Good Morning. I want to join Chairman Leahy in welcoming you to today’s important hearing entitled, "Faith Based Solutions: What are the Legal Issues?"

       We have been hearing more and more about charitable choice or faith based solutions over the past several years. It is a policy endorsed wholeheartedly during the presidential Campaign by both President Bush and former Vice President Al Gore. Numerous faith-based groups and religious leaders have embraced the notion that sectarian groups should be allowed to compete on the merits for funding to administer secular social services to the American public, if they can demonstrate that they meet the requirements provided in the programs.

       Moreover, the American public overwhelmingly favors allowing faith-based groups to have the opportunity to provide social services to those in need. Although, I have been one who is skeptical of polling data, it is interesting to note that according to a recent poll conducted by the independent Pew Research Center, 75 percent of the American public support the concept of faith-based funding, while only 21 percent oppose it.

       The Pew poll also found that the majority of both Republicans and Democrats strongly favored allowing churches and religious institutions to apply for federal grants to provide services to the needy. Thus, this broad support for charitable choice crosses party lines and ideological differences, and the composition of our panelists today reflects this.

       While Americans understand the need for faith-based programs, there are some who have raised concerns regarding the constitutionality of allowing such faith based groups to receive government funds. But let’s be clear about one thing. This issue has not been a partisan matter to date. Since 1996, charitable choice legislation has received bipartisan support from both houses of Congress as well as from the Clinton administration. These laws have allowed faith-based providers to compete for federal grants to provide services such as job training and drug rehabilitation. Indeed, religious charities currently receive about $3 billion each year in federal funds to administer certain social services.

       President Bush has made the increased involvement of faith-based organizations to address some of our social problems a priority. Indeed he created an office of faith-based services within the White House to give these bi-partisan programs a higher profile.

       The current debate centers around whether it is appropriate to remove restrictions from existing funding streams to allow more groups to help those in need help themselves. I believe that after careful consideration of all the various concerns, Americans who are most at need will benefit greatly from building further on our charitable choice programs, which President Clinton also supported.

       A couple of months ago I, along with Senators Leahy, Biden and others, introduced the bipartisan S. 304, the "Drug Abuse Education, Prevention, and Treatment Act of 2001," to shore up our national commitment to the demand reduction component of our national drug control strategy. We introduced this legislation because we know that in order to effectively reduce drug abuse in America, we need to increase the resources we devote to prevent people from using drugs in the first place and also to break the cycle of addiction for those whose lives are devastated and consumed by these substances.

       It only seemed appropriate in expanding prevention and treatment programs that we tap every resource available to carry out these important services. And, it only seemed logical to tap the resources faith-based providers can offer.

       To achieve this goal, S. 304 includes charitable choice provisions that require the government to consider, on the same basis as other non-governmental organizations, faith-based organizations for providing the drug prevention and treatment assistance under the programs authorized by the bill. This provision is virtually identical to provision in other federal programs that are currently the law of the land. I know that at the time we introduced S. 304, Sen. Leahy and others had some concerns and questions about the charitable choice provisions and wanted to explore the legal issues further. That is why we are here today, and I continue to remain committed to working with my good friend to address any concerns with this important bill. This hearing will enable us to examine some of the possible concerns and, hopefully, develop answers, where needed.

       Charitable choice has its critics. Some have argued that it violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, while others have argued that rampant discrimination would occur as a result of charitable choice. And still others complain that religious organizations will become dependent on the federal government and lose their religious independence if they vie for government grants. These are valid concerns, and we hope to air them out and address them with the help of our witnesses today.

       I believe all of our witnesses today would agree with me that we need to do more to ensure that everyone who is in need of a helping hand, whether that be drug treatment, a hot lunch, literacy tutoring, or spiritual guidance, can simply reach out and that hand will be there.

       The bi-partisan and in the words of some, "revolutionary," S. 304 is a step in that direction. It offers promise to those addicted to drugs, who are some of our nation’s most destitute citizens. I am proud to say that since its introduction, numerous organizations, political officials, and concerned Americans have contacted the Committee to praise the bill. At a press conference held prior to introducing the bill, prevention and treatment experts, standing beside law enforcement officials, regardless of party affiliation, spoke in unison about how the various prevention and treatment components of this bill will help lower drug abuse in America.

       S. 304 bespeaks our commitment to do more to prevent and treat substance abuse. Such efforts, it is safe to say, will prove worthwhile. Let me emphasize, however, that while this legislation will prove enormously helpful, it is not a cure-all. Parents, grandparents, priests, pastors, rabbis, teachers, sports heroes, celebrities, and everyone else involved in a child’s life need to take an active role in educating our children about the dangers of drugs.

       Drug abuse knows no boundaries. It doesn’t discriminate on the basis of gender, race, age, or class. It is truly an equal opportunity destroyer. Unless children are given the knowledge and truth of how drugs will ruin their health and future, they are vulnerable to the lies of those who are peddling drugs. That is why it is so important that we enlist everyone – including faith-based groups – in this fight to save our children.

       The fact is there is no simple answer to the problem of drug abuse. We all must step up our efforts to do everything we can to decrease the odds that our youth will fall prey to drug abuse and increase the odds that they will live healthy, productive lives. All of our panelists who work with children understand the pivotal role responsible, caring adults can play in the lives of at-risk children. Allowing faith-based providers the opportunity to reach more of these children will result in less children falling prey to drugs and more children succeeding in life.

       I look forward to hearing our panelists’ suggestions, based on their own experience and expertise, about what works, what doesn’t, and what can be done. In particular, I am interested in listening to any suggestions you may have for improving this legislation.