A picture of Representative Jerrold Nadler
Jerrold N.
Democrat NY 10

About Rep. Jerrold
  • Federal Disaster Assistance Nonprofit Fairness Act of 2013

    by Representative Jerrold Nadler

    Posted on 2013-02-13

    submit to reddit

    Read More about Federal Disaster Assistance Nonprofit Fairness Act of 2013

    NADLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I reluctantly rise in opposition to this bill. The purpose of this bill is laudable. Unfortunately, there are real constitutional problems.



    This bill would provide direct cash grants to rebuild houses of worship. Direct government funding of churches, synagogues, and mosques has always been held to be unconstitutional, and the decisions of the Supreme Court establishing that principle remain good law to this day. While some recent decisions have raised questions of these prior decisions' validity, they remain binding precedent. Most legal authorities would hold this bill to be constitutional, although some would disagree.

    At the very least, given the serious constitutional questions raised by this legislation, I am deeply troubled that it has received no committee consideration and is being rushed to the floor just a few days after being introduced under a procedure that allows only 40 minutes of debate and no amendments. One would think that we were naming a post office rather than passing legislation with significant constitutional implications that could alter the relationship between government and religion.

    While I have serious reservations about this bill and the way it is being considered, I wanted to commend the sponsors, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) and my colleagues from New York, Ms. Meng and Mr. King, who have been outstanding champions of the people hard hit by Hurricane Sandy.

    So what is the concern? Let's start with the basics. This bill would direct Federal taxpayer dollars to the reconstruction of houses of worship. The idea that taxpayer money can be used to build a religious sanctuary or an altar has consistently been held unconstitutional.

    This is entirely different from government working with religious institutions to deliver social services. FEMA money, under the law this bill would amend, is already available to those institutions.

    FEMA Disaster Assistance Policy 9521.1 states: Just because a community center is operated by a religious institution does not automatically make it ineligible. In addition to worship services, many religious institutions conduct a variety of activities that benefit the community. Many of these activities are similar or identical to those performed by secular institutions and local governments.

    The law now permits funding to religious institutions that provide those services to the general public, on an equal basis with secular institutions doing the same work. Although the title of this bill suggests otherwise, there is no unequal treatment of religious institutions.

    So what we are really talking about is whether we should be in the business of using taxpayer money to build and rebuild houses of worship and rebuild sanctuaries and altars that are not available for use to the general public.

    I think, at the very least, we need to exercise caution. I know that people have been circulating letters making extravagant claims about the current state of the law, but what is clear is that the Supreme Court has never overruled its prior decisions specifically prohibiting this kind of use of public money.

    {time} 1240 In Tilton v. Richardson, the Court held that a 20-year ban on using publicly financed college facilities for religious or other purposes was not sufficient. The Court made the ban permanent, saying: If, at the end of 20 years, the building is, for example, converted into a chapel or otherwise used to promote religious interests, the original Federal grant will in part have the effect of advancing religion.

    And that, of course, is not permissible.

    Similarly, in Committee for Public Education v. Nyquist, the Court struck down a State program of ``maintenance and repair grants'' for the upkeep of religious elementary and secondary schools. The Court said: If the State may not erect buildings in which religious activities are to take place, it may not maintain such buildings or renovate them when they fall into disrepair.

    Some proponents have pointed to the Court's ruling in Mitchell v. Helms. The question in that case was whether publicly financed educational materials could be lent to religious schools. The controlling opinion, written by Justice O'Connor, made it clear that it was not sufficient that the publicly furnished materials be provided on a nondiscriminatory basis; they must never be diverted to religious activities. That is clearly not the case here.

    The majority has made a big issue of respecting the Constitution. We read the Constitution at the beginning of each Congress, and we are required to provide a statement of constitutional authority when we introduce a bill.

    The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.

    Mr. RAHALL. I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

    Mr. NADLER. But all of that means very little if, when faced with a genuinely significant constitutional question, the House gives it the bum's rush. This bill should be subject to hearings in the Judiciary Committee, with input from constitutional scholars, and due consideration of these significant constitutional issues, before we take such a radical step.

    At the very least, for those who support this bill, I would think that they would want to get it right, to ensure that it is not done in a way that would make it susceptible to successful legal challenge. I urge my colleagues to put the brakes on this legislation until we can review it with the care it deserves.

    Because I believe this bill to be unconstitutional, and because the constitutional issues have not been properly considered, I must reluctantly vote ``no.'' [[Page H468]] I thank the gentleman for yielding.

  • submit to reddit
  • Register your constituent account to respond

    Constituent Register