[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.
____________________