Statement of Reverend Luis Cortes, Jr., President, Nueva Esperanza, Inc.,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and Chairman,
National Hispanic Religious Partnership for Community Health

Testimony Before the Subcommittee on Human Resources and
Subcommittee on Select Revenue Measures
of the House Committee on Ways and Means

Hearing on H.R. 7, the "Community Solutions Act of 2001"

June 14, 2001

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the Committee for inviting me to testify before you today on the importance of H. R. 7-- the Community Solutions Act of 2001.

I am The Reverend Luis Cortes, Jr., president of Philadelphia-based Nueva Esperanza--the largest Hispanic faith-based community development corporation in the country. I also serve as chairman of the National Hispanic Religious Partnership for Community Health, a national ecumenical umbrella organization of over 5,000 Hispanic congregations in 40 states, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia. It is the only network of its kind in the country. The Partnership was initiated under the Clinton Administration but it is only today, with President Bush's faith-based initiative and the advancement of H.R. 7 that its full potential can be realized.

Communities of poverty desperately need this legislation. Unfortunately, a great deal of confusion and misconception still exists about what this legislation will and will not do, and why it is so very important.

The misconceptions regarding H.R. 7 fall into three broad categories: issues surrounding the separation of church and state guaranteed by our First Amendment, concern over discriminatory hiring practices and, most important, questions regarding the necessity of expanding charitable choice to serve Americans in greatest need.

The first misconception is that by permitting government funding of faith-based social service providers, H. R. 7 threatens the First Amendment--the cornerstone of American religious liberty--the separation of church and state.

H.R. 7 clearly prohibits federal, state, and local funds from being used for "sectarian worship, instruction, or proselytization." ." This, quite simply, insures the Acts' compliance with the First Amendment. Nueva Esperanza has served the Hispanic community in Philadelphia for over twelve years and we have never proselytised, we do not attempt to convert anyone from their beliefs, if any, to ours.

Nueva Esperanza is not a church --- we are a 501(c) 3 agency that provides services to our community. Our mission is to serve those in need. Many, if not most, of our hospitals and universities began and remain faith-based institutions, working side by side with all levels of government and the private sector for generations. At Nueva we, like these hundreds of faith-based hospitals, universities and thousands of non-profit faith-based based agencies, understand the distinction, the need to separate church and state.

The second misconception surrounds claims that The Community Solutions Act would allow faith-based groups to discriminate in their hiring practices, excluding those with different beliefs, different lifestyles. It is actually the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that states, "in order to maintain their religious character, faith-based organizations may require that its employees adhere to the religious practices of the organization". This provision has been in place for over 35 years.

Over the course of nearly four decades this provision has been at the disposal of religious organizations that have been providing services to the poor with government assistance. Nueva, for example, has hired hundreds of people and religious preference has not been an issue in our hiring. Catholic Charities, the Salvation Army, countless faith-based universities and hospitals have done the same. There is no evidence that the 1964 Civil Rights Act has led to discriminatory hiring practices in four decades. Nor would we expect any with the passage of H.R. 7.

The third misconception and most fundamental area of confusion relates to the need to expand charitable choice. Charitable choice refers to the provisions of the 1996 welfare reform legislation that allows faith-based organizations to compete for federal funds --- but only under the limited Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) jurisdiction. To date, these funds have been used very successfully for social services block grants, and drug and alcohol addiction services. The charitable choice provisions of H. R. 7 would allow faith-based organizations to compete for federal funds in areas from which they are currently precluded.

We have a fundamental right in this country to compete. H. R. 7 would allow us to compete for federal funds in areas such as health care, housing, economic development, childcare, juvenile delinquency, crime prevention and domestic violence prevention. These are areas where today congregations are never allowed to compete and faith-based non-profit organizations are only occasionally allowed to compete for federal program funds. We should create a level playing field, remove past biases against us, allow all who wish to increase service to their communities to compete for federal funds. Only those most qualified will ultimately receive federal funding, but all should be allowed to compete.

Once allowed on the playing field, we can do a better job of reaching those the federal programs are designed to serve. I know we can do better because we have done so already. We have done so with state funds and private funds and foundation grants and local initiatives.

Nueva Esperanza is located in Hispanic Philadelphia, the poorest community of our city. In a community with a 40% male high school drop-out rate, we run a charter high school that serves as a national model and recently started a junior college. We have built and rehabilitated over 100 single-family homes and helped over 700 families obtain their first mortgage. We own a 150-acre campground outside of the city where many Philadelphia children experience their first overnight camping experience, their first night outside of the city. We are currently developing a 6-acre industrial site into a community service building and it is turning an entire neighborhood around. We have touched thousands of lives in Philadelphia and Nueva is just one agency with only thirteen years in existence. Congregations can do so much more if we are provided the opportunity to compete for resources.

And we must do more. Despite our recent prosperity many Americans have indeed been left behind. 34.5 million Americans live below the poverty level; 44 million go without health insurance. Many are Hispanic Americans who, despite working hard, find themselves isolated in rural and urban communities. Isolated, first by language and second, by poverty. These Hispanic families turn to the local faith community as their primary place of assistance. In many communities the local congregation is the only institution that is owned by the people of the community. Not the police, fire, school or even the social service agency --- if one exists. In the congregation even God speaks Spanish. Our people turn to that institution because of their trust in it --- trust that has been earned through decades of service. It is a better, faster and more effective way to communicate and serve those in need.

Churches and congregations are physically and socially at the center of the Hispanic community, frequently the most trusted institution. Unfortunately, congregations in the poorest neighborhoods reflect the economics of that neighborhood and often lack the finances to provide better services. Expansion of charitable choice would provide the opportunity to partner with the federal government to help serve our communities, to reach those who have remained untouched by traditional agencies and services.

In Philadelphia, we have a 40% male high school dropout rate in the Hispanic community. We have a 38% teen pregnancy rate. Traditional agencies are not enough --- we need to do more. It is faith-based 501(c) 3 agencies like Nueva --- founded by clergy, run by a pastor, connected to and trusted by the community --- that have the best chance at succeeding where traditional agencies have failed. We cannot leave these folks behind.

I believe faith-based institutions can do better because of their desire and motivation to succeed. Service is not just employment, but also a sacred trust, a duty, a mission. For religious organizations it is a mission that is bound by our religious conviction to love. This is a commodity that cannot be purchased by government; it is a by-product of the mission, yet it is the ingredient that has assisted more people to transform their lives.

I believe strongly that charitable choice should be expanded because it is the right thing to do to reach those in need. I also believe in doing the right thing even when it is not the most popular. Nonetheless, it was reassuring to learn of a recent survey by the Pew Charitable Trust where 70% of those surveyed support proposals to provide government subsidies to religious groups that run social-service programs (The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life and the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press survey of telephone interviews with 2,041 adults, April 2001). I offer the following findings for your consideration:

77% of those surveyed said they thought a good reason to support government financing of religious groups was that it would make it easier for people in need of help to choose from a wide range of social service groups other reasons to support such aid. 72% felt that people who work or volunteer at religious group would be more caring and compassionate than those at other social service institutions or providers. 62% said that religious groups could do a better job than other organizations because the power of religion can change people's lives. 60% said that religious groups could provide services more efficiently than government programs.

Age. 80% of those under 30 support government aid to nonprofit groups that have a religious affiliation, compared with only 55% of those 65 and older.

Race and ethnicity. 81% of African-Americans and the same percentage of Hispanics support efforts to channel government aid to religious groups, compared with 69% of whites. Only 17% of African-Americans and 16% of Hispanics said they thought nonprofit groups could best serve people in need, compared with 28% of whites.

Income. People with higher incomes are slightly less likely to believe that religious groups should be able to compete for government funds --- 69% of people with family incomes of $50,000 or more support the idea, compared with 75% of those whose family income is less than $20,000. Affluent people are also much more likely to think nonprofit groups are best at providing social services-38% of those with family incomes of $75,000 or more believe that is true, compared with 21% of those with family incomes under $20,000.

(The report is available at HYPERLINK "http://www.pewforum.org" http://www.pewforum.org. with a synopsis available in the April 19 edition of The Chronicle of Philanthropy)

Mr. Chairman, there are unfortunate families, those that are on the brink of dissolving, hungry, abused, neglected, isolated Americans- this is what is at stake here. This is what charitable choice is about. I ask you to allow us to compete and show that we are worthy of the opportunity.

Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to testify before you today.