pleaded with the mayors to lobby Congress in hopes of "funding the good works of the faithful and not the faith itself." The president added, "We recognize there must be secular alternatives for those who wish to use the service."

   Stephen Goldsmith, former Mayor of Indianapolis and a key administration adviser was even more cryptic, telling reporters that "People need to be able to go through a secular door if they wish, but through a religious door if they need to."

   As usual, Bush paid a token nod to the First Amendment, telling the mayors, "We respect the separation of church and state, and the constitutional rights of religious people." Bush did not mention comparable rights for nonbelievers, though, and the Times noted that the president "never offered specifics of how he would maintain that separation."

[text only]