[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 140 (Thursday, October 8, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H10201-H10207]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




CONFERENCE REPORT ON S. 2206, COATS HUMAN SERVICES REAUTHORIZATION ACT 
                                OF 1998

  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to 
the conference report on the Senate bill (S. 2206) to amend the Head 
Start Act, the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Act of 1981, and the 
Community Services Block Grant Act to reauthorize and make improvements 
to those Acts, to establish demonstration projects that provide an 
opportunity for persons with limited means to accumulate assets, and 
for other purposes.
  (For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of 
October 6, 1998 at page H9680.)
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay) 
each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling).


                             General Leave

  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their 
remarks on S. 2206.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report on S. 2206, 
the Coats Human Services Reauthorization Act of 1998 named after the 
retiring Senator from Indiana.
  I would like to take this opportunity to recognize Senator Dan Coats, 
not only for his remarkable efforts on what will be known as the Coats 
Human Services Act of 1998, but for his years of service and dedication 
to education and human services issues. He has been a staunch and 
compassionate advocate for children. We will miss his insight and 
wisdom that are reflected in dozens of laws that have and will continue 
to have positive impact on the lives of millions of American families.
  I want to express my sincere appreciation to the members of the 
conference committee for their diligent efforts to resolve the 
differences between

[[Page H10202]]

the House and the Senate bill. This has truly been a bipartisan and 
bicameral effort.
  I want to thank the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder), the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Martinez) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay), the ranking 
member of the committee, who have worked so diligently on this 
bipartisan bill. In addition I would like to recognize the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Riggs) who was so very important to the 
development of the legislation.
  Due to them and many others who worked with us in crafting this bill, 
we have before us today a bipartisan conference agreement, an agreement 
that will lead to better services for millions of disadvantaged 
families across the Nation.
  The Senate has already passed the conference report. Senators 
Jeffords, Coats, Kennedy and Dodd led the Senate efforts on this 
legislation and have successfully ushered it through the Senate.
  The efforts of all these Members have allowed us to move forward on a 
very important piece of legislation, to reform our Nation's Head Start, 
Community Service Block Grant and Low-Income Home Energy Assistance 
Programs.
  The legislation makes important changes to these acts that will 
result in improved services, increased quality, and more 
accountability.
  Title I of the legislation contains important changes to the Head 
Start program. This bill firmly establishes quality as the focus of the 
authorization through a variety of measures that strengthen the 
education component of Head Start. Namely, the bill ensures that local 
Head Start agencies will be held accountable for successfully preparing 
children to enter school ready to read by inserting new educational 
performance standards and measures by which individual Head Start 
program performance will be measured. The founder of Head Start said 
that this is the one area that has disappointed him, and that is the 
area of preparing children to enter school, and it is basically an 
education preparation program, and we think that in this bill that it 
will truly be that all over the country.
  The bill requires that at least half of all Head Start teachers 
possess a college degree in early childhood education or related field 
by the end of the year 2003. It is an important requirement if we are 
to ensure that Head Start's education service rival those of the best 
preschools in the Nation.
  The bill strikes the appropriate balance between quality and 
expansion. This is something I insisted on in our House-Senate 
conference. It slows the rate of growth of the program and it increases 
funding for quality in the initial years of the authorization, so that 
the Head Start program has the time and means to develop greater 
capacity to provide higher quality services.
  Title II of the legislation extends the authorization and makes 
changes to the Community Service Block Grant Act program.
  This bill will better enable States and local communities to 
eradicate poverty, revitalize high poverty neighborhoods, and empower 
low-income individuals to become self-sufficient.
  As with Head Start, this bill increases program accountability and 
CSBG. It encourages the development of effective partnerships between 
government, local communities and charitable organizations, including 
faith-based organizations, to meet the needs of impoverished 
individuals, and it encourages innovative community-based approaches to 
attacking the causes and effects of poverty.
  I have been a strong supporter for many years of CSBG and the 
programs that it supports. I feel that this legislation will result in 
improvements in CSBG and will further improve services for the poor in 
each local community.
  Title III of our legislation extends the authorization of another 
important program, the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program. 
LIHEAP provides heating and cooling assistance to almost 5 million low-
income households each year. Individuals and families receiving this 
vital assistance include the working poor, individuals making the 
transition from welfare to work, individuals with disabilities, the 
elderly, and families with young children.
  Finally, this legislation establishes a new demonstration program 
providing funding for individual development accounts, matched saving 
accounts for low-income individuals for post-secondary education, home 
purchases and business capitalization.
  I commend Senator Coats and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) 
for their insight in the development of this demonstration program.
  Finally, I want to give special thanks to numerous staff who have 
worked for so many weeks, months, years to resolve the various 
differences on this bill. Their work has culminated in a strong 
bipartisan bill. Specifically, I would like to thank Sally Lovejoy, Vic 
Klatt, Mary Clagett, Denzel McGuire and Rich Stombres of our committee 
staff for their hard work on this bill, as well as Alex Nock and Marci 
Phillips of the Minority staff.
  Let me close by saying that the legislation before us today is truly 
one of the most important pieces of legislation the 105th Congress will 
pass this year. It is a bipartisan bill that greatly improves the 
delivery of services provided under Head Start, CSBG and LIHEAP. It is 
my belief that many families will benefit from the improvements made 
under this act. I urge my colleagues to vote for the bipartisan 
conference report.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this legislation reauthorizes Head Start, Low-Income 
Home Energy Assistance, and Community Services Block Grant programs. In 
addition, it establishes a new program, Assets for Independence, which 
will assist low-income families to achieve economic security.
  The programs authorized in this bill are critical to children and to 
seniors. In addition to reauthorizing expiring programs, this 
legislation makes several needed improvements. In the Head Start 
section, the bill increases to 10 percent the setaside for early Head 
Start, the program providing services to low-income infants and 
toddlers and their families. This will ensure that thousands of 
additional infants can experience the benefits gained in this 
extraordinary program.
  This bill reauthorizes the LIHEAP program for 5 years, but also 
concentrates its weatherization services for low-income individuals 
with higher energy needs.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, this legislation institutes important 
accountability provisions in the Community Services Block Grant program 
that will enable us to document its great successes.
  In closing, I want to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Goodling), our chairman; the ranking subcommittee member, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Martinez); the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. 
Castle); and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) for their hard 
work on this conference agreement. I believe this strong bipartisan 
measure, which deserves the support of all Members of this Chamber, 
should be enacted.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder), who was with Senator Coats for a 
long time before he came to the Congress of the United States, and who 
has been very important in putting together parts of this legislation
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for his leadership and 
all of the others on the conference committee.
  It is unfortunate that it is this late at night that we have one of 
the most important pieces of legislation that could possibly be before 
us. It addresses the most vulnerable Americans in our society, our 
children, the working poor and the elderly, and it is an innovative 
compromise that we have been able to work between the parties and 
between the bodies.
  It is of special meaning to me in 3 different ways, and I want to 
briefly talk about those. One is my relationship to my former employer, 
Senator Dan Coats. Second is these issues are many of the things that 
motivated me to particularly run for Congress, and they are issues that 
as a staff member for 10 years I worked with, and now, to see some of 
them come to fruition as part of law is indeed a special honor and a 
privilege.

[[Page H10203]]

  So let me touch on a couple of these issues together. Senator Dan 
Coats is retiring this year after many years in the House and Senate, 
and as a friend of his who worked in his first primary and general 
election campaign, we worked together with many goals. Part of those 
goals are very tied to our personal and deep religious commitments and 
how we as Christians would address issues facing the most vulnerable in 
our society. He has tried to be one of the more creative leaders on our 
side in looking at the balance of how do we work through the private 
sector, how do we work in joint cooperation in public and private, and 
what is the role of government in helping develop opportunities.

                              {time}  0050

  When I served as Republican staff director on the House Select 
Committee on Children, Youth, and Families, we looked at the Head Start 
program and saw that it was a Federal program that was very effective 
in at least some areas. And what we have done in this bill is to try to 
make it even more effective by putting better educational standards in, 
through targeting better pay for Head Start teachers, and I think that 
is an example of a Federal program that has worked.
  But there are several other things in this bill. Back when I was in 
the House and when I worked for Senator Coats in the Senate, we were 
trying to look for creative ways of how to empower private sector 
organizations, and one of those things is a charitable tax credit.
  For the first time, working with the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Scott) on the minority in our committee, we were able to pass in the 10 
percent of the State's community service block grants they can use that 
money to help offset an expansion of the State charitable tax credit. 
We have not been able to pass other pieces of legislation at this point 
with it, but it is an important first step.
  The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall) and the gentleman from Virginia 
(Mr. Wolf) have been leaders in the individual development accounts, 
the Assets for Independence that Dan Coats has supported for a long 
time as I have. And this is another innovative way to help those who 
are less fortunate to develop the assets they need, whether they use 
them for their own personal expenses or whether it is for homes or 
housing or to develop a business. It is an important breakthrough.
  It is something that we worked out when I was a house staffer for 
Congressman Coats and as a Senate staffer, and it is a tremendous 
victory for my fellow and former staffers, Stephanie Monroe and Sharon 
Soderstrom and Mike Gerson to see many of these dreams actually become 
part of law.
  Dan Coats has been a personal model for me. It is so fitting and 
appropriate that this bill is named after him, because he is a beacon 
of light and a personal moral example. An example of leadership, of how 
someone in government can be in both their personal and public life a 
model for young people around the country; a model for legislators as 
to how to be creative in their legislation, of how to be a conservative 
and yet have a heart for the poor, a heart for the underprivileged.
  It has been a great honor to both work for him and now with him in 
this United States Congress, and he is going to be deeply missed by me 
and many others.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Woolsey).
  (Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Human Services 
Reauthorization Act. The programs reauthorized by this legislation, 
Head Start, Community Service Block Grants, and LIHEAP, help our 
neediest Americans to live learn and grow.
  I am particulary pleased that the Community Services Block Grants 
include reauthorization for a demonstration project to test the 
effectiveness of Individual Development Accounts, IDAs. IDAs are 
dedicated savings accounts that can be used for education. They can be 
used for first home purchase or to start a business. Each deposit made 
by the low-income account holder is matched by the community 
organization which sponsors the IDA.
  I was able to leave welfare when I was in trouble at one point 
because I invested in myself. IDAs allow individuals in the same kind 
of circumstance I was in to invest in themselves. IDAs give low-income 
individuals a needed chance to invest in themselves and in their 
futures. Because their deposits are matched, IDA accounts grow and 
lives are changed for the better.
  This country has been helping middle- and upper-income families 
invest in themselves and their future for years. For example, there are 
tax deductions for home mortgage. There are tax break for IRAs and tax 
breaks for other pension accounts. There are no breaks for low-income 
individuals who try to save. In fact, in some cases there are actually 
penalties if a low-income person accumulates assets.
  So, Mr. Speaker, the Human Services Reauthorization Act will help 
millions of low-income Americans change their lives and I am proud to 
join my colleagues on both sides of the aisle in supporting it.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) an important member of the 
committee.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Goodling) for yielding me this time, and I will try to be brief because 
of the hour.
  Mr. Speaker, everything that has been said is so significant. And the 
Head Start program, the Community Services Block Grant which was heard 
about, and also the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance program which has 
struggled politically in this body a lot of times, have gone through 
strong reauthorizations.
  I just would like to focus on the Head Start provisions of this bill 
for a couple of reasons for a moment. I believe that educational 
welfare for our children starts well before they even walk into 
kindergarten. It obviously starts the day kids are born. And some of 
the most crucial times are their first experiences in structured 
settings such as in day care or prekindergarten programs.
  We are all seeing what is as least viewed as a decline in education 
in America, at least for some of our students out there today. And I 
think early intervention is very necessary if we are going to be able 
to address some of these problems, particularly at the earliest ages. 
Because that helps, of course, our students attain higher achievements 
throughout their lives.
  What happened in this bill, and it was under the guidance of our 
chairman, is that we have strengthened the education component programs 
of Head Start. We are supportive to the whole concept of quality. We 
put more money into that area; into teacher certification and into 
making absolutely certain that the Head Start programs that we have 
would be able to upgrade in that circumstance.
  It was a hard fight. It sounds simple, but it was relatively hard 
because there is a great force that wants more quantity and does not 
want us to set money aside for quality. We were able to do that working 
with both sides of the aisle and working with the Senate in order to 
achieve what I think is in the greater good for kids of this country.
  Again, it is a shame that we are debating this bill at 12:55 in the 
morning as opposed to 2 o'clock in the afternoon. But the bottom line 
is this is good legislation. It is well thought out. Some excellent 
staff work went into it, and I hope that we could unanimously endorse 
it in the House of Representatives and the President could sign it into 
law soon.
  Mr. Speaker. I am pleased to be able to stand up today in strong 
support of the conference report on the Human Services Reauthorization 
Act and proud to have been able to serve as a conferee on this very 
important piece of legislation.
  The bills that came out of both Houses on Head Start, the Community 
Services Block Grant, and the Low Income Home Energy Assistance 
Programs were very strong and representative of very bipartisan 
efforts. During conference, we worked diligently to follow through on 
that bipartisan spirit and deliver a bill that will provide better 
assistance to some of our nation's neediest citizens.
  As with most pieces of legislation, I realize we have not been able 
to meet everyone's needs, but I do believe we have made an excellent 
compromise that addresses a majority of this body's concerns. 
Throughout the process, I have been particularly concerned with

[[Page H10204]]

the Head Start provisions of this bill. As you know, I come to the 
table with a deep concern for the welfare of our nation's students. I 
believe that their educational welfare starts well before they walk 
into kindergarten. It starts the day kids are born and some of the most 
crucial times are their first experiences in structured settings, such 
as in day care or pre-kindergarten programs.
  In the past few years, as policy makers, we have been faced with the 
reality that our education system isn't working for many of our 
students. Among all of the different factors that we need to consider, 
one of them is those first few years and those first experiences kids 
have in structured settings. Early intervention is essential. We know 
this. If we can begin to address the needs of students at the earliest 
ages, then we have a better chance of helping them attain higher levels 
of achievement throughout life.
  Along with my colleagues on the conference, I was dedicated to 
strengthening the current Head Start program so that children are 
getting the skills they need and are truly prepared for the challenges 
they will face in school. One of the key reforms in this bill is that 
we strengthen the education components of the program. Now, the purpose 
of Head Start is to promote school readiness. Make no mistake about it, 
this program was deliberately named, these kids need a `head start' in 
life, and we have attempted to give them that in the conference report.
  First, we are supportive of and committed to increasing funding for 
quality. This makes sense. We need to ensure that the programs our kids 
are attending are truly beneficial and deserving of their time. We need 
to be confident in the services Head Start is providing and confident 
that kids are learning while they are enrolled. One of the things we do 
with the increased funding for quality in the conference report is 
increase the percentage of teachers who have a degree in early 
childhood education. This is sheer logic. In fact, I think this is 
essential. Our kids need and deserve to have skilled teachers with an 
intimate knowledge of child development. The combination of increasing 
teacher certification levels and quality funds provided for in the 
conference report will go a long way toward addressing the failures we 
see in the system now.
  As the governing body in this nation, we have a responsibility to 
ensure that the funds we provide States and locals are spent 
effectively and efficiently. I believe we have accomplished that in the 
conference report before the House today. This truly is an important 
bill, which will affect the future of many, many children and their 
families and in turn the welfare of our country.
  Let me also note that this bill reauthorizes the Low Income Home 
Energy Assistance Program and the Community Services Block Grant 
programs, which I support. While I have not focused my comments on 
those provisions, I do strongly endorse the work of the conferees on 
both sections.
  I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support the 
hard fought compromises we reached during conference and vote in favor 
of passage. This legislation takes several great strides for the 
benefit of our nation's kids and families.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Scott).
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
Clay), our ranking member, for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the conference agreement reauthorizing 
Head Start, Community Services Block Grant, and the Low-Income Home 
Energy Assistance Act. On balance, this bill does many positive things 
for children and low-income individuals. I am particularly proud of the 
fact that it contains a provision that I cosponsored with the gentleman 
from Indiana (Mr. Souder) which replicates a successful program I 
sponsored in Virginia, the Neighborhood Assistance Act, which offers 
tax credits for donations to approved programs fighting poverty.
  Unfortunately, the conference agreement also contains a provision I 
find very troubling, the so-called ``charitable choice'' provision. 
This provision has serious constitutional and policy shortcomings. 
Specifically, the ``charitable choice'' program allows religious groups 
to be funded under the Community Services Block Grant, even though they 
may be pervasively sectarian.
  The Community Services Block Grant provision also allows, because it 
allows pervasively sectarian organizations to be funded, it allows 
publicly funded employee discrimination. Because Title VII of the Civil 
Rights Act contains certain provisions exempting religious 
organizations, it allows faith-based organizations to proselytize to 
beneficiaries as they receive services. It also allows faith-based 
organizations to require beneficiaries to participate in religious 
activities in order to receive services. And it allows beneficiaries to 
be denied alternative service providers if none are available other 
than the faith-based organization.
  With respect to these constitutional issues, Mr. Speaker, I submit a 
letter from the Department of Justice specifically outlining the 
constitutional problems with the ``charitable choice'' provision.
                                       U.S. Department of Justice,


                                Office of Legislative Affairs,

                               Washington, DC, September 24, 1998.
     Hon. William F. Goodling,
     Chairman, Committee on Education and the Workforce, U.S. 
         House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: The Senate and the House each recently 
     passed versions of S. 2206, designated in the Senate as the 
     Community Opportunities, Accountability, and Training and 
     Educational Services Act of 1998 and in the House as the 
     Human Services Reauthorization Act. We are informed that a 
     conference committee will this week attempt to resolve 
     differences between the two versions of the bill. S. 2206 
     would, inter alia, amend the Community Services Block Grant 
     Act (``CSBGA''), 42 U.S.C. Sec. 9901, et seq. We are writing 
     with respect to a proposed new section 679 of the CSBGA, 
     which would be established by section 201 of the Senate-
     passed bill and by section 202 of the House-passed bill. We 
     are concerned that the Senate version (that is, S. 2206 as 
     passed by the Senate on July 27, 1998) could be construed to 
     permit government funds to be provided to, and used by, 
     pervasively sectarian organizations, which would violate the 
     Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the 
     Constitution. Accordingly, we recommend that the Conference 
     Committee amend the bill to ensure that funds are provided to 
     religious organizations only if they are not pervasively 
     sectarian.
       The Act would authorize the Secretary of Health and Human 
     Services (``the Secretary'') to establish a program to make 
     federal block grants to states for the purpose of 
     ameliorating the causes of poverty in communities within the 
     states. See, e.g., S. 2206 (as passed by the Senate), 
     Sec. 201 (proposing CSBGA Sec. Sec. 672(1), 675). The states 
     may, in turn, direct the funds to private, nonprofit 
     organizations to assist in the provision of services. See, 
     e.g., id. (proposing CSBGA Sec. Sec. 675C(a)(3)(B), 
     676A(a)(1)(A)).
       Proposed CSBGA section 679(a), in both the House and Senate 
     bills, would provide that ``the government shall consider, on 
     the same basis as other nongovernmental organizations, faith-
     based organizations to provide the assistance under the 
     program, so long as the program is implemented in a manner 
     consistent with the Establishment Clause of the first 
     amendment to the Constitution.'' Section 679(a) further would 
     provide that ``[n]either the Federal Government nor a State 
     or local government receiving funds under this subtitle shall 
     discriminate against an organization that provides assistance 
     under, or applies to provide assistance under, this subtitle, 
     on the basis that the organization has a faith-based 
     character.''
       Section 679 apparently would reflect ``Congress' considered 
     judgment that religious organizations can help solve the 
     problems'' to which the proposed statute is addressed Bowen 
     v. Kendrick, 487 U.S. 589, 606-07 (1988). Kendrick and other 
     cases establish that the fact that an institution has 
     religious affiliations does not mean that it may not 
     participate equally in a neutral government financial aid 
     program that benefits both religious and nonreligious 
     entities. Id. at 608-11 (Adolescent Family Life Act grants, 
     available to fairly ``wide spectrum of public and private 
     organizations'' regardless of religious nature, may be 
     awarded to religious institutions), see also, e.g., Roemer v. 
     Board of Public Works, 426 U.S. 736 (1976) (plurality 
     opinion) (upholding grant program for colleges and 
     universities as applied to schools with religious 
     affiliations). Nevertheless, the Establishment Clause does 
     place two significant limitations on this general principle.
       First, the Establishment Clause requires that federal 
     financial assistance not be used in a way that would advance 
     religious organizations' religious mission. The Court in 
     Kendrick confirmed that, even though religious organizations 
     may participate in government-funded social welfare programs, 
     the government must ensure that government aid is not used to 
     advance ```specifically religious activit[ies] in an 
     otherwise substantially secular setting.''' Kendrick, 487 
     U.S. at 621 (quoting Hunt v. McNair, 413 U.S. 734 (1973)), 
     See Roemer, 426 U.S. at 755 (plurality opinion). Indeed, in 
     Kendrick, all nine Justices accepted the principle that 
     government funding of religious activities would be 
     impermissible.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \1\ 487 U.S. at 611-12, 615, 621 (Establishment Clause would 
     be violated if public monies were used to fund `` 
     `indoctrination into the beliefs of a particular religious 
     faith' '' or to `` `advance the religious mission' of the 
     religious institution receiving aid.'') (quoting School Dist. 
     of Grand Rapids v. Ball, 473 U.S. 373, 385 (1985)), Id. at 
     623 (O'Connor, J., concurring) (''[A]ny use of public funds 
     to promote religious doctrines violates the Establishment 
     clause.''), Id. at 624 (Kennedy, J., concurring) (reasoning 
     that the Establishment Clause would be violated if funds 
     ``are in fact being used to further religion''), Id. at 634-
     48 (Blackmun, J., dissenting) (opining that government aid 
     may not be used to advance religion, even if aid was intended 
     for secular purposes). Notably, Kendrick involved a statute--
     like the proposed bill--in which government resources were 
     granted on a neutral, nondiscriminatory basis, to religious 
     and nonreligious groups alike, for a secular purpose 
     (counseling sexual abstinence).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page H10205]]

       In conformity with this constitutional requirement, 
     proposed section 679 of the House bill would provide that 
     ``[n]o funds provided to a faith-based organization 
     to provide assistance under any program described in 
     subsection (a) shall be expended for sectarian worship, 
     instruction, or proselytization.'' \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \2\ Proposed Sec. 679(c) in the Senate version has a similar 
     prohibition, but limited to ``funds through a grant or 
     contract.'' In order to avoid difficult Establishment Clause 
     questions, we recommend deletion of the ``through a grant or 
     contract'' limitation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Second, even where a statute includes (as S. 2206 does) an 
     express condition that the federal aid not be used for 
     sectarian worship, instruction, or proselytization, the 
     government nevertheless may not provide aid directly to 
     ``pervasively sectarian'' institutions, defined as 
     institutions in which `` `religion is so pervasive that a 
     substantial portion of [their] functions are subsumed in the 
     religious mission.' '' Id at 610 (quoting Hunt, 413 U.S. at 
     743); see also id. at 621 (holding that, apart from the 
     question whether aid was being used for religious purposes, 
     Establishment Clause would be violated if the plaintiffs 
     could show that aid flowed to grantees that could be 
     considered ``pervasively sectarian religious institutions'').
       As the Court has explained, the reason for the prohibition 
     on direct governmental aid to pervasively sectarian 
     institutions is the unacceptable risk that where--as in a 
     pervasively sectarian organization--secular and religious 
     functions are ``inextricably intertwined,'' government aid, 
     although designated for a secular purpose, in fact will 
     invariably advance the institution's religious mission. Id. 
     at 610. Again, it is immaterial to this part of the Court's 
     analysis that the provision of assistance would serve a 
     legitimate secular purpose. See id. at 602. What is critical 
     is that the assistance also would have the effect of 
     advancing religion because of the pervasively sectarian 
     character of the recipients. And even if it were possible, as 
     a theoretical matter, for a pervasively sectarian 
     organization to use government assistance exclusively for 
     secular functions in such institutions, the degree and kind 
     of governmental monitoring necessary to ensure compliance 
     with the requisite restrictions would itself create 
     Establishment Clause problems. Id. at 616-17.
       It is unclear which, if any, of the religious organizations 
     that would receive funding under S. 2206 would be 
     ``pervasively sectarian.'' The boundaries of the 
     ``pervasively sectarian'' category are not well-defined, and 
     the Supreme Court has used it almost exclusively in 
     connection with primary and secondary educational 
     institutions. The Court has, however, indicated that numerous 
     considerations are relevant in determining whether an 
     institution is pervasively sectarian. Included among those 
     considerations is whether an organization has explicit 
     corporate ties to a particular religious faith, and bylaws or 
     policies that prohibit any deviation from religious doctrine. 
     Kendrick, 487 U.S. at 620 n. 16. The Court also has treated 
     the existence of religious qualifications for admission and 
     hiring as a relevant factor in determining whether a school 
     is pervasively sectarian. Compare Hunt, 413 U.S. at 743-44 
     (no religious qualifications for faculty or students) and 
     Roemer, 426 U.S. at 757-58 (plurality opinion) (same), 
     with Committee for Pub. Educ. v. Nyquist, 413 U.S. 756, 
     767-68 (1973) (religious restrictions on admissions and 
     faculty appointments) and School Dist. of Grand Rapids v. 
     Ball, 473 U.S. 373, 384 n.6 (1985) (preference in 
     attending private school afforded to children belonging to 
     organizational denomination).
       Although both the House and Senate versions of proposed 
     Sec. 679(a) state that the block grant funds must be 
     disbursed in accordance with the Establishment Clause, 
     certain other provisions in the Senate version of the bill 
     strongly suggest an expectation that state governments would 
     be permitted to provide direct funding to religious 
     organizations that are pervasively sectarian. In particular, 
     the Senate version includes the following three provisions 
     not found in the House version.
       (i) Proposed Sec. 679([b])(1) \3\ would provide that ``[a] 
     faith-based organization that provides assistance under a 
     program described in subsection (a) shall retain its faith-
     based character and control over the definition, development, 
     practice, and expression of its faith-based beliefs.''\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \3\ The Senate version of the bill designates this as 
     subsection ``(c),'' rather than ``(b),'' but this appears to 
     be a typographical error.
     \4\ In addition to the constitutional problem discussed in 
     the text, this particular provision would (perhaps 
     inadvertently) raise another Establishment Clause problem, 
     since, read literally, the ``shall retain'' language would 
     appear to require a recipient organization, as a condition of 
     receiving federal funds, to ``retain'' a particular religious 
     character and a certain form of ``control over the 
     definition, development, practice, and expression of its 
     faith-based beliefs.'' As a general matter, the government 
     may not, of course, attempt in this manner to control the 
     religious character and organization of a religious 
     organization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       (ii) Proposed Sec. 679([b])(2)(A) would provide, with a 
     minor exception, that ``[n]either the Federal Government nor 
     a State or local government shall require a faith-based 
     organization . . . to alter its form of internal 
     governance.''
       (iii) Proposed Sec. 679([b])(3) would provide, inter alia, 
     that ``[a] faith-based organization that provides assistance 
     under a program described in subsection (a) may require that 
     employees adhere to the religious tenets and teachings of 
     such organization.''
       These provisions, as well as the bill's repeated references 
     to ``faith-based organizations'' and recipient organizations' 
     ``faith-based character,'' strongly imply some intent that 
     pervasively sectarian religious organizations would be 
     eligible to receive direct governmental funding. In order to 
     ensure that S.2206 is not construed to permit funding of 
     pervasively sectarian organizations, and that direct 
     governmental funding is not used to support religious 
     activities, we recommend that the Conference Committee not 
     adopt the three quoted provisions (which do not appear in the 
     version of S. 2206 passed by the House). In offering this 
     recommendation, we do not mean to suggest that the government 
     should be able to, for example, ``control . . . the 
     definition, development, practice, and expression of . . . 
     beliefs'' of a nonpervasively sectarian religious 
     organization that receives CSBGA funds but does not use such 
     funds for sectarian worship, instruction, or proselytization. 
     Nor should we be understood as suggesting that a government 
     may ``require'' such an organization ``to alter its form of 
     internal governance.'' We merely wish to ensure that the 
     federal, state and local governments involved in disbursing 
     CSBGA funds may take into account the structure and 
     operations of a religious organization in determining whether 
     such an organization is or is not pervasively sectarian. 
     Where such an organization is pervasively sectarian--i.e., 
     where the secular and religious functions of the organization 
     are so ``inextricably intertwined,'' Kendrick 487 U.S. at 
     610, that it would be impossible (at least without 
     impermissible entanglement) to ensure that the organization 
     does not use government funds to advance religion, the 
     organization may not receive and use CSBGA funds.
       Thank you for your attention to this matter. If we may be 
     of additional assistance, we trust that you will not hesitate 
     to call upon us. The Office of Management and Budget has 
     advised that there is no objection from the standpoint of the 
     Administration's program to the presentation of this report.
           Sincerely,
                                                 L. Anthony Sutin,
                                Acting Assistant Attorney General.

  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, in closing I would like to say a word about 
the Head Start portion of the bill. During the committee deliberations, 
this widely supported program was amended and ended up being reported 
with votes being split right along party lines.
  I am delighted to see that the irrelevant, controversial amendments 
have been removed and that Chairman Goodling and Ranking Member Clay 
have presented essentially the original noncontroversial version of the 
bill so that reauthorization of this effective educational program can 
be done with its traditional bipartisan support.
  So, on balance, Mr. Speaker, this bill will do much in the long run 
to expand opportunities for children and low-income individuals; 
however, the ``charitable choice'' provision is unfortunate and we will 
have to wait for the courts to decide its constitutional fate.

                              {time}  0100

  However, on balance, Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to support the 
conference agreement.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  As my good friend from Virginia realizes, in order to get the bill to 
the floor, we had to do what we had to do or otherwise we would not 
have had a Head Start bill here.
  I do want to point out that the language is the same as in our 
welfare reform bill and, therefore, there is some precedent for it. 
But, also, I want to point out that we clarified that religious 
organizations may participate in CSBG as long as their program is 
implemented in a manner consistent with the establishment clause of the 
Constitution. We also included clarification that no funds provided 
directly to a religious organization under CSBG can be expended for 
sectarian worship, instruction or proselytization.
  Because religious organizations are such important partners in the 
fight against poverty, their participation in the CSBG program is 
encouraged. We think the protections in here will make sure that things 
are not done in the manner that some may fear that they will be.
  I just want to close by saying that in the last hour, from midnight 
on Thursday until 1 a.m. on Friday morning, we passed three of the most 
important pieces of legislation we could possibly pass for the benefit 
of those most in need in this country. And as I said, it is tragic that 
we are doing that at this

[[Page H10206]]

particular hour, but, again, all three pieces are legislation that are 
going to mean so much to those in this country who are most in need and 
also going to present us with a far better 21st Century.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Edwards).
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I do support this legislation, and I want 
to compliment the chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Goodling), and the ranking member, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
Clay), for their great work. This will be a better country, and 
communities and young people, people of all ages, and particularly 
children, will live a better life because of this legislation. However, 
I must rise, even at this time of the morning, with strong reservations 
that I share with my colleague from Virginia (Mr. Scott).
  Mr. Speaker, just a few months ago, in a major national debate and a 
vote on the floor of this House, this Congress went clearly on record 
in defending the first 16 words of the first amendment in the Bill of 
Rights. Those 16 words are these: ``Congress shall pass no law 
respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free 
exercise thereof.'' These cherished words have served our country well 
for over two centuries. They are basically the foundation of religious 
liberty in America, a liberty of religion that is envied across the 
world.
  The provisions of so-called charitable choice were added in this bill 
unbeknownst to many Members of the House or Senate at a time when we 
were cluttered with many other issues in Congress. This charitable 
choice language, in my opinion, and in the opinion of others, could 
directly undermine the intent of those first 16 words of the Bill of 
Rights.
  Let me quote from the Working Group for Religious Freedom and Social 
Services, which includes American Baptist Churches USA, American Jewish 
Committee, American Jewish Congress, Americans United for Separation of 
Church and State, Anti-Defamation League, Baptist Joint Committee on 
Public Affairs, and numerous other religious organizations. They say 
this: ``The primary constitutional problem with the religious provider 
provisions, the so-called charitable choice provisions, is that they 
permit and encourage grants to and government contracts with 
pervasively sectarian organizations, such as churches and other houses 
of worship.''
  Mr. Speaker, I have no question that the intent of those who put this 
language into this bill was positive; to allow religious-based 
organizations to help communities address their problems. But good 
intentions are not enough, particularly when they hit at the very core 
of our constitutionally protected rights of religious freedom.
  So what are the specific problems that could be caused by this 
language? First, it could violate the intent of the establishment 
clause by funding ``pervasively sectarian organizations''. It is 
unclear what the intent of the Senate author was on this particular 
matter.
  Secondly, it could require the Federal Government to have to make a 
choice as to whether to provide community service block grants to the 
Heaven's Gate religious organization, an organization that believed it 
was divinely inspired to commit suicide. If our government officials 
are bothered by that particular religious view of the Heaven's Gate 
organization under the charitable choice organization, then our 
government has been put in the dilemma of having to choose which 
religious organizations' views are appropriate and acceptable and which 
ones are not.
  The next concern I have is that approximately one-half of our States 
have constitutions that expressly prohibit public funds going into the 
coffers of religious organizations. It appears to me that the language 
of this bill could override that constitutional language of so many 
States in our Nation.
  Next, as pointed out by my colleague from Virginia (Mr. Scott), if I 
understand this correctly, it appears that under this language we could 
actually use Federal tax dollars to discriminate based on one's 
religious faith. I hope that is a misreading of this language, but 
according to a number of organizations, including the one I just 
mentioned, representing numerous religious organizations, this would do 
exactly that. And that is why they are so firmly opposed to this 
particular language.
  According to other organizations, this language could also result in 
government having to provide financial audits of churches and 
pervasively sectarian organizations who might possibly be eligible for 
funds under a charitable choice program. I think it is anathema to all 
of us who believe that the strength of religion in America is that we 
have had a 200-year wall of separation between church and State. I 
think this would cause great concerns for those reasons.
  Mr. Speaker, for those and many other reasons that can be discussed 
in the days and weeks ahead, I hope this Congress will think through 
very carefully the implications of the language of the so-called 
charitable choice provisions.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Nadler).
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, due to the lateness of the hour, I am not 
going to repeat the arguments or go into them in any depth. Suffice it 
to say I want to make two points.
  One. This is an excellent bill in general. I commend the chairman and 
the ranking member.
  Two. The so-called charitable choice provisions of this bill are 
clearly violative of the establishment clause of the first amendment.
  It is incredible that we would seek to enact exemptions from the 
religious discrimination clauses of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which 
this does. It is incredible that we would allow Federal dollars to be 
used, for example, by a church and a day care center, even if the 
church made a condition of receipt of day care services that the 
parents had to come and attend religious indoctrination or had to 
attend church services. Clearly violative of the first amendment.
  The language the distinguished chairman cited as saying this should 
not violate the first amendment does not add anything to the first 
amendment. It simply says what all know: legislation cannot violate the 
first amendment. We should not be enacting legislation that does so.
  I hope that this will not be cited as a precedent, as the welfare 
bill language is cited as a precedent. I hope we can take this out at 
some point, or else we will rue the day.

                              {time}  0110

  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I just want to say that I am so glad that our committee is not 
infected and infested with attorneys. We would not get anything done. I 
have to laugh because when they talk about money being spent, if you 
look at ESEA, if you look at title I and if you look at title II, I 
will guarantee you money is going into private and parochial schools, 
boom, boom, boom, one after the other. Our philosophy is, we legislate 
and we allow the courts to make a decision as to whether we legislated 
properly or improperly in relationship to the Constitution.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference 
report on S. 2206, the Community Opportunities and Educational Services 
Act. I support many of the provisions in this bill which reauthorizes 
the Head Start, Community Services Block Grant and the Low-Income Home 
Energy Assistance Programs. However, I want to focus my remarks on the 
new demonstration program which will be created if this bill becomes 
law.
  Mr. Speaker, S. 2206 includes the text of H.R. 2849, the Assets for 
Independence Act which I introduced with Representative John Kasich. 
The language was added by an amendment offered in the Education and 
Work Committee by Representatives Mark Souder and Lynn Woolsey. This 
legislation authorizes $25 million for five years for the creation of 
Individual Development Accounts (IDAs) for poor families and 
individuals. IDAs are dedicated savings accounts, similar in structure 
to Individual Retirement Accounts, that can be used for purchasing a 
first home, paying for post-secondary education, or capitalizing a 
business.
  IDAs are managed by community organizations and are held at local 
financial institutions. Low income individuals make a contribution to

[[Page H10207]]

the account which is then matched by private or public funds. Under the 
legislation, participants can have no more than $10,000 in assets 
(excluding their car and home) to qualify for the program. Federal 
money can only be used to match private money. In this way, the bill 
would leverage more private money and local involvement. By encouraging 
asset development, IDAs help families end their own poverty with 
dignity.
  IDAs and other asset-building strategies for the poor appear to be 
among the most promising poverty-fighting ideas to emerge in the last 
few decades. It is estimated that 100 communities are running IDA 
programs in forty-three states. Twenty-five states, including Ohio, 
have incorporated IDAs into their welfare-to-work plans, as authorized 
by the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act 
of 1996. The Joyce, Mott, Ford, Levi Strauss, and Fannie Mae 
Foundations have issued millions of dollars in grants to support IDA 
demonstration projects. IDAs have come a long way since the Select 
Committee on Hunger, which I chaired, first held hearings on this 
important idea in the early 1990's.
  This demonstration project, will provide additional fuel to states, 
localities, and community based nonprofit groups that are looking for 
creative and enduring strategies to help low-income families move 
toward self-sufficiency.
  Owning assets gives people a stake in the future and a reason to 
save, dream, and invest time, effort, and resources in creating a 
future for themselves and their children. Assets empower people to make 
choices for themselves.
  I would urge my colleagues to pass this important legislation.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Conference 
agreement on S. 2206, the Coats Human Services Reauthorization 
Amendments of 1998.
  This legislation reauthorizes three programs that provide assistance 
to the neediest Americans: Head Start, the Low-Income Home Energy 
Assistance Program (LIHEAP), and the Community Services Block Grant 
(CSBG).
  Historically this legislation has received bipartisan support, and 
today, there is no exception.
  The conference agreement represents a compromise that will ensure the 
integrity and quality of these programs for years to come.
  For more than three decades, Head Start has provided comprehensive 
social, health, and educational services, designed to promote strong, 
supportive families and provide disadvantaged with solid foundations 
for a lifetime of learning.
  In 1994, we undertook the most ambitious reauthorization of Head 
Start, in which we initiated a strong quality improvement process.
  I am proud of this effort and the direction it established for the 
future of Head Start.
  That is why, earlier this year, I introduced H.R. 3880, which simply 
called for building upon this investment in quality through stronger 
linkages between Head Start programs and schools, and increasing our 
investment in early Head Start.
  I am pleased to say that the proposals in my legislation are in the 
conference agreement before us today.
  S. 2206 allows for the continued expansion of Head Start, as well as 
the Early Head Start program.
  With measures in this legislation to strengthen both programs, and 
provide Congress with detailed reporting on the successes of these 
initiatives, I believe we can confidently commit ourselves to increased 
appropriations in the years to come.
  Thus, we will be able to offer Head Start to the 60 percent of 
eligible children currently excluded from the program.
  In this conference agreement, we also reaffirm our commitment to 
LIHEAP.
  LIHEAP helps low-income Americans meet the costs of heating, cooling, 
and other home energy needs, particularly in times of extreme weather, 
natural disasters, and other emergencies.
  With the five year reauthorization in this legislation, we are 
telling the Nation's elderly, disabled, and low-income families that 
this assistance will be continued well into the future.
  The third program addressed by this legislation is the Community 
Services Block Grant.
  CSBG supports the efforts of the community action network in 
addressing the causes of poverty and providing a wide array of 
assistance to Americans in need.
  Services that have been traditionally provided include education, job 
training and placement, housing, nutrition, emergency services, and 
health.
  S. 2206 also authorizes new activities, including literacy services 
and support for after-school programs.
  In addition, this legislation provides for additional accountability 
and monitoring, which can only serve to strengthen CSBG.
  It is also worth mentioning that while this legislation contains 
language that clarifies that CSBG dollars can flow to religious 
organizations to provide social services, we reaffirm that all such 
transactions are ultimately governed by the establishment clause of the 
Constitution.
  In closing, I would like to urge my colleagues to join me in support 
of S. 2206, legislation that strengthens and improves some of our most 
important services for our neediest Americans.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Blunt). The question is on the motion 
offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) that the 
House suspend the rules and agree to the conference report on the 
Senate bill, S. 2206.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor 
thereof) the rules were suspended and the conference report was agreed 
to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________