Congressional Record, Volume 144 Issue 140 (Thursday, October 8, 1998)

[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 140 (Thursday, October 8, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11865-S11872]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

COATS HUMAN SERVICES REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 1998--CONFERENCE REPORT

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now
proceed to the consideration of the conference report to accompany S.
2206, which the clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The committee on conference on the disagreeing votes of the
two Houses on the amendment of the House to the bill (S.
2206), have agreed to recommend and do recommend to their
respective Houses this report, signed by all of the
conferees.

(The conference report is printed in the House proceedings of the
Record of October 6, 1998.)
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, the conference report on the Coats Human
Services Reauthorization Act of 1998 includes the Head Start program,
the

[[Page S11866]]

Community Services Block Grant, and the Low Income Home Energy
Assistance Program. Through this reauthorization, these programs can
continue to provide vital assistance to the neediest of Americans. The
Assets for Independence Act, also included in this bill, is a new way
of helping low-income individuals and families to achieve economic
self-sufficiency.
For three decades, Head Start, CSBG, and LIHEAP have effectively
helped many low-income families and individuals throughout America. In
this legislation, we have used the lessons learned over the past thirty
years to reaffirm what is working well, make improvements where
necessary to better meet today's challenges, and eliminate what no
longer achieves our goals.
This bill leaves present law largely intact, but it does make some
important changes to improve program accountability, expand services to
meet the changing needs of today's families, and to increase the
capacity of these programs to reach each of the program's purposes.
The reauthorization of Head Start expands the Early Head Start
program for our youngest children, in a manner which balances the
desire to make this program available to more children and families and
the need to ensure that every Head Start program meets the high
standards of quality that we have demanded.
The new evaluation and research provisions will provide much-needed
information about how the program operates, help identify the ``best
practices,'' and will guide the grantees, the Department of Health and
Human Services, and Congress to continue the improvements in Head Start
which began four years ago.
This legislation expands the Head Start competitive grant process to
include for-profit service providers. All Head Start grantees must meet
the same high level of performance standards and outcome measures. Tax
status does not guarantee the quality of a program---good or bad,. The
most important issue is selecting the best possible provider, non-
profit or for-profit, public or private, to deliver Head Start
services. That is what this legislation does.
The second major program authorized under this legislation is the
Community Services Block Grant, or CSBG. This program provides funding
to States for work in local communities to alleviate the causes of
poverty. That's an easily defined goal, but getting there takes lots of
work, and diverse communities across the nation are taking equally as
diverse approaches to meeting it.
Local Community Action Agencies, working with other groups and
individuals in their communities, are helping people find and keep a
job. They are helping them go back to school or get their GED.
Provisions in this legislation will help States and local communities
to continue this important work.
For almost two decades, the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program
(LIHEAP) has provided a lifeline to countless Americans who cannot pay
their fuel bills. The program works very well. It is widely regarded as
a model block grant program that gives states the flexibility to meet
the needs of their low-income residents while ensuring an appropriate
level of accountability for federal dollars.
The reauthorization of LIHEAP will help about four million low-
income, disabled, and elderly households pay their fuel bills so they
won't have to struggle to keep warm in the winter or to avoid
heatstroke in the summer. They won't be forced to choose between
heating and eating. Although some four million households received
LIHEAP benefits this year, if we had the resources, some 30 million
households would be eligible for LIHEAP assistance. This legislation
establishes an authorization level that will permit Congress to
increase funding for LIHEAP, a goal towards which I will continue to
work.
I know some of our colleagues in Congress wonder whether we still
need a LIHEAP program. Today I think we send a strong message that the
program is more important than ever, especially in light of welfare
reform efforts. Low- and fixed-income households still spend at least
18 percent of their income on energy bills, a proportion virtually
unchanged since LIHEAP was created.
The Assets for Independence Act represents an important new approach
to helping low-income families and individuals. Through Individual
Development Accounts, the saving, investment, and accumulation of
assets is encouraged as a way to increase economic self-sufficiency and
build a future. Senator Coats crafted this portion of the legislation.
His work in the development of asset-based policies to help low-income
individuals and families has helped us approach an old problem from a
new angle.
Senator Coats took the lead in shepherding this bill through the
legislative process, from the first draft to the conference report.
When the Committee on Labor and Human Resources marked-up the bill,
they unanimously voted to change the name of the legislation to the
Coats Act as a tribute to Senator Coats' dedication to issues affecting
children and their families.
In both his personal and professional life, Senator Coats has been a
longstanding activist on behalf of American families. He was a Big
Brother in Indiana long before his political career began, and was
recently elected President of the Board of Directors for Big Brothers/
Big Sisters of America. Early in his congressional career, Senator
Coats served as the Republican leader for the House Select Committee on
Children, Youth And Families.
Upon arriving in the Senate in 1989, he became the ranking member of
the Subcommittee on Children and Families of the Senate Committee on
Labor and Human Resources. Serving as the subcommittee's Chairman since
1995, Senator Coats has been a voice of reason and a tireless advocate
for children and families.
His compassion and caring is evident in every piece of legislation
that has come out of that subcommittee since Senator Coats became a
member. When he leaves the Senate, I will miss his leadership and most
of all, his friendship.
The Coats Human Services Reauthorization Act will serve to remind us
all of his contributions to the Labor Committee and the Senate.
This legislation is the result of months of hard work, negotiation,
and compromise. It has been a truly bi-partisan, bicameral effort that
has resulted in good public policy.
The legislation reinforces what works in these programs, and discards
what does not, which is the whole purpose of a reauthorization.
It continues the mission that we began many years ago of empowering
communities to help their most vulnerable populations, and it does this
in a responsible manner. This bi-partisan effort would not have been
possible without the hard work of many outstanding staff members.
With this legislation, Stephanie Monroe, the Staff Director for the
Subcommittee on Children and Families, has added one more piece of
effective public policy to her already impressive portfolio. Her work
in researching, drafting, and negotiating this bill has been
invaluable. Stephanie has been working in the Senate for fourteen years
and I hope she will seriously consider continuing on here, after
Senator Coats retires.
I want to thank Stephanie Robinson and Amy Lockhart, of Senator
Kennedy's staff and Suzanne Day and Jim Fenton of Senator Dodd's staff
for their contributions and their commitment to keeping this
legislation a bi-partisan effort.
Conferencing a bill always involves long hours, hard work, and much
patience. I appreciate the efforts of Denzel McGuire, Mary Gardner
Clagett, and Sally Lovejoy on the staff of the House Committee on
Education and Workforce.
I also want to thank Jackie Cooney of Senator Gregg's staff, Alex
Nock and Marcy Phillips with Representative Martinez, Melanie Marola
with Representative Castle, Amy Adair and Randy Brant with
Representative Souder for their work on this legislation.
Brian Jones recently left my staff on the Committee on Labor and
Human Resources, but before he left, he contributed enormously to the
crafting of this legislation. I wish him well in his new venture, and
appreciate his contributions to this and other legislation while on my
staff. Geoff Brown, who is on my personal staff was instrumental in
crafting and negotiating the

[[Page S11867]]

LIHEAP portion of the bill. Working with Cameron Taylor, Legislative
Director of the Northeast-Midwest Senate Coaltion, Geoff made sure that
this critical program will continue to meet the needs of millions of
low-income families.
Kimberly Barnes-O'Connor provided valuable and tireless counsel
throughout this process, proving once again her capacity to put the
interests of children and families first. I commend her for her
exemplary service to me, the committee, the Congress, and the
constituents we serve through these critical human services programs.
Mark Powden, the Staff Director for the Committee on Labor and Human
Resources, as always, helped to clear the obstacles and push this
legislation forward. Thank you, Mark.
I yield the remainder of my time to Senator Coats, who is worthy of
all the praise possible with respect to this legislation and his total
service to this Nation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from Indiana is
recognized.
Mr. COATS. Mr. President, allow me to thank my colleagues for their
kind words and also for their assistance.
At a time when our two parties are often divided over issues, major
issues, this is truly a bipartisan effort. This is something that could
not have been achieved without the cooperation, support, help and
assistance of people on both sides of the aisle. I thank the chairman
and Senator Kennedy for their work with us on this. I thank my
counterpart on the Children and Families Subcommittee, Senator Dodd;
Senator Gregg has been a supporter of this effort, and others on the
committee who have worked hard and worked diligently with us to bring
us to this particular point.
Each of the four programs that are encompassed in this bill represent
an all too rare occurrence--a forging of public and private partnership
to combat the effects of poverty and unleashing the vast resources of
one of our most important assets, the local community.
The first component of this bill is the reauthorization of Head
Start, a program that has proven to be significant in providing an
opportunity for children to realize their full potential. It was more
than a decade ago that Congressman George Miller and I, as chairman and
ranking member, respectively, of the Children, Youth and Family
Subcommittee in the House of Representatives, asked the General
Accounting Office to do an analysis of all of the programs that
affected children, youth and families under the title and the theme of
what works, what doesn't and why. It was a 2-year exhaustive study, and
it came back listing eight Federal programs that provided real tangible
benefits and a real return on the investment of the taxpayer's dollar
and encouraged support for those programs.
At the head of the list, No. 1 on the list was Head Start. It said
that for the taxpayer's investment in providing low-income,
disadvantaged children with opportunities to prepare to enter the
educational system, he or she was saving an enormous amount of money
that would have had to be spent on remedial education and would have
been potentially lost because those children were not prepared to enter
the educational system. Since that time, I have been an ardent
supporter of Head Start, in trying to provide funds for Head Start and
also to make sure the program is effective. It is a program that
clearly has provided many millions of children opportunities that they
would not have otherwise had.
However, having said that, there have been questions about the
quality of the program. We have experienced varying degrees of quality,
from excellent in some cases to very poor in other cases. With the 1994
reauthorization, Congress and the administration made a commitment to
enhance the focus on quality improvement. Since the last
reauthorization, the Head Start bureau has offered technical
assistance, resources and support to Head Start programs that are
committed to pursuing excellence--again, something that is all too
rare. We have also terminated, actually terminated grants to those
programs that were experiencing deficiencies to the extent that they
could not be remedied.
Close to 100 Head Start grantees have been terminated or have
relinquished their grants since 1994--the first time in history that
deficient programs were actually recompeted. These are essential. Too
often here we authorize a new program with glowing words and the best
of direction that we can provide, only to find later that those
programs did not match up to the promise, and yet they are continued,
they are perpetuated, they continue to receive funding, we continue to
support mediocrity or even worse.
We have, through the actions in 1994 and subsequent, infused into the
Head Start Program not only the technical assistance and resources and
support necessary, but also the oversight and the investigation and the
determination that we are either going to make some of these programs
that are deficient, better, or we are going to recompete them--and, as
I said, more than 100 have been recompeted.
The reauthorization bill that we are dealing with today builds on
that commitment by requiring that 60 percent of the Head Start funds in
the first years go toward enhancing program quality. It is important
that we expand Head Start. We obviously want to get as many children in
the program as possible, but it does no good to expand the program, to
enroll more children, if the existing programs are not providing the
health and the benefit and the quality that the children need to give
them that edge that they need. So the emphasis on quality early and
expansion later, I think, is the proper emphasis.
We also take steps to make sure Head Start students obtain the goal
of school readiness by requiring the establishment of educational
performance standards to ensure that the children develop a minimum
level of literacy awareness and understanding coupled with very
specific measures to help us assess whether or not this program is
actually working. Under this scenario, poor programs, poorly
administered programs, will be identified, they will be offered
technical assistance, and if they fail to correct the deficiencies,
they will be terminated and the grant recompeted.
We have responded to the concerns of Head Start programs to be able
to more fully address the emerging needs of working families for full-
day, full-year services, by significantly enhancing the Collaboration
Grant Program in current law by requiring active collaboration between
Head Start and other early care in education programs within the State,
and we have included the President's request for an expansion of early
Head Start programs from the current 7.5 percent in fiscal year 1999 to
10 percent in fiscal year 2003.
Finally, in response to concerns raised about the lack of reliable
research on Head Start, which can be used as a basis for determining
its effectiveness, we have authorized the National Impact Study of Head
Start. These studies will yield very valuable information about how
this program is working and whether Head Start is, in fact, making a
difference.
Mr. President, the whole emphasis here, as you can tell, is on
sufficient oversight, sufficient involvement in the program, to
determine how it is working and to establish and identify where it is
not working, and to help make where it is not working better and, if
not, if necessary, recompeting the whole process and turning it over to
someone else.
There are three other components of this particular bill before us.
One is the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program. I will allow
other Members, including the chairman, to address that. That is an
issue they have been involved in more directly than I have.
Another is the Community Services Block Grant, an excellent example
of what can happen when Washington allows local communities to design
their own responses to local problems. The ``Washington knows best,''
the ``Washington has one model formula that fits all sizes,'' is pretty
much a discounted and discarded theory. We are working now, and need to
work, with local communities to identify local problems and allow them
to help us and work with us in fashioning a local solution.
Mr. President, 90 percent of the funds provided under this act, the
Community Services Block Grant, must be passed through by the State to
local eligible entities, which include a variety of public and
nonprofit organizations,

[[Page S11868]]

community action agencies, and faith-based neighborhood organizations.
We made some important improvements in this act, requiring each State
to participate in a performance measurement system, again to determine
effectiveness of programs and make sure they are meeting their program
goals and priorities.
We have reauthorized a number of subcomponents of this--the Community
Economic Development Program, the Rural Economic Development Program,
National Youth Sports, the Community Food and Nutrition Program--and
created a new program called the Neighborhood Innovation Projects, so
that grants to private, neighborhood-based nonprofits can test or
assist in the development of new approaches and developments in dealing
with these community problems. These grants may be used for a variety
of purposes, including gang interventions, addressing school violence,
or any other purposes identified by the community as a problem
resulting from poverty and consistent with the purposes of this CSBG.
Finally, let me address a program that has been near and dear to my
heart, something that has been part of the Project for American Renewal
that I authored some time ago. This is a 5-year demonstration program
entitled ``Assets for Independence.'' It is designed to encourage low-
income individuals to develop strong habits for saving money. It is an
IRA for low-income people. The current IRA program really is only
available to those who have assets readily available or accessible to
put into this saving program. The Assets for Independence Act allows
sponsoring organizations to provide participating individuals and
families intensive financial counseling and assistance in developing
investment plans for education, home ownership, and entrepreneurship.

I am excited about this new program. As I said, it is part of the
Project for American Renewal legislation I first introduced in 1995. It
is estimated that our 5-year investment of $100 million in asset
building through these individual accounts will generate 7,000-plus new
businesses, 70,000 new jobs, $730 million in additional earnings,
12,000 new or rehabilitated homes, 6,600 families removed from welfare
rolls, and 20,000 adults obtaining high school, vocational, and college
degrees.
Each of the programs we are authorizing today represents an effort to
give people a hand up, not simply a handout. They are an acknowledgment
that when one family suffers, we all suffer as Americans; when
communities break down, we all pay a price, and therefore we all have a
stake in helping people achieve the American dream.
The legislation recognizes the limits of government and the fact that
many of our worst social problems will never be solved by government
alone. We are beginning to recognize that there are people and
institutions, families, churches, synagogues, parishes, community
volunteer organizations, faith-based charities, that are able to
communicate societal ideals and restore individual hope, and we need to
allow those organizations to compete to provide services, and we have
done so in each of the programs I have described.
Community activist Robert Woodson makes the point that every social
problem, no matter how severe, is currently being defeated somewhere by
some volunteer community group, faith-based organization, or others.
This is now one of America's great untold stories. No alternative
approach to our cultural crisis holds such promise, because these
institutions have resources denied to government at every level,
resources of love, spiritual vitality, and true compassion.
Mr. President, I have been proud to be associated with one
organization entitled Big Brothers/Big Sisters of America. I have been
with them now for 26 years as a Big Brother as a local board member,
board president, now as the president of the national board. This,
along with organizations like Boys Clubs, Girls Clubs, Boy Scouts, Girl
Scouts, and others, provides just one example of how local volunteer
organizations can provide volunteers who can provide help to children
to give them the kind of mentoring and support they need in difficult
years, growing up often in one-parent families or families with
poverty.
There are examples of this all across the board. The Gospel Rescue
Ministry's efforts across the country have reached out to drug-addicted
homeless individuals and provided astounding support. Whether the
problem is teen pregnancy, school dropouts, school violence, children
without fathers--whatever--there are organizations that we need to tap
into, support, and enhance their involvement, providing support for
young people and addressing social problems in this country.
Mr. President, I see my time is expiring. I did not mean to go on as
long as I have. I hope I have not used up all the time. I know Senator
Kennedy and others are on the floor to talk about this. These programs,
I believe, the ones we are reauthorizing, represent the true measure of
our compassion as a nation.
I want to end by giving credit to Stephanie Johnson, who has poured
her heart and soul into this reauthorization. She has given more than
any one person can ask, making this a reality. This would not have
happened without her involvement. Good staff makes good Senators, and
she is the epitome of good staff. I thank her personally and publicly
for her work in making this, and many of the things that have happened
within our committee, a reality.
With that, I appreciate the extra time and yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired. The
Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, how much time do I have?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 11\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, as the Nation is focusing on a number of
matters today, I want to say what a really important achievement the
Senate will accomplish in a few moments when we pass this very
extensive authorization legislation, about $35 billion over the next 5
years.
The legislation has been described by our colleagues and friends, but
I join in echoing the sentiments that have been expressed this morning
in paying tribute to our friend and colleague from Indiana, Senator
Coats, the staff who have worked with him, others on the committee, and
our chairman, Senator Jeffords, in moving this legislation forward.
I remember back to 1994--maybe the Senator from Indiana remembers--
when we were working at that time on the reauthorization of the Head
Start Program. Many of us had been long-time supporters of that
program. It is fair to say, at that time, that legislation, or the
legislation that we are considering here, would not have been
reauthorized unless it had the active involvement and leadership of the
Senator from Indiana. That was a time of great crisis in the Head Start
Program. I think the accolades that have been given about the Senator
are well-deserved.
I thank him, in particular, for saving the program back in 1994, but
also for the continued commitment that he has had, along with my
colleague, Senator Dodd, for these past years. As Senator Coats has
pointed out, he was working as a cochair of the children's caucus in
the House of Representatives. Our colleague and friend Senator Dodd is
cochair of the children's caucus in the Senate. Both of these Senators
have probably spent more time focusing on the needs of children in our
country than any others and have worked in a very important bipartisan
way.
I join with those who pay tribute to the Senator from Indiana, and
naming this legislation after him is really well-deserved. I welcome
the opportunity to stand with those who say he has made an
indispensable contribution to the needs of poor children in our
society. I say that with great sincerity and appreciation, because he
has made a very, very important difference, not just in shaping these
programs, but basically in helping our country respond to these
particular needs.
There have been times when we have had differences on various policy
issues. But we are friends, and the Senate is at its best when we have
differences on some matters, but we are able to work them out and, most
of all, to respect the individual integrity which Members bring to
these issues. The legislation before us today--and I urge our fellow
Members to support it--is really the product of our best efforts. I
think it will make an important difference in the lives of children.

[[Page S11869]]

I join with those in congratulating the Senator and in appreciating
his leadership.
Mr. President, at a time when we have extraordinary prosperity, it is
important that we look primarily at the needs of children, particularly
the poor children. This bill invests in America's future by providing
urgently needed assistance to low-income families and children.
This bill reauthorizes the Head Start program, the comprehensive
early childhood development program for low-income children.
For more than thirty years, Head Start has been providing
educational, nutritional, medical, and social services to help young
children and their families reach their full potential. The advances
made by this bill will ensure even greater success for the program in
meeting the needs of today's families.
In preparing this bill, we've made significant efforts to improve
program quality. That was particularly a matter that the Senator from
Indiana was strongly committed to. We've established new education
performance standards, to ensure that Head Start children enter school
ready to learn. We've strengthened teacher qualifications, so that
children will receive the very best care.
We've also worked to encourage closer cooperation by Head Start with
other agencies so that full-day, full-year services will be more
readily available to working families who need this kind of extended
care.
More than 830,000 children currently receive the benefits of Head
Start and they will continue to do so. Just as important, this bill
makes it possible over the next five years to reach out more
effectively to the 60% of eligible children who are not now receiving
these services.
Head Start has demonstrated its success in lifting families out of
poverty. With the program's support, many families obtain the boost
they need to achieve economic self-sufficiency.
A letter I received from Monica Marafuga, a Head Start teacher in
Massachusetts, makes this point well:

I believe that Head start is sometimes the only hope for
some families. As a teacher, I see the many families and
children who need someone to guide them and point them in the
right direction for a better life.

The Early Head Start program is also greatly enhanced by this bill.
This program was established four years ago to provide high quality
comprehensive services to very young children, from birth to age 3, and
their families. There is nothing that can replace a parent and a home
that is supportive and loving. But as we have seen, many of the
children in our society are missing the support which can help them
develop at a very critical and important time of their development.
We know that the first three years of life are a critical period in
every child's development. We are mindful of the excellent studies that
have been done by the Carnegie Commission about the importance of the
development of a child's brain in the first months and years of life.
The Early Head Start Program helps in developing those cognitive,
emotional, and social skills that can help children seize future
opportunities and fulfill their highest potential. This is something we
want to encourage.
I welcome the fact that we are able to see an important enhancement
of the Early Start Program. I'm especially pleased that this bill
includes provisions to establish a new training and technical
assistance fund, which will reinforce the program's commitment to
provide quality services through on-going professional support for
program staff.
The Early Start Program is having an important impact, and in this
bill we continue a gradual expansion of the program so that more young
children can be served. Currently, less than 2% of those eligible are
receiving its benefit. This bill will expand the program over the next
five years to cover an additional 40,000 babies and toddlers. This is a
modest expansion, but one which I think, with its success, can be built
on over future years.
In addition, the bill also renews our commitment to reducing poverty
by reauthorizing the Community Services Block Grant. This program helps
communities by providing assistance to address the specific needs of
localities, marshaling other existing resources in the community, and
encouraging the involvement of those directly affected.
Funds may be used for a variety of services, including employment,
transportation, education, housing, nutrition, and child care.
I remember when Senator Robert Kennedy sponsored the initial
Community Development Corporation more than 30 years ago, which was the
precursor to the Community Services Block Grant. This program has a
proven record of fostering innovative methods for eliminating the
causes of poverty. The need today is as great as it has ever been.
Poverty continues to be a significant problem across the nation.
We know that 37 million of our fellow citizens live in poverty.
Children are particularly vulnerable, representing 40% of those living
in poverty despite the fact that they make up only 25% of the overall
population. These figures are particularly disturbing because studies
show that children living in poverty tend to suffer disproportionately
from stunted growth and lower test scores. The Community Services Block
Grant can help alleviate these conditions and benefit these children.
The legislation also reauthorizes the Low-Income Home Energy
Assistance Program for the next five years. The funding levels provided
for this important program will ensure that LIHEAP continues to help
low-income households with their home energy costs, particularly in
extreme weather.
I am especially pleased that this legislation includes a provision to
clarify the criteria for the President to release emergency LIHEAP
funds. This assistance will enable many families hurt by hot or cold
weather, ice storms, floods, earthquakes, and other natural disasters
to get through the season.
In addition, it will enable the release of emergency LIHEAP funds if
there is a significant increase in unemployment, home energy
disconnections, or participation in a public benefit program.
There is clearly a continuing need for a strong LIHEAP program. 95%
of the five million households receiving LIHEAP assistance have annual
incomes below $18,000. They spend an extremely burdensome 18% of their
income on energy, compared to the average middle-class family, which
spends only 4%.
Without a strong LIHEAP program, families will be forced to spend
less money on food and more money on their utility bills--the so-called
``heat or eat effect.'' The result is increased malnutrition among
children.
Without a strong LIHEAP program, children will fall behind in school
because they will be unable to study in their frigid households.
Without a strong LIHEAP program, low income elderly will be at an
even greater risk of hypothermia. In fact, older Americans accounted
for more than half of all hypothermia deaths in 1991.
LIHEAP is clearly a lifeline for the most vulnerable citizens in
society, and I commend the House and Senate for strengthening this
vital program.
This bill also establishes a new and innovative approach to helping
low-income individuals achieve financial independence, and again, I
commend Senator Coats for his leadership on this new program.
Individual Development Accounts are designed to promote economic self-
sufficiency by providing matching funds for deposits made into
qualifying savings accounts. Funds can be used to purchase a first
home, open a small business, or pay for college education.
This program shows great promise for improving the lives of many
individuals and families in communities across the country.
Mr. President, I want to just use the last minute in sharing my
commendation for the wonderful staff, Republican and Democrat, who
worked very closely together. This bipartisan effort is really the most
effective way to develop the best possible legislation.
I want to also recognize Stephanie Monroe, who will be leaving the
Senate and has been really a stalwart. Everyone has enormous respect
for her. She has worked with Senator Coats, but I think all of us have
had enormous confidence in her leadership. She has done really an
outstanding job. I also thank Suzanne Day and Kimberly Barnes O'Connor,
and Amy Lockhart, a Congressional Fellow in my office, and

[[Page S11870]]

Stephanie Robinson of my staff who is an enormously gifted, talented
and committed individual.
The Clinton Administration worked effectively with us in the
development of this legislation, and they also deserve great credit. I
want to particularly recognize Helen Taylor who is the Associate
Commissioner of the Head Start Bureau at the Department of Health and
Human Services. Ms. Taylor has dedicated her professional career to
improving the lives of young children and has had over 30 years of
distinguished service in the field of early childhood development. Her
knowledge and experience proved invaluable in this process, and I thank
her for her true commitment to the children of Head Start.
This bill ensures the continuation of these important programs into
the 21st century. Again, I thank the chairman of our committee, Senator
Jeffords, and Senator Dodd, and Senator Coats who really have done an
extraordinary job in bringing this legislation to where it is today.
Mr. JEFFORDS. I want to take just a couple seconds to join in the
accolades which Senator Kennedy has made for the various staff members,
and also to recognize all the tremendous work that Senator Kennedy
himself has done not only today but throughout the years on these very
valuable programs.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I am delighted to stand here and thank the
chairman and the ranking member, the Senator from Massachusetts, as we
are about to adopt the Coats Human Services Reauthorization Act, which
includes Head Start, LIHEAP and the community services block grants.
People are going to wonder. This is the second day in a row that I
find myself on the floor extolling the tremendous contribution of my
colleague from Indiana.
We were involved in a piece of legislation yesterday. But I think all
of us, as I said yesterday, are going to miss our friend, who is going
to be here only a few more days and will move on to another chapter in
his life.
But it is highly appropriate, given his tremendous work over his
career in the Senate on behalf of children and families that this piece
of legislation is going to be named in honor of his service to our
country.
I am very pleased to join in that effort, and to commend him for his
spectacular work over the years of service in the Senate.
Senator Coats and I have worked intensively with Senator Jeffords,
Senator Kennedy, other members of our committee, and the House
committee to complete this important reauthorization. The strong
bipartisan support for this bill is a clear statement of how we all
view the crucial programs included in this bill. And it is also a
testament to the leadership of Senator Coats on this legislation. While
we have not necessarily agreed on every issue, I have always admired
Senator Coats dedication to working to help working families, and in
particular, to helping children. His presence on the Labor Committee
will surely be missed, and I am pleased that the full committee chose
to name this important bill after Senator Coats, as a show of respect
and admiration for his service in the Senate.
This bill is fundamentally about expanding opportunity in America for
all of our citizens. Under the umbrella of the Human Services Act, low
income communities, their families and children receive more than $5
billion of assistance each year. These dollars support the basic
building blocks of stronger communities--care and education for young
children in Head Start, food, job and economic development through the
Community Services Block grant, and home heating assistance through
LIHEAP.
Head Start is the nation's leading child development program, because
it focuses on the needs of the whole child. Inherently, we know that a
child cannot be successful if he or she has unidentified health needs,
if his or her parents are not involved in their education, and if he or
she is not well-nourished or well-rested. Head Start is the embodiment
of those concerns and works each day to meet children's critical needs.
This year, Head Start will serve over 830,000 children and their
families this year, and nearly 6,000 in my home state of Connecticut.
The bill before us today further strengthens the Head Start program:
We continue the expansion of the Early Head Start program, increasing
the set aside for this program to 10 percent in FY 2002. Anyone who has
picked up a magazine or newspaper within the last year knows how vital
the first three years of child's life are to their development. This
program, which we established in 1994, extends comprehensive, high-
quality services to these young children and their parents, to make
sure the most is made of this window of opportunity.
We have added new provisions to encourage collaboration within states
and local communities as well as within individual Head Start programs
to expand the services they offer to families to full-day and full-year
services, where appropriate, and to leverage other child care dollars
to improve quality and better meet family needs.
We emphasize the importance of school readiness and literacy
preparation in Head Start. While I think this has always been a
critical part of Head Start, this bill ensures that gains will continue
to be made in this area.
Mr. President, this bill puts Head Start on strong footing as we
approach the 21st Century. It is a framework within which Head Start
can continue to grow to meet the needs of more children and their
families. What is unfortunate is that we cannot guarantee more funding
for Head Start--I think it is shameful that there are waiting lists for
Head Start and that only 40 percent of eligible children are served by
this program. And Early Head Start, which is admittedly a new program,
serves just a tiny fraction of the infants and toddlers in need of
these services.
The President has set a laudable goal to reach 1 million children by
2002. But I say we need to do more. We need a plan to serve 2 million
children--all those eligible and in need of services--as soon as
possible.
Some argue that meeting the goal of fully funding Head Start will be
too costly. Yes, it will cost a great deal to get there. But my
question is how much more will it cost not to get there?
Studies show us that children in quality early childhood development
programs, such as Head Start, start school more ready to learn than
their non-Head Start counterparts. They are more likely to keep up with
their classmates, avoid placement in special education, and graduate
from high school. They are also less likely to become teenage mothers
and fathers, go on welfare, or become involved in violence or the
criminal justice system.
How much does it cost when we don't see these benefits?
I know this is an issue for another place and another venue. But I am
hopeful as we strengthen Head Start we can also strengthen our resolve
to expand this successful program to reach more children and their
families.
Mr. President, the bill before us also makes important changes to the
Community Services Block Grant program. CSBG makes funds available to
states and local communities to assist low-income individuals and help
alleviate the causes of poverty. One thousand local service providers--
mainly Community Action Agencies--use these federal funds to address
the root causes of poverty within their communities. CSBG dollars are
particularly powerful because local communities have substantial
flexibility in determining where these dollars are best spent to meet
their local circumstances.
I have had the pleasure of visiting Community Action Agencies in
Connecticut many times. They are exciting, vibrant places at the very
center of their communities--filled with adults taking literacy and job
training courses, children at Head Start centers, seniors with housing
or other concerns, and youths participating in programs or volunteering
their time.
To see clearly how critical the CSBG program is to the nation's low
income families, one only needs to look at the statistics. The CSBG
program in 1995 served more than 11.5 million people, or one in three
Americans living in poverty. Three-quarters of CSBG clients have
incomes that fall below the federal poverty guideline.
This bill recognizes the fundamental strength of this program and
makes modest changes to encourage broader participation by neighborhood
groups. In addition, it improves the accountability of local programs.

[[Page S11871]]

This bill also reauthorizes the vitally important Low Income Heating
and Energy Assistance Program, or LIHEAP. Nearly 4.2 million low-income
households received LIHEAP assistance during FY1996, more than 70,000
households in Connecticut. One quarter of those assisted by LIHEAP
funds are elderly. Another 25 percent are individuals with
disabilities. I cannot overvalue the importance of this assistance--it
is nearly as necessary as food and water to a low-income senior citizen
or family with children seeking help to stay warm in the winter--or as
we saw a few months ago in the Southwest--to stay cool during the
summer.
This bill makes no fundamental changes to the LIHEAP program. I am
very pleased we increase the authorization of the program to $2
billion, which recognizes the great need for this help. We also put
into place a system to more accurately and quickly designate natural
disasters. Early disaster designation will allow for the more efficient
distribution of the critically important emergency LIHEAP funds, aiding
States devastated by a natural disaster.
This bill contains one new, important program--the Individual
Development Accounts, based on a bill offered by Senator Coats and
Senator Harkin. Individual Development Accounts, or IDA's, are
dedicated savings accounts for very low income families, similar in
structure to IRA's, that can be used to pay for post-secondary
education, buy a first home, or capitalize a business. This program is
a welcome addition to the Human Services Act family. The Assets for
Independence title will provide low-income individuals and families
with new opportunities to move their families out of poverty through
savings.
This is a strong bill and it is a good bill. I hope my colleagues
will support this conference report, and again I want to thank Senator
Coats for his committed leadership on this effort.
For all of those reasons, Mr. President, I commend the chairman of
the committee and again the ranking member. Suzanne Day of my office
and Jim Fenton did a tremendous job; Stephanie Monroe from Senator
Coats' office, Stephanie Robinson from Senator Kennedy's office and
Kimberly Barnes O'Connor of Senator Jeffords' office did a tremendous
job in pulling this together. We thank all of them for their efforts.
Again, I thank the Senator from Vermont for his graciousness.
Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to
congratulate the members of the conference committee on S. 2206 for
their hard work on this legislation which reauthorizes the Head Start
program, the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance program, and the
Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) program. I am particularly
grateful to the conferees for including in this legislation language
that will expand the opportunities for charitable and religious
organizations to serve their communities with Community Services Block
Grant funds. This language, which is based upon my Charitable Choice
provision in the 1996 welfare reform law, will encourage successful
charitable and faith-based organizations to expand their services to
the poor while assuring them that they will not have to extinguish
their religious character as a result of receiving government funds.
This provision makes clear that states may use CSBG funds to contract
with charitable, religious and private organizations to run programs
intended to fight poverty and alleviate its effects on people and their
communities. When states do choose to partner with the private sector,
the charitable choice concept ensures that religious organizations are
considered on an equal basis with all other private organizations.
For years, America's charities and churches have been transforming
shattered lives by addressing the deeper needs of people--by instilling
hope and values which help change behavior and attitudes. By contrast,
government social programs have often failed miserably in moving
recipients from dependency and despair to responsibility and
independence. We in Congress need to find ways to allow successful
faith-based organizations to succeed where government has failed, and
to unleash the cultural remedy that our society so desperately needs.
Unfortunately, in the past, many faith-based organizations have been
afraid--often rightfully so--of accepting governmental funds in order
to help the poor and downtrodden. They fear that participation in
government programs would not only require them to alter their
buildings, internal governance, and employment practices, but also make
them compromise the very religious character which motivates them to
reach out to people in the first place.
My charitable choice measure is intended to allay such fears and to
prevent government officials from misconstruing constitutional law by
banning faith-based organizations from the mix of private providers for
fear of violating the Establishment Clause. Even when religious
organizations are permitted to participate, government officials have
often gone overboard by requiring such organizations to sterilize
buildings or property of religious character and to remove any
sectarian connections from their programs. This discrimination can
destroy the character of many faith-based programs and diminish their
effectiveness in helping people climb from despair and dependence to
dignity and independence.
Charitable choice embodies existing U.S. Supreme Court case
precedents in an effort to clarify to government officials and
charitable organizations alike what is constitutionally permissible
when involving religiously-affiliated institutions. Based upon these
precedents, the legislation provides specific protections for religious
organizations when they provide services with government funds. For
example, the government cannot discriminate against an organization on
the basis of its religious character. A participating faith-based
organization also retains its religious character and its control over
the definition, development, practice, and expression of its religious
beliefs.
Additionally, the government cannot require a religious organization
to alter its form of internal governance or remove religious art,
icons, or symbols to be eligible to participate. Finally, religious
organizations may consider religious beliefs and practices in their
employment decisions. I have been told by numerous faith-based entities
and attorneys representing them that autonomy in employment decisions
is crucial in maintaining an organization's mission and character.
Charitable choice also states that funds going directly to religious
organizations cannot be used for sectarian worship, instruction, or
proselytization.
In recent years, Congress has begun to recognize more and more that
government alone will never cure our societal ills. We must find ways
to enlist America's faith-based charities and nongovernmental
organizations to help fight poverty and lift the downtrodden. The
legislation before us today provides us with such an opportunity.
Again, I want to express my appreciation to the conferees and their
staff that worked on this legislation: Senators Jeffords, Coats, Gregg,
Kennedy and Dodd, and Congressmen Goodling, Castle, Souder, Clay, and
Martinez. I especially want to commend Senator Dan Coats, the Chairman
of the Labor Committee's Subcommittee on Children and Families, for his
desire to include my charitable choice language in the Community
Services Block Grant Reauthorization. Senator Coats worked very hard in
the conference committee to garner bipartisan support for this
provision. Thanks to his efforts, and the efforts of this Congress, we
will soon expand the opportunities for charitable and faith-based
organizations to make a positive impact in their neighborhoods and
communities through the Community Services Block Grant program.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I wish to express my sincere
appreciation and admiration for the distinguished Senator from Indiana.
The Senator from Indiana has set a standard and an example in this body
of what it means to be a Senator, what it means to be a decent
Christian gentleman, the likes of which I do not think have been
surpassed in my experience here. I have had the honor of calling him
friend. I have had the opportunity to serve or participate with him in
a prayer breakfast that he leads. He sets the kind of example of good
public service that all of us ought to seek to emulate. And I

[[Page S11872]]

am delighted that he has played an important role in this piece of
legislation, as he has in so many others. And it will be, I am sure,
successfully pursued.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the conference
report is agreed to, and the motion to reconsider the vote is laid upon
the table.
The conference report was agreed to.

____________________