For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
January 30, 2001
Press Briefing by Mayor Steve Goldsmith, Reverend Mark Scott, and a White House Official on the Faith-Based Initiative
The James S. Brady Press Briefing Room
3:03 P.M. EST
MCCLELLAN: Everybody set? Let me go back over the
parameters. No radio, no cameras. This is a
briefing on the faith-based proposal put out today. We've
got with us Mayor Steve Goldsmith, Reverend Mark Scott, and John
Bridgeland. The Mayor and the Reverend will be on the
record. John Bridgeland you can identify as a White House
official; he will be on background. And we've got a couple
other staff members here, too, that if they chime in, they'll be White
House officials as well. Those are the parameters we set out earlier
that, I'll turn it over to each of these guys and they'll each say a
brief word about themselves and their involvement, so you can have a
little background or bio information on them. Thanks.
OFFICIAL: Welcome. Today the President announced
and submitted to the Congress his package of proposals to support
community and faith-based efforts to help those who prosperity has left
behind. His proposals focus on three
areas. First, increasing charitable giving, primarily
through expanding the federal charitable deduction to the 80 million
Americans, about 70 percent of filers, who currently do not itemize.
permitting individuals over 59 to contribute their IRA funds to
charities without having to pay income tax on their
gifts. And, third, to provide civil liability protection to
businesses that donate equipment and facilities to charitable groups.
he's called for leveling the playing field so that faith-based
organizations can compete on an equal footing with their secular
counterparts for federal funds, consistent with the following
principles: First, choice; that there needs to be a secular
alternative so no one is forced to accept services from a faith-based
expressed subsidy of religion so that no government funds are used for
proselytizing or other inherently religious activities. And third,
neutrality; that government should be neutral, not hostile to
faith-based providers and should focus on results. His
commitment is to an approach that is bipartisan, pluralistic, and
finally, today, he has launched a series of initiatives to help people
in need, such as the 1.5 million children who have a mother or father
in prison, opening the 21st Century Learning Centers program for
after-school programs to faith-based providers so they can
competitively bid. And third, establishing a compassion
capital fund to highlight best practices and provide technical
assistance and start-up capital to promising programs and bring them to
It's now my
great pleasure to introduce someone who has actually been working in
the field through the Front Porch Alliance as the Mayor of Indianapolis
and Senior Advisor to the President, Mayor Steve Goldsmith.
GOLDSMITH: Thank you. Let me just make a comment
or two, maybe to start by backing up a level of generality in terms of
how this fits within compassionate conservatism generally, and then
more detail about the programs that the President has announced
yesterday and today.
reflected in his inaugural speech and actually reflected to me in the
very first conversation I had with then-governor, now President, his
view of the role of government rejects both extremes, if you will, as
suggests that there is a very significant role for government helping
people who prosperity has left behind, and that we have a
responsibility as a government to reach out, in fact even enhance,
educational programs and medical coverage issues and a whole range of
other things, some of which John referenced.
But he also
rejects the idea that government needs to be the monopolist on good
deeds, that government can fund these public goods, these necessities,
but does not necessarily have to deliver the help itself.
view of government plays out in the initiatives over the last two days,
because in establishing the White House Office of Faith and Community
Initiatives, the President is very clearly saying that we have a
responsibility to help children with after-school care, we have a
responsibility to help children of prisoners, we have a responsibility
to help those who are uninsured. But we're going to do that
through a decentralization and devolvement, and allowing faith and
community groups to be the front doors of either providing these
services are accessing these services.
is a view of government that is basically a performance-driven
accountability view that says we're going to remove the hostility that
many of these programs have had to faith-based or religious
organizations, we're going to even the playing field, we'll make those
dollars available on a performance and an accountability fashion, and
then we'll encourage those players to participate in reaching out to
people who prosperity has left behind.
So this is
a fundamental precept, if you will, of compassionate
conservatism. Now, how do you help faith and community
organizations? Well, there is a series of ways you can help
them. One is, you can encourage individuals to more directly
contribute to their synagogue or their church or their mosque, or their
not-for-profit Boys and Girls Clubs or Big Brothers and Big
Sisters. And the President has a reference and will be
laying out tax code changes to encourage philanthropy that will allow
more dollars directly to go into the coffers of these faith-based and
you can do it by making sure that more programs are created in a way
that gives the people in need authority over those
dollars. In other words, how do people who need help take
the dollar or the voucher or the benefit stream to their faith-based
organization or their community organization on their own.
third is to remove these obstacles, to basically say let's have an even
playing field, let's enhance the choice charitable language that we've
had today that says that government should not discriminate against
faith-based organizations. That means that we need to remove
regulatory obstacles. There are many that still exist at HUD
for example. We need to remove legislative obstacles as
well, and the goal of the White House Office and the centers in each of
the departments is, in fact, to go through, audit those obstacles and
Now, let me
just spend a minute amplifying the comments you heard before about what
this isn't. There is no pot of money set aside for
faith-based organizations. There is no funding for
faith-based organizations. There is increased access on the
part of faith-based organizations to existing and new funding streams,
but that's different than saying that the President has announced
multi-billion-dollar effort to fund faith-based organizations.
consistent with the comments you heard before, and consistent with the
existing congressional language and the views of all of us, that
government money should not fund religion, period, that it is
legitimate and appropriate for government to fund shelter care or food
for those in need, but not to fund the Bibles, not to fund the crosses,
not to fund the stars of David or whatever.
So no money
for religion. And third, again, to reiterate John's comment,
a person in need should not be forced by government to go through the
door of a religious organization in order to receive
help. But a person in need should have the option of going
through the door of a faith-based organization if he or she
wishes. They should also, however, have a secular
So what I
see the President having done here over the last couple of days and
again tomorrow, is saying that, a, we need to encourage direct
philanthropy, and here are some ways to do it; b, we need to remove
obstacles; and, c, we need to reach out to people who prosperity has
left behind, and the best way to do this is to open up the
opportunities for assistance.
believe, is a constitutional package, we firmly believe it, one that
will sustain any attacks that might be brought against it, and one
that, most importantly, will actually provide a lot of benefit to
children and families who now are being left behind.
OFFICIAL: Now, I want to introduce Reverend Mark Scott from
the Ella J. Baker House in Boston, which has been leading the charge in
a whole range of issues, including gang violence and crime prevention.
SCOTT: I am the Director of the Ella J. Baker
House. I also serve as the Associate Pastor of the Azusa
Christian Community. I'm here today because the work that we
do, I believe is an example of what the President has laid out.
working in one of the toughest, most violent, poorest, youngest
neighborhoods in the city of Boston for the last 13
years. And the role of faith in the work that we do has been
largely our motivation. It is what gave us the courage, the
perseverence, the desire, the demand to go into a neighborhood where
people were being shot at, where people were dying, where your home
could be shot into, your car could be shot into, where there were drug
dealers standing on your porch when you tried to go home from work at
night, where there were very, very few city services being delivered,
and begin to reach out to the young people in that neighborhood, to
begin to reach out to anybody of goodwill, whether it turned out -- in
our case, it turned out to be other community-based organizations, like
health centers, like community development corporations, they turned
out to be the police department, they turned out to be the courts, it
turned out to be the schools.
happened over the last decade is that a network of people have built up
to really begin to have an impact on juvenile violence in the city of
Boston. The city of Boston went 27 months without any
after we started this work, there were 151 homicides in the city of
Boston. We've closed out last year, we got down to a low of
35. And we believe that one of the major reasons why we had
such a dramatic drop in crime, without having an increase in complaints
against the police or any kind of a sense of loss of basic civil
liberties on the part of the population, is because of a lot of people
of goodwill working together.
communities of faith played a key role in helping to make that coming
together possible. And so one of the key things about this
is collaboration between the people who live in the community -- the
citizens and neighbors, themselves -- and the government
institutions. And we see what the President is doing as an
effort to reach out to that kind of work and an effort to be able to
provide some kind of resources for them to use -- which we would go
after just like everybody else would go after it, in a competitive way,
in a public way, in an open way, and we'd be accountable for whatever
resources we received.
can I ask you a question? How do you separate religious
activities in your outreach and what you do to sort of discourage
violence and that sort of thing? How do you separate those
SCOTT: Well, there's a number of things you can do. The
first thing we do is we're talking about two separate organizations.
The church that I'm an associate pastor of is one organization, and
right next to it is a human service providing
organization. And when we reach out -- and then our work is
not for the people who are members of our
congregation. They're not required to become a part of our
congregation, not required to be Christians. Anybody that
needs the kind of services that we provide, we provide them.
And what we
believe is that in us doing the work that we believe the Lord has
demanded of us, that people, their lives will change. And if
they choose to become a part of our fellowship, that's
wonderful. If they don't decide to do that, that's
fine. If they choose to be a part of someone else's
fellowship -- we have young people in our programs who have not
expressed any intention at all of having any kind of religious --we
have young people who are Muslim who participate in our programs.
your program government-funded right now?
SCOTT: We do receive some government
funding. Like I say, we collaborate with the police and with
the courts. And so they've gotten money, federal money, and
we've gotten a little piece of it so that we can contribute our part.
why is this initiative necessary if things seem to be working all right
SCOTT: What I see the President doing is -- it's been very
difficult for us, and part of
it's two sides -- part of it is that we need to learn how to go after
the resources. I mean, what most communities of faith -- we
do the work, and then we say, oh, we've got to go some money to go do
this work. So what this is going to do, because of the
public visibility of it, because of the technical assistance that would
be available, is that organizations like ours go after the kind of
resources they need to do the work.
OFFICIAL: Let me just amplify on that question. Currently
under federal law, Congress has passed on a bipartisan and with
substantial majorities, four acts that have included charitable choice
provisions. However, there are a wide range of programs,
including fatherhood initiatives, juvenile justice programs, a whole
range of programs -- drug treatment prevention programs -- that
currently are not -- charitable choice does not apply
to. And more specifically, a University of Pennsylvania
study in the year 2000 highlighted the fact that while faith-based
organizations in Philadelphia -- over 400 of them -- have tremendous
capacity in bringing volunteers and mobilizing individuals to address
inner-city needs, that financially and administratively, they have
tremendous burdens and lack capacity.
one of the reasons that, again, this initiative will help open up
charitable choice to the range of social service programs and address
specifically the needs of small and other faith-based providers to
provide social services.
Scott, if you get this money, won't it have the effect of freeing up
funds that you might have used for social services, and freeing up that
money for religious activity?
SCOTT: We're going to be accountable for what we
receive. And most of what we receive at this point is what
I'd call hard dollars. And so, whether we go to a foundation
or whether we go to the federal government, or whether we go to
individuals, we're going to have to produce results for all of that
money. The money that we use for religious purposes is the
money that comes out of my pocket and the fellow members of the
congregation. So that's the money that we use to pursue our
no other money we get besides what comes out of our own pockets and
what we're going to be held accountable for.
could you spell out just as long as we're looking at your specific
example, where would you use the federal monies? In other
words, what specific purposes would you apply taxpayer money to
do? What would the money do?
SCOTT: Let me give you a couple of examples. We
would go down to the local court and we would say to them, send us some
of the young men that you have on probation who have gotten caught up
in the criminal justice system. Send them down to the Baker
House, we'll work with the probation officers to sort of pick and
screen which young men would benefit from a program at the Baker House,
come down and we will put them through a literature program, because we
think that if you read good literature, it can motivate you to change
your life. And I would use federal money to hire a teacher
to teach in that after-school program.
that be inspirational literature?
SCOTT: We might use a Bible as a piece of literature, but it
could include all kinds of literature. It could also include movies,
what you're after is to get these kids who are in trouble to see the
light, to accept a truth that you think is important, and you would use
federal money to do that.
it okay to use federal money to hire a Bible teacher?
SCOTT: We would not do that --
I wanted to ask -- would that be okay to use federal money to hire a
Bible teacher to inspire young people? Is that okay under
GOLDSMITH: Well, let's back up a minute. There's
federal money available for specific public purposes. Public
purposes may be shelter or food, or health or drug treatment, and you
would use the federal dollars for those purposes. If they
wish to hire a Bible teacher, then they will hire the Bible
teacher. They would pay for the Bibles. But we
have a little bit of confusion here, and I may confuse it even more,
because the more detail we get, the more difficult it gets, obviously.
remember, the person in need can walk through a totally secular door
and receive totally secular services -- no Bible, no inspirational
reading, just the great books that don't include the Bible,
right? Or they can walk through the door of a faith-based
provider. Now, if that faith-based provider takes federal
money to do the shelter, there is nothing that keeps it from providing
the person in that shelter with access to the Bible or prayer
meetings. Salvation Army has every right, if it takes
federal money for shelter, it would under this situation, to have a
prayer session before lunch. There's nothing that forbids
it, so long as the government's not forcing somebody into the Salvation
a group that receives this money have to show -- a faith-based group
have to show that there is a secular alternative in their neighborhood,
in their area? That would be part of the application
OFFICIAL: I don't think that's how it would work. It would
be the program director's responsibility, to provide to other
constituencies in the area a secular alternative.
part of the same program?
OFFICIAL: As part of the administration of the
program. That's correct. So that the
beneficiaries of the program, the young men who are coming from the
criminal justice system into the Ella J. Baker House, have the choice
to enter a secular program, are not mandated with government funds to
enter this program, that would teach, it sounds like, a broad range of
these programs take federal money, would they be subjected to civil
OFFICIAL: Currently Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
does prohibit faith-based providers and other providers of services to
discriminate. Charitable choice, which, again, in four
different enactments before the Congress, with bipartisan majorities
and substantial support, has also said that religious institutions do
not have to divest themselves of that faith of those religious
qualities that make them the institutions that they are.
in other words, if somebody with AIDS comes to a religious program,
could they be turned away?
OFFICIAL: Again, it would depend on the
program. It would be administered and it would be -- you'd
have to look at the civil rights statutes.
there any desire of the administration to -- legislation that would
subject organizations to civil rights legislation or civil rights
OFFICIAL: Again, currently faith-based organizations are
subject to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, and on any charitable
choice legislation considered before the Congress this will be the
subject of debate.
you talk about the money -- for instance, under the four examples you
said of charitable choice, how much money is there from those four
programs? And also, what do you anticipate the amount of
charitable deduction -- if you have to present it as legislation, I
assume that you had to come up with a cost, in terms of tax
laws. How much money are we talking about here?
OFFICIAL: Currently there are four programs. I'll
give you more specifics. The Personal Responsibility and
Work Opportunity Act of 1996 applied to TANF dollars and
welfare-to-work dollars. The Human Services Reauthorization
Act of 1998 applied to community services, block grants. The
Children's Health Act, in the year 2000, applied to drug abuse
treatment programs administered by the Substance Abuse and Mental
Health Services Administration. And, again in 2000, the
Community Renewal Tax Relief Act expanded charitable choice to include
both drug abuse treatment and prevention programs. I don't
have aggregate dollar figures for you, but I can certainly -- we can
certainly follow up and get those for you.
respect to the provision, the tax incentive to provide a charitable
deduction for non-itemizers, that will be the cost -- all of our tax
proposals and spending proposals will be included in an economic
blueprint that will be released next month.
Scientologists offer a program for drug abusers and alcoholics that
they say is very effective. The Nation of Islam has a lot of
social services programs. Addressing those two groups in
particular, would they be entitled to this sort of
money? Are they faith-based groups?
OFFICIAL: You should ask the same question with respect to
their secular counterparts if they're organizations that have views or
-- again, the issue is, what does the program call for, with respect to
the provision of social services, to the beneficiaries that are
intended under the statute; and is the organization, whether it be
faith-based or secular, specifically, does it meet the criteria of the
program and is it providing those services
effectively. That's how we ought to judge whether or not
these programs qualify and whether they continue to receive federal
GOLDSMITH: Again, there is no -- this is a very important
point -- there is no pot of money for faith-based
organizations. There is government money for public
purposes. And what the legislation and the executive orders
do is say we shouldn't discriminate against faith-based. Now, they
have to compete, they have be evaluated, they have to be judged by
whether it's a local or state or federal organization. So
we've almost got the conversation upside down, saying kind of what sort
of faith-based organizations can qualify. The answer,
really, is that we're going to remove the discrimination and they have
to bid like everybody else.
two organizations would be able to compete for this money, and as long
as their program is effective they would be entitled to federal funds
-- is that accurate?
GOLDSMITH: Any organization that met the performance
standards of the government contract would have the chance to compete.
particular religious beliefs would not be relevant in this, it is their
social service program that is the issue?
GOLDSMITH: To go down the other route, you're on very
that the case now? What is prohibiting these groups from
getting federal funding now? Some of them say they're
already getting federal funding.
OFFICIAL: You're exactly right. Within the world
the charitable choice covers, that's true. Although, we've
heard -- yesterday we heard from people like Reverend Scott and others
who gathered for the meeting with the President yesterday that there
are significant barriers yet to the actual implementation of charitable
choice today in HUD and in other departments and agencies.
one of the reasons that we've established -- the President has
established centers within each of those departments and agencies to
conduct an audit and report back within six months as to the regulatory
barriers with respect to implementation of charitable choice and the
ability of faith-based providers to access on an equal basis with their
secular counterparts these funding streams.
your question more directly, there's a whole world -- charitable choice
only covers a very small world of social service
programs. And, again, when you look at some of the
preliminary evaluations and studies, faith-based organizations are
out-performing some of their counterparts with respect to areas that
charitable choice under federal law currently doesn't cover.
GOLDSMITH: Let me give you an anecdote just for a second,
consistent with John's answer. So I was Mayor of
Indianapolis and the charitable choice language passed its second or
third iteration. And we offered up money, we had hundreds of
local partners, some community and faith-based.
And one of
the faith-based shelters called to complain and said, you won't let us
bid unless we remove the crosses from our shelter. And I
said, no way, we would never say something so
foolish. (Laughter.) Well, it turns out that in
the CDBG regulations, if they bid they, in fact, have to scrub their
shelter of any religious symbol. Right?
charitable choice language doesn't yet apply to HUD. It applies to
TANF and other areas. So, basically what we're saying is
that they should not have to give up their mission in order to provide
good services, as long as there is an alternative.
second point, I think -- so that we don't get this too narrow -- you
know, the average congregation in Philadelphia and Indianapolis that
provides these services has less than 400 members. It
doesn't have 10,000; it doesn't have 5,000 -- it's got a part-time
pastor who works a day job and pastors at night. And the
goal here will be to create a situation where it's easier for them to
participate; that it's easier for them, they can provide the technical
assistance or the front door -- arrange of partnerships. So
we have not just legal changes, we have a whole infrastructure that
needs to be developed as well.
does helping them in that way even the playing field and not give them
favorable status over secular groups? Why do they need a
White House office to help them?
GOLDSMITH: What the President did was establish the White
House Office of Faith and Community Initiatives. And what
his language and his executive orders do is say that the delivery
system for help needs to be decentralized, it needs to be less
bureaucratic, it needs to be at the neighborhood and grass-roots
mean a local community development corporation; it may mean a local
church. But the process -- as you all know, if you're a
large religious organization, you can access government money
today. Catholic Charities does a wonderful job and has a lot
of government money that it spends. It's the small guy that
really needs help. And that's what -- that's why we need to
clear out and provide a capacity.
sounds like the Baker House is set up similarly to Catholic
Charities. I don't see why you would have any problem at all
getting federal funds across the board now. Is there
something that --
SCOTT: Well, there's a couple of differences between us and
Catholic Charities. We are a medium-size to small
organization, and that's after about 10 years worth of growth.
separate subsidiary. It sounds as if --
SCOTT: Right. But the problem is having -- for
the hundreds and hundreds of organizations like mine that are out there
across the country, the office exists to advocate for them and to reach
out to them, so that they are even aware of the possibility of pursuing
the kind of funds that Catholic Charities is very good at going after.
there any sort of grant that you cannot get right now that you would
like to get because of restrictions due to the --
SCOTT: My point is we don't even know. We're not
even aware of the kinds of things --
already getting government grants in areas that are not subject to
charitable choice today.
SCOTT: Yes, very small little kinds of things, but there is
stuff that is coming through, yes.
you don't need this legislation to do what you're doing?
SCOTT: We do need -- we need the assistance and the help and
the clearing out -- part of it is the President's effort, as I see it,
to reach out to organizations like mine so that we can make that kind
of connection. And so people can grow over time to be able
to pursue that kind of thing.
why do you need the legislation?
SCOTT: Around people being able to make donations to
organizations and --
part about clearing away the barriers.
are you concerned, along with this assistance and help is going to come
an enormous headache, and possible liabilities in dealing with the
requirements and the demands and all the checked boxes and all that?
SCOTT: It's work that we'll have to do if we're interested
in getting the resources. It's just another layer of work
that we're going to have to take on in order to get those kind of
resources. But it's part of expanding the dialogue and building the
community and making the connections, so that we're not all isolated,
doing something in our little neighborhood and not connected to the
larger American community.
GOLDSMITH: In Indianapolis, some of the most evangelical
organizations said, thank you very much for your attitude, we want
nothing to do with you -- I mean, for this reason. They were
fearful of the intrusion coming the other direction, and it's a
kind of safeguards are there against the -- I've heard the President
didn't want to change the nature of these organizations. What kind of
safeguards are there that these requirements, whether it's scrub the
homeless shelter of crosses or whatever, would change the nature of the
work these people do?
OFFICIAL: Well, one specific requirement currently under
charitable choice is to establish a segregated account for the specific
services that the faith-based provider is providing to the
beneficiaries. That segregated account offers the
faith-based providers the protection of not having everything else that
they do subject to government regulation and audit. So that
was one of the protections that was built in to the current charitable
the campaign, if I remember correctly, the number associated with the
tax breaks from charitable deductions was about $75
billion over nine years. Is that roughly --
OFFICIAL: You're going to push me on this, but as I
mentioned, any cost with respect to tax or spending proposals would be
part of an economic blueprint that will be released
later. And we're not in a position to discuss those today.
is that? You're putting up the legislation today, you don't
know how much it costs --
OFFICIAL: We understand that, but again, we have a process
here -- an OMB process, a process to look at the budget to make
determinations with respect to tax and other spending, and to do that
in an orderly fashion and on a timetable dictated by the President.
that responsible -- you're offering tax breaks first and you'll figure
out what the cost is later?
OFFICIAL: It is responsible if they're paid for. And you
should hold us accountable at the time of our economic blueprint when
Goldsmith, what is the size of the pot of money, to coin your phrase,
that these faith-based groups would have access to under the
GOLDSMITH: I don't think -- I can't put a number on it, but
I can respond this way -- that every government funding program, social
service nature, that reaches out to people in need should be available
for competitive bidding on the part of faith-based
organizations. So it could be welfare, it could be
welfare-to-work, it could be child welfare, it could be
shelters. And you have a number of new programs that the
President has articulated -- for example, children of
prisoners -- for which they would also qualify.
pie gets bigger, their ability to participate in the pie gets easier,
but it's hard to quantify how much would actually end up being theirs
because there are a number of faith-based organizations that won't wish
to participate, there are a nunber that won't have the capacity to
participate initially. So I don't think I can put a number
you know what the number is for that universe of programs that they'll
have access to?
OFFICIAL: Well, I can tell you in one area, in federal drug
control. Currently, there are drug control programs in over
54 federal agencies. We know that charitable choice doesn't
apply to all of them, and I can cite specific examples -- like the
Drug-Free Communities Act, that again, specifically doesn't permit a
faith-based provider to establish a 501C3 corporation for purposes of
receiving funds from the government under that program.
fact, because of some of the barriers that were in place at the time
when the Drug-Free Communities Act was written, faith-based providers
were almost excluded altogether from participating in a community
coalition effort, which the General Accounting Office and other studies
have shown to be among the most effective in reducing teenage drug
abuse, like the Miami Coalition that has cut drug abuse to half the
national average since 1995.
do corporations need to reduce liability for contributions?
OFFICIAL: Currently a lot of corporations that want to give,
make contributions to charities and other donations, will not do so
because they fear the liability associated with such
contributions. And so the provision that the President has
laid out would be to permit protection from civil liability, except in
cases of gross negligence, so that you could get corporate
contributions in terms of vehicles and facilities.
instances where even corporations don't open up their doors and permit
a non-profit organization that has no place to meet -- we've had this
experience directly -- because they have concerns about someone
slipping on the floor or a liability with respect to their offices and,
again, precluding the charity from accessing corporate resources that
otherwise would be available.
we talking about 10 people in the White House office and 10 people in
each of the Cabinet offices?
OFFICIAL: No, we're -- just to reflect upon what the Mayor
has emphasized, we're talking about hundreds of thousands of people out
in this sector called civil society, who are going to be for the first
time provided direct support in understanding these provisions in
charitable choice -- understanding the barriers. The Office
of Faith-Based Action in the White House will be about 10
people. And we will have centers in five departments and
agencies that most directly today interact with faith-based and other
non-profit organizations on these programs.
large will these centers be?
OFFICIAL: The centers, again, will have a director and a
number of individuals that will be conducting the audit. We
want to do it smart and efficiently. We think we can do a
lot and achieve the goals articulated in the executive orders with a
decent number of people.
is the data involving the 80 million taxpayers who cannot take a
deduction now? In other words, is there a certain percentage
who, nevertheless, give now? And what is the projection with
OFFICIAL: Actually, stay tuned. I understand
tomorrow there will be a study released that spells out in more detail
specifically to answer your question.