Jewish groups are disappointed with Congress failure to iron out differences in various versions of pending child-care legislation, making passage of a bill impossible for this year.
But they are unhappy for different reasons.
Most Jewish organizations, while disappointed, have vowed to use the time between the congressional sessions to lobby against a popular provision in the House and Senate bills that would allow federal funds to be used for sectarian child-care programs.
Such groups were not opposing the use of government funds for non-sectarian programs, even if they were sponsored by churches or synagogues.
Orthodox Jewish groups, which oppose any such restriction, were disappointed that a legislative compromise was not achieved, because Congress seemed primed to permit the more sweeping use of federal funds.
Although the first session of the 101st Congress is expected to end this week, legislation does not die between sessions of the same Congress.
The House and Senate have given initial approval to the legislation, which most recently stalled in a House-Senate conference committee.
The grant distribution system for child-care funds, and not whether or not they could go to sectarian programs, was the main stumbling block lawmakers could not overcome before the expected Thanksgiving adjournment.
It remains unclear whether either version of the bill will satisfy President Bush. He wants parents seeking child-care services to receive tax credits, and has threatened to veto legislation that does not follow his approach.
LAST-MINUTE LOBBYING
The New York Times reported last week that Bush may also veto any child-care package that does not allow federal funds to be used at sectarian programs.
Both Jewish lobbying forces exerted some last-minute pressure before Thanksgiving, in expectation of final passage of the legislation.
On Nov. 16, six Jewish groups and 14 others, including the National Council of Churches and National Educational Association, wrote House members that to approve the use of federal funds for sectarian programs would be “unsound public policy,” “a disturbing precedent” and “constitutionally suspect.”
They argued that “government has the obligation to help parents by supporting child-care programs that meet their needs.” But they said government “may not support religious beliefs.”
The Jewish groups signing the letter were the American Jewish Committee, American Jewish Congress, Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith, B’nai B’rith Women, National Council of Jewish Women and Union of American Hebrew Congregations.
One week earlier, Agudath Israel of America wrote key House and Senate members that there may be First Amendment restrictions on “direct governmental grants to religiously affiliated institutions.”
But it added that “any benefit accruing to religiously affiliated entities would come as a result of independent parental choice, rather than direct governmental largess.”
Such a benefit “falls squarely within the acceptable parameters of the Constitution,” argued David Zwiebel, Agudath Israel’s director of government affairs and general counsel.
SPLIT OVER PREFERENCES
One non-Orthodox Jewish group supporting the Orthodox lobbying position is the Council of Reform Hebrew Day Schools.
Erwin Shlachter, president of the 15-school group, argued that allowing federal aid to go exclusively to non-sectarian programs “impinges on the right of people to practice their religion.”
A second church-state factor splitting the Jewish groups was language that could allow sectarian child-care providers to give preferences to child-care workers and children who hold religious views compatible with the sponsoring church or synagogue.
The Senate version would allow such a preference, but the House version opposes it. While non-Orthodox Jewish groups consider such language discriminatory, Zwiebel argued in his letter that churches and synagogues “must be permitted to maintain policies consistent with their religious identity and beliefs.”
The Archive of the Jewish Telegraphic Agency includes articles published from 1923 to 2008. Archive stories reflect the journalistic standards and practices of the time they were published.
