United Jewish Communities has two major concerns regarding the expansion of Charitable Choice included as Title II of House Bill 7 that we would like to discuss with you today. The first relates to quality control and the second to religious coercion creeping into the delivery of services. House Bill 7, as you know, would enable houses of worship to compete for public funding on an equal basis with social service agencies without requiring them to incorporate separately. Yet to protect houses of worship from undue government interference, these churches, synagogues and mosques, whose primary purpose is the expression of their religious beliefs, may seek local, state or federal waivers to exempt them from having to comply with the same standards and regulations that govern 501(c) (3) agencies. Such standards may include accreditation, counselor-client ratios, health, safety, and fire standards, and nutrition requirements, among others. These are standards that we have created over the years insure that our tax dollars are spent in ways that meets basic standards of decency, efficiency, and effectiveness. We expect institutions that receive public funds to be accountable for the way they spend those dollars and we need adequate oversight to ensure that such standards are maintained. Maintaining such standards costs money. Providers, who are not required to meet the same basic standards of quality and care designed to protect the client, would be able to provide services at a lower cost. This inevitably would result in unfair competition that could drive many legitimate, high quality 501(c)(3) organizations out of business. Having different standards for some providers may also expose the government to a greater potential for fraud and abuse, given its inability to monitor such programs. Since the purpose of such legislation is to provide improved, effective service to people, a level playing field in which all charities must apply on the same basis for funds and be subject to the same standards of accountability, is essential to ensure ongoing public confidence. The inability of government to exercise oversight could result in some unscrupulous providers hiding behind the cover of such waivers. This could jeopardize the health and safety of the client and further erode the confidence of the public in government's ability to discharge its obligations in a fair, accountable and responsible way. While House Bill 7 in Section 201 (h) states that religious organizations "shall be subject to the same regulations as other non-governmental organizations to account in accord with generally accepted accounting principles for the use of such funds," there is no requirement that faith-based recipients of public funds would need to comply with any other standards and regulations required of not-for-profit service providers. In fact, House Bill 7 is silent on the applicability of federal, state, and local, standards and regulations, and this ought to be remedied post haste. We also are deeply concerned that this legislation does not adequately protect clients who have no wish to partake in religiously related programming and who might feel coerced to accept such programming. There is nothing in the Bill that prohibits providers from holding prayer meetings immediately before and at the conclusion of the government funded service in the very same space as the prayer service, as long as the prayers or other religious activities are funded privately. The client is not necessarily aware what portion of the program is funded with public dollars and what portion is private. To them it is a continuous service. Distinguished Members, as a social worker who has spent years working directly with vulnerable populations, I can attest that the vast majority of clients do not have the self confidence, knowledge and wherewithal to insist upon their right not to be placed in potentially coercive environments. Their lives are stressed enough to begin with, without having the burden of informing the service provider which element of the program is unacceptable to them. It is easier not to seek the help in the first place with the result that clients' health and welfare may be jeopardized. As a minority religion, we worry about the absence of viable and effective oversight to ensure that overzealous religious providers do not use prayer and religious instruction in counseling and other services with unwilling and highly vulnerable recipients. Vulnerable people should not forced to deal with potentially coercive religious experiences through government funded services and should not have the burden placed on them, of objecting to such programming. The provision in House Bill 7, Section 202 (f) that addresses this issue does not provide sufficient protection. The provision leaves the responsibility of objecting to the religious character of the organization up to the client, after s/he has sought assistance. Only then the government entity would be required to provide an alternative service within a reasonable period of time. Our tax dollars should fund viable secular alternatives in advance, and not leave this burden to the client seeking help. Since virtually no new funds have been included in the budget for these programs, it is unlikely that all communities will have a secular alternative program on every "northeast corner" for every religious program located on the "northwest corner". Even in major cities, given the pressures on local budgets, it does not seem likely that viable secular alternatives will be readily available to clients seeking such service. Switching currently designated public funds from one group to another, even without all the potential constitutional entanglements, will not necessarily result in more successful service to a larger number of people. The proponents of faith based programs are the very first to say that there is no evidence whatsoever that religious programs produce better results than the existing network of services. Nor does the scholar, Raam Cnaan, on whose work the Professor Dilulio has based his judgments. There is virtually no comparative scholarly evidence to support such claims. While a number of studies do show a connection between church attendance and lower incidence of arrest, substance abuse and ongoing employment, there is no correlation between the effectiveness of services provided by these religious institutions versus their secular counterparts. We think that the responsible thing to do is to test the programs first for effectiveness and to iron out all the religious entanglements before embarking upon wholesale government re-engineering of such massive proportions. We believe that one of the major reasons that so many individual houses of worship have not been able to create their own separate 501(c)(3) organizations is because they simply do not have the capacity to do so. Our own service providers have had the benefit of our local Federations who serve as intermediaries, providing planning, technical assistance, seed and capital development grants and other infrastructure assistance. They also have had the benefit of a skilled national system that can connect them with other agencies in all parts of the country to learn from and share resources with. Many of the 350,000 churches, synagogues and mosques have only between 200400 congregational members and do not have the resources to create separate institutions or to comply with local, state and federal standards of service delivery. The answer is not to lower or waive the standards, but to provide funds for capacity building and infrastructure development so that these institutions may fairly compete with others, on the same basis for public funding and without violating the Establishment Clause. House Bill 7 ought to include such grants to build the institutions locally and strengthen their linkages with other similar providers. In conclusion, there are many successful ways that Government can and should partner with faith-based organizations, in working towards our common goal of assisting people in need. For the better part of a decade the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has worked with religious organizations to provide technical assistance, information dissemination, capacity building and a voice with the Secretary of HUD. Additionally, for many years we have been part of a government partnership with religious based charities though FEMA's Emergency Food and Shelter program where the Salvation Army, Catholic Charities USA, United Church of Christ, American Red Cross, United Way of America and the United Jewish Communities have overseen and distributed funds to local food pantries and soup kitchens that serve our most vulnerable populations. We have strongly supported such partnerships and continue to fund and encourage others in the private sector to fund religious programs and services that are so important to communities of faith. Thank you very much. I will be very pleased to answer any questions you may have. Chairman MCCRERY. Thank you, Ms. Aviv. STATEMENT OF NANINE MEIKLEJOHN, LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS EES Ms. MEIKLEJOHN. Thank you, Chairman McCrery and Chairman Herger. My name is Nanine Meiklejohn. I am a legislative representative at the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME). Our legislative director, Charles Loveless, had very much hoped to present this testimony, but he had to leave because his father quite ill. We appreciate your accommodating us by allowing me to appear in his place. We also appreciate the opportunity for the AFSCME to present this testimony. Let me start by emphasizing that AFSCME values the good work of religious organizations, and we support finding ways to encourage their good work. We work closely with organizations such as Catholic Charities and Lutheran Social Services in forging public and nonprofit coalitions to address our Nation's unmet social needs. To really understand H.R. 7, the bill has to be put in the overall context of current budget and tax policies, which envision fewer resources for many social service programs over the next decade. While we take no position on the merits of the tax provisions in H.R. 7, we are concerned that without offsets the cost could explode over the next 10 years. The administration's budget cuts many of the programs to which H.R. 7 would apply charitable choice. While tax incentives can help charities augment publicly funded programs, they can in no way replace these nationwide systems. The resulting spending cuts will undermine these systems by shortchanging public and nonprofit agencies, including those currently run by religiously affiliated charities. Supporters of H.R. 7 contend that the charitable choice provisions are necessary to end discrimination against sectarian organizations in the awarding of government grants. We would submit that the reality is that no such discrimination exists. We all know that various religious organizations receive funds through separate secular nonprofit entities. And small organizations-both secular and sectarian-face the same challenges applying for government money and adhering to government requirements. In fact, we submit that H.R. 7 actually gives preferential treatment to sectarian groups. This is because the measure allows them, as publicly funded government grantees, to retain certain exemptions that they enjoy in recognition of the fact the religious speech and practice are protected. These include exemptions from key Federal labor laws that give unemployed workers unemployment benefits and that give all private sector workers the right to organized representation in the workplace. They also include civil rights law that prohibits religious-based employment discrimination. But H.R. 7 goes even further by giving sectarian organizations unique standing to file a lawsuit against public officials if they believe they have been denied a grant on the basis of their religious character. No other grant applicant has a similar right to challenge a grant or contract award. This goes well beyond leveling the playingfield and will undermine longstanding State and local government contracting practices that are designed to ensure the selection of the most competent and effective providers. Public officials will be placed in the no-win situation of selecting among different religions and between secular and sectarian applicants. Religion could take precedence over experience and expertise. We believe, as Congressman Scott said, that H.R. 7 does intend to fund the faith. Otherwise, there can be no logical explanation for the secular alternative requirement in H.R. 7. However, there appears to us to be no meaningful way to ensure that a secular alternative is available in all cases. As a result, some very real dilemmas could arise. For example, welfare recipients are subject to strict work requirements. If the only available and conveniently located program is a sectarian program with which the individual is uncomfortable, will he or she be sanctioned for refusing to participate? Charitable choice attempts to mix government and religion, even though they are fundamentally different. Maintaining the independence of religious institutions is precisely what has protected the spiritual integrity of houses of worship and our religious freedom. But government needs to be accountable to taxpayers and voters. It cannot simply contribute to the collection plate. Taxpayers quite rightly expect a proper accounting for their tax dollars through provisions of law such as performance standards, licensing rules, auditing requirements, due process, and conflict of interest requirements. We believe that both the citizens and religion are best protected when government and religion are kept separate. The bill does not, because it cannot, reconcile the two in a satisfactory way. While at first glance charitable choice seems to be an idea with strong appeal, the more you consider it, the more problematic it becomes. We urge you to reject it. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Ms. Meiklejohn follows:] Statement of Nanine Meiklejohn, Legislative Affairs Specialist, Department of Legislation, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Mr. Chairman, my name is Nanine Meiklejohn, Legislative Affairs Specialist, Department of Legislation, at the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME). AFSCME represents 1.3 million employees who work for federal, state and local governments, health care institutions, and nonprofit agencies. We appreciate the opportunity to testify on H.R. 7, the Community Solutions Act, and in particular, on the charitable choice provisions in the bill. AFSCME supports and values the good work of religious organizations, especially the current partnerships which government maintains with faith-based organizations through secular religiously-affiliated nonprofit organizations, such as Catholic Charities and United Jewish Federations. Our own members are active in their congregations and in their communities. They are no strangers to the pressing needs of vulnerable individuals and poor communities. Indeed, hundreds of thousands of them work day in and day out in these neighborhoods, and they do so in the face of steady criticism from public officials who seek political advantage by condemning government while depriving public agencies of the resources and leadership necessary to provide quality services. AFSCME strongly believes, however, that charitable choice is the wrong way to do right. We do not believe that charitable choice is good for religion or for the government-supported social services infrastructure that originally began in the 1930s as private charities were overwhelmed by the Great Depression. Already charitable choice has opened up divisions in our society based on religious differences and prejudices. It has distracted attention from the real issue of providing adequate resources to address the problems of poverty. It will permit religious discrimination in taxpayer-funded programs and has the effect of removing employees in federallyfunded programs from several key labor and benefit protections. It will spawn litiga tion that will put state and local officials in an untenable political and legal position. H.R. 7 cannot be judged adequately without considering the Administration's overall budget and tax policies, which envisions far fewer resources for many of the federal programs operated by public and non-profit agencies that assist poor neighborhoods and families. We take no position on the merits of the five tax relief provisions in H.R. 7. However, we are very concerned that, without tax offsets, the $100 billion 10-year cost will contribute further to an erosion of the government-funded social services system. The Administration appears committed to shifting social services policy away from direct spending to tax credits and deductions. Its proposal to allow Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) funds to be used to reimburse states for revenue losses attributable to a state tax credit for donations to "qualified" charities most graphically demonstrates this point. It explicitly converts a program of direct spending to public and private agencies into tax cuts for private charities. The difference between direct spending and tax incentives is profound. The first uses the superior capacity of the federal government to maintain a comprehensive infrastructure. The second depends on the uncertain actions of private individuals and organizations, who are least able to give when times are bad. The likelihood that the resources of state and local governments and private charities will be overwhelmed when times are bad is great. When charitable choice is combined with the Administration's budget and tax plan, it will pit religious, secular nonprofit and public agencies against each other for a declining share of federal funds and will divert taxpayer funds away from public agencies and current nonprofit providers. It will create the false illusion of "doing more with less." Charitable choice advocates contend that the bill is needed to change current policies that discriminate against faith-based organizations in the awarding of government grants. In fact, there is no discrimination. Many religious organizations receive funds through separate secular nonprofit organizations, and many small community-based organizations face the same administrative obstacles applying for funds as do small churches. In fact, charitable choice actually would give preferential treatment to sectarian organizations. Under H.R. 7, houses of worship could retain certain exemptions to rules that all other grantees must follow even though they too would be government grantees providing publicly-funded services. The charitable choice provisions in H.R. 7 allow houses of worship to retain special exemptions from federal civil rights and worker protection rules in recognition of the fact that religious speech and practice are different. Under current law, houses of worship can base their hiring and personnel policies on the tenants of their faith. As a result, they can refuse to hire or take adverse action against individuals because of their religion or because of personal behavior, such as sexual preference or contraceptive practices, that does not comport with their religious beliefs. From our perspective, this means that experienced and qualified employees of public agencies who lose their jobs will not be eligible for employment with a sectarian-based organization if they practice the "wrong" religion. In addition, the effect of charitable choice is to expand to government-funded programs certain exemptions from worker protection laws. Federal court and National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) cases show that if entities promulgate, propagate, or indoctrinate a religious faith, they would not come under the jurisdiction of the NLRB and their workers could not organize and bargain collectively. Federal law also exempts employees of churches from the unemployment insurance program. The current exemptions for houses of worship exist in order to protect religion from state intrusion and were intended to apply to these organizations only as private sectarian-based entities. If such organizations become providers of taxpayerfunded government services, the rationale for their special status diminishes and the rationale for treating them as any other government grantee is strengthened. H.R. 7 goes even further, however, by adding a significant new right for sectarianbased organizations not enjoyed by other grant applicants. It gives them standing to file a lawsuit against a federal, state or local official or agency alleging that they have been denied a grant on the basis of their religious character. Since no other grant applicant has a similar right to file a lawsuit challenging a grant or contract award, H.R. 7 goes well beyond "leveling the playing field." Implementing charitable choice also appears to provide sectarian-based organizations with other special advantages in applying for federal funds. For example, in the fall of 1998, then-Governor Tommy Thompson's administration in Wisconsin announced that welfare agencies hiring church groups as partners would improve their chances of winning TANF contract renewals and of earning financial bonuses. Such |