Congressional Record, Volume 146 Issue 106 (Tuesday, September 12, 2000)

[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 106 (Tuesday, September 12, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H7459-H7470]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

LITERACY INVOLVES FAMILIES TOGETHER ACT

Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (H.R. 3222) to amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of
1965 to improve literacy through family literacy projects, as amended.
The Clerk read as follows:

H.R. 3222

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Literacy Involves Families
Together Act''.

TITLE I--FAMILY LITERACY

SEC. 101. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

Section 1002(b) of the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6302(b)) is amended by striking
``$118,000,000 for fiscal year 1995 and such sums as may be
necessary for each of the four succeeding fiscal years.'' and
inserting ``$250,000,000 for fiscal year 2001.''.

SEC. 102. IMPROVING BASIC PROGRAMS OPERATED BY LOCAL
EDUCATIONAL AGENCIES.

Section 1111(c) of the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6311(c)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (5), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) in paragraph (6), by striking the period at the end and
inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(7) the State educational agency will encourage local
educational agencies and individual schools participating in
a program assisted under this part to offer family literacy
services (using funds under this part), if the agency or
school determines that a substantial number of students
served under this part by the agency or school have parents
who do not have a high school diploma or its recognized
equivalent or who have low levels of literacy.''.

SEC. 103. EVEN START FAMILY LITERACY PROGRAMS.

(a) Part Heading.--The part heading for part B of title I
of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20
U.S.C. 6361 et seq.) is amended to read as follows:

``PART B--WILLIAM F. GOODLING EVEN START FAMILY LITERACY PROGRAMS''.

(b) Statement of Purpose.--Section 1201 of the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6361) is
amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``high quality'' after
``build on''; and
(2) by amending paragraph (2) to read as follows:
``(2) promote the academic achievement of children and
adults;'';
(3) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (3) and
inserting ``; and''; and
(4) by adding at the end the following:
``(4) use instructional programs based on scientifically
based reading research (as defined in section 2252) and the
prevention of reading difficulties for children and, to the
extent such research is available, scientifically based
reading research (as so defined) for adults.''.
(c) Program Authorized.--
(1) Reservation for migrant programs, outlying areas, and
indian tribes.--Section 1202(a) of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6362(a)) is
amended--
(A) in paragraph (1), in the matter preceding subparagraph
(A), by inserting ``(or, if such appropriated amount exceeds
$200,000,000, 6 percent of such amount)'' after ``1002(b)'';
(B) in paragraph (2), by striking ``If the amount of funds
made available under this subsection exceeds $4,600,000,''
and inserting ``After the date of the enactment of the
Literacy Involves Families Together Act,''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(3) Coordination of programs for american indians.--The
Secretary shall ensure that programs under paragraph (1)(C)
are coordinated with family literacy programs operated by the
Bureau of Indian Affairs in order to avoid duplication and to
encourage the dissemination of information on high quality
family literacy programs serving American Indians.''.
(2) Reservation for federal activities.--Section 1202(b) of
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.
6362(b)) is amended to read as follows:
``(b) Reservation for Federal Activities.--
``(1) Evaluation, technical assistance, program
improvement, and replication activities.--From amounts
appropriated under section 1002(b), the Secretary may reserve
not more than 3 percent of such amounts for purposes of--
``(A) carrying out the evaluation required by section 1209;
and
``(B) providing, through grants or contracts with eligible
organizations, technical assistance, program improvement, and
replication activities.
``(2) Research.--In the case of fiscal years 2001 through
2004, if the amounts appropriated under section 1002(b) for
any of such years exceed such amounts appropriated for the
preceding fiscal year, the Secretary shall reserve from such
excess amount $2,000,000 or 50 percent, whichever is less, to
carry out section 1211(b).''.
(d) Reservation for Grants.--Section 1202(c)(1) of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.
6362(c)(1)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``From funds reserved under section
2260(b)(3), the Secretary shall award grants,'' and inserting
``For any fiscal year for which at least one State applies
and qualifies and for which the amount appropriated under
section 1002(b) exceeds the amount appropriated under such
section for the preceding fiscal year, the Secretary shall
reserve, from the amount of such excess remaining after the
application of subsection (b)(2), the amount of such
remainder or $1,000,000, whichever is less, to award
grants,''; and
(2) by adding at the end ``No State may receive more than
one grant under this subsection.''.
(e) Allocations.--Section 1202(d)(2) of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6362(d)(2)) is
amended by striking ``that section'' and inserting ``that
part''.
(f) Definitions.--Section 1202(e) of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6362(e)) is
amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)(B), by striking ``or'' after ``higher
education,'' and inserting ``a religious organization, or'';
and
(2) in paragraph (2), by striking ``nonprofit
organization'' and inserting ``nonprofit organization,
including a religious organization,''.
(g) Subgrants for Local Programs.--Section 1203(b)(2) of
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.
6363(b)(2)) is amended to read as follows:
``(2) Minimum subgrant amounts.--
``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraphs (B)
and (C), no State shall award a subgrant under paragraph (1)
in an amount less than $75,000.
``(B) Subgrantees in ninth and succeeding years.--No State
shall award a subgrant under paragraph (1) in an amount less
than $52,500 to an eligible entity for a fiscal year to carry
out an Even Start program that is receiving assistance under
this part or its predecessor authority for the ninth (or any
subsequent) fiscal year.
``(C) Exception for single subgrant.--A State may award one
subgrant in each fiscal year of sufficient size, scope, and
quality to be effective in an amount less than $75,000 if,
after awarding subgrants under paragraph (1) for such fiscal
year in accordance with subparagraphs (A) and (B), less than
$75,000 is available to the State to award such subgrants.''.
(h) Uses of Funds.--Section 1204 of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6364) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by striking ``family-centered
education programs'' and inserting ``family literacy
services''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(c) Use of Funds for Family Literacy Services.--
``(1) In general.--States may use a portion of funds
received under this part to assist eligible entities
receiving a subgrant under section 1203(b) in improving the
quality of family literacy services provided under Even Start
programs under this part, except that in no case may a
State's use of funds for this purpose for a fiscal year
result in a decrease from the level of activities and
services provided to program participants in the preceding
year.
``(2) Priority.--In carrying out paragraph (1), a State
shall give priority to programs that were of low quality, as
evaluated based on the indicators of program quality
developed by the State under section 1210.
``(3) Technical assistance to help local programs raise
additional funds.--In carrying out paragraph (1), a State may
use the funds referred to in such paragraph to provide
technical assistance to help local programs of demonstrated
effectiveness to access and leverage additional funds for the
purpose of expanding services and reducing waiting lists.
``(4) Technical assistance and training.--Assistance under
paragraph (1) shall be in the form of technical assistance
and training, provided by a State through a grant, contract,
or cooperative agreement with an entity that has experience
in offering high quality training and technical assistance to
family literacy providers.''.

[[Page H7460]]

(i) Program Elements.--Section 1205 of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6365) is amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraphs (9) and (10) as paragraphs
(13) and (14), respectively;
(2) by redesignating paragraphs (5) through (8) as
paragraphs (6) through (9), respectively;
(3) by inserting after paragraph (4) the following:
``(5) with respect to the qualifications of staff the cost
of whose salaries are paid, in whole or in part, with Federal
funds provided under this part, ensure that--
``(A) not later than 4 years after the date of the
enactment of the Literacy Involves Families Together Act--
``(i) a majority of the individuals providing academic
instruction--

``(I) shall have obtained an associate's, bachelor's, or
graduate degree in a field related to early childhood
education, elementary school education, or adult education;
or
``(II) shall meet qualifications established by the State
for early childhood education, elementary school education,
or adult education provided as part of an Even Start program
or another family literacy program;

``(ii) the individual responsible for administration of
family literacy services under this part has received
training in the operation of a family literacy program; and
``(iii) paraprofessionals who provide support for academic
instruction have a high school diploma or its recognized
equivalent; and
``(B) beginning on the date of the enactment of the
Literacy Involves Families Together Act, all new personnel
hired to provide academic instruction--
``(i) have obtained an associate's, bachelor's, or graduate
degree in a field related to early childhood education,
elementary school education, or adult education; or
``(ii) meet qualifications established by the State for
early childhood education, elementary school education, or
adult education provided as part of an Even Start program or
another family literacy program;'';
(4) by inserting after paragraph (9) (as so redesignated by
paragraph (2)) the following:
``(10) use instructional programs based on scientifically
based reading research (as defined in section 2252) for
children and, to the extent such research is available, for
adults;
``(11) encourage participating families to attend regularly
and to remain in the program a sufficient time to meet their
program goals;
``(12) include reading readiness activities for preschool
children based on scientifically based reading research (as
defined in section 2252) to ensure children enter school
ready to learn to read;''; and
(5) in paragraph (14) (as so redesignated), by striking
``program.'' and inserting ``program to be used for program
improvement.''.
(j) Eligible Participants.--Section 1206 of the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6366) is
amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(1)(B) by striking ``part;'' and
inserting ``part, or who are attending secondary school;'';
and
(2) in subsection (b), by adding at the end the following:
``(3) Children 8 years of age or older.--If an Even Start
program assisted under this part collaborates with a program
under part A, and funds received under such part A program
contribute to paying the cost of providing programs under
this part to children 8 years of age or older, the Even Start
program, notwithstanding subsection (a)(2), may permit the
participation of children 8 years of age or older.''.
(k) Plan.--Section 1207(c) of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6367(c)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)--
(A) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by inserting
``and continuous improvement'' after ``plan of operation'';
(B) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``goals;'' and
inserting ``objectives, strategies to meet such objectives,
and how they are consistent with the program indicators
established by the State;'';
(C) in subparagraph (E), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(D) in subparagraph (F)--
(i) by striking ``Act, the Goals 2000: Educate America
Act,'' and inserting ``Act''; and
(ii) by striking the period at the end and inserting ``;
and''; and
(E) by adding at the end the following:
``(G) a description of how the plan provides for rigorous
and objective evaluation of progress toward the program
objectives described in subparagraph (A) and for continuing
use of evaluation data for program improvement.''; and
(2) in paragraph (2), in the matter preceding subparagraph
(A), by striking ``(1)(A)'' and inserting ``(1)''.
(l) Award of Subgrants.--Section 1208 of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6368) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) in paragraph (1)(B)--
(i) by striking ``including a high'' and inserting ``such
as a high''; and
(ii) by striking ``part A;'' and inserting ``part A, a high
number or percentage of parents who have been victims of
domestic violence, or a high number or percentage of parents
who are receiving assistance under a State program funded
under part A of title IV of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 601 et seq.);'';
(B) in paragraph (1)(F), by striking ``Federal'' and
inserting ``non-Federal'';
(C) in paragraph (1)(H), by inserting ``family literacy
projects and other'' before ``local educational agencies'';
and
(D) in paragraph (3), in the matter preceding subparagraph
(A), by striking ``one or more of the following
individuals:'' and inserting ``one individual with expertise
in family literacy programs, and may include other
individuals, such as one or more of the following:''; and
(2) in subsection (b)--
(A) by striking paragraph (3) and inserting the following:
``(3) Continuing eligibility.--In awarding subgrant funds
to continue a program under this part after the first year,
the State educational agency shall review the progress of
each eligible entity in meeting the objectives of the program
referred to in section 1207(c)(1)(A) and shall evaluate the
program based on the indicators of program quality developed
by the State under section 1210.''; and
(B) by amending paragraph (5)(B) to read as follows:
``(B) The Federal share of any subgrant renewed under
subparagraph (A) shall be limited in accordance with section
1204(b).''.
(m) Research.--Section 1211 of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6369b) is amended--
(1) in subsection (b), by striking ``subsection (a)'' and
inserting ``subsections (a) and (b)'';
(2) by redesignating subsection (b) as subsection (c); and
(3) by inserting after subsection (a) the following:
``(b) Scientifically Based Research on Family Literacy.--
``(1) In general.--From amounts reserved under section
1202(b)(2), the National Institute for Literacy shall carry
out research that--
``(A) is scientifically based reading research (as defined
in section 2252); and
``(B) determines--
``(i) the most effective ways of improving the literacy
skills of adults with reading difficulties; and
``(ii) how family literacy services can best provide
parents with the knowledge and skills they need to support
their children's literacy development.
``(2) Use of expert entity.--The National Institute for
Literacy shall carry out the research under paragraph (1)
through an entity, including a Federal agency, that has
expertise in carrying out longitudinal studies of the
development of literacy skills in children and has developed
effective interventions to help children with reading
difficulties.''.
(n) Treatment of Religious Organizations.--Part B of title
I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20
U.S.C. 6361 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the
following:

``SEC. 1213. RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS.

``(a) Religious Organizations Included as Partnership
Participants.--In carrying out this part, the Secretary, and
any grantee or subgrantee receiving assistance under this
part, shall treat religious organizations the same as other
nongovernmental organizations, so long as this part is
implemented in a manner consistent with the Establishment
Clause and the Free Exercise Clause of the first amendment to
the Constitution. The Secretary, and any grantee or
subgrantee receiving assistance under this part, shall not
discriminate against an organization that participates in a
partnership that is an eligible entity receiving assistance
under this part, or an organization that participates in a
partnership that is applying to receive such assistance, on
the basis that the organization has a religious character.
``(b) Religious Character and Independence.--
``(1) In general.--A religious organization that
participates in a partnership that is an eligible entity
receiving assistance under this part, or that participates in
a partnership that is applying to receive such assistance,
shall retain its religious character and control over the
definition, development, practice, and expression of its
religious beliefs.
``(2) Additional safeguards.--Neither the Federal
Government nor a State or local government shall require a
religious organization--
``(A) to alter its form of internal governance; or
``(B) to remove religious art, icons, scripture, or other
symbols;
in order to be eligible to participate in a partnership that
is an eligible entity receiving assistance under this part or
to participate in a partnership that is applying to receive
such assistance.
``(3) Employment practices.--A religious organization's
exemption provided under section 702 of the Civil Rights Act
of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e-1) regarding employment practices
shall not be affected by its participation in, or receipt of
funds from, a program under this part.
``(c) Limitations on Use of Funds for Certain Purposes.--No
funds provided to a religious organization under this part or
section 1002(b) shall be expended for sectarian worship or
instruction or proselytization.
``(d) Prohibition on Serving as Fiscal Agent.--A religious
organization may not serve as a fiscal agent for a
partnership that is an eligible entity receiving a subgrant
under this part.
``(e) Nondiscrimination Against Beneficiaries.--A religious
organization shall not

[[Page H7461]]

discriminate against an individual, in regard to rendering
services under this part, on the basis of religion, a
religious belief, or refusal actively to participate in a
religious practice.
``(f) Federal Financial Assistance.--For purposes of any
Federal, State, or local law, receipt of financial assistance
under this part or section 1002(b) shall constitute receipt
of Federal financial assistance or aid.
``(g) Fiscal Accountability.--
``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), any
religious organization providing services under this part
shall be subject to the same regulations as other entities
providing services under this part to account in accord with
generally accepted auditing principles.
``(2) Limited audit.--If such organization segregates
Federal funds provided under this part into a separate
account or accounts, then only the Federal funds used to
provide services shall be subject to audit.
``(h) Treatment of Program Participants.--
``(1) In general.--An eligible entity may not subject a
participant in an Even Start program assisted under this
part, during such program, to sectarian worship or
instruction or proselytization.
``(2) Construction.--Paragraph (1) shall not be construed
to affect any program that is not an Even Start program
(regardless of whether it is carried out before, after, or at
the same time as an Even Start program).

``SEC. 1214. PROHIBITION ON VOUCHERS OR CERTIFICATES.

``Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, no
services under this part may be provided through voucher or
certificate.''.

SEC. 104. EDUCATION OF MIGRATORY CHILDREN.

Section 1304(b) of the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6394(b)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (5), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) in paragraph (6), by striking the period at the end and
inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(7) a description of how the State will encourage
programs and projects assisted under this part to offer
family literacy services if the program or project serves a
substantial number of migratory children who have parents who
do not have a high school diploma or its recognized
equivalent or who have low levels of literacy.''.

SEC. 105. DEFINITIONS.

(a) In General.--Section 14101 of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 8801) is amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraphs (15) through (29) as
paragraphs (16) through (30), respectively; and
(2) by inserting after paragraph (14) the following:
``(15) Family literacy services.--The term `family literacy
services' means services provided to participants on a
voluntary basis that are of sufficient intensity in terms of
hours, and of sufficient duration, to make sustainable
changes in a family, and that integrate all of the following
activities:
``(A) Interactive literacy activities between parents and
their children.
``(B) Training for parents regarding how to be the primary
teacher for their children and full partners in the education
of their children.
``(C) Parent literacy training that leads to economic self-
sufficiency.
``(D) An age-appropriate education to prepare children for
success in school and life experiences.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Even start family literacy programs.--Section 1202(e)
of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20
U.S.C. 6362(e)) is amended--
(A) by striking paragraph (3); and
(B) by redesignating paragraphs (4) and (5) as paragraphs
(3) and (4), respectively.
(2) Reading and literacy grants.--Section 2252 of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.
6661a) is amended--
(A) by striking paragraph (2); and
(B) by redesignating paragraphs (3) through (5) as
paragraphs (2) through (4), respectively.

SEC. 106. INDIAN EDUCATION.

(a) Early Childhood Development Program.--Section 1143 of
the Education Amendments of 1978 (25 U.S.C. 2023) is
amended--
(1) in subsection (b)(1), in the matter preceding
subparagraph (A)--
(A) by striking ``(f)'' and inserting ``(g)''; and
(B) by striking ``(e))'' and inserting ``(f))'';
(2) in subsection (d)(1)--
(A) by redesignating subparagraphs (D) and (E) as
subparagraphs (E) and (F), respectively; and
(B) by inserting after subparagraph (C) the following:
``(D) family literacy services,'';
(3) in subsection (e), by striking ``(f),'' and inserting
``(g),'';
(4) by redesignating subsections (e) and (f) as subsections
(f) and (g), respectively; and
(5) by inserting after subsection (d) the following:
``(e) Family literacy programs operated under this section,
and other family literacy programs operated by the Bureau of
Indian Affairs, shall be coordinated with family literacy
programs for American Indian children under part B of title I
of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 in
order to avoid duplication and to encourage the dissemination
of information on quality family literacy programs serving
American Indians.''.
(b) Definitions.--Section 1146 of the Education Amendments
of 1978 (25 U.S.C. 2026) is amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraphs (7) through (14) as
paragraphs (8) through (15), respectively; and
(2) by inserting after paragraph (6) the following:
``(7) the term `family literacy services' has the meaning
given such term in section 14101 of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 8801);''.

TITLE II--INEXPENSIVE BOOK DISTRIBUTION PROGRAM

SEC. 201. INEXPENSIVE BOOK DISTRIBUTION PROGRAM FOR READING
MOTIVATION.

(a) Authorization.--Section 10501(a) of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 8131(a)) is
amended by striking ``books to students, that motivate
children to read.'' and inserting ``books to young and
school-aged children that motivate them to read.''.
(b) Requirements of Contract.--Section 10501(b)(4) of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.
8131(b)(4)) is amended by inserting ``training and'' before
``technical assistance''.
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 10501(e) of
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.
8131(e)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``$10,300,000 for fiscal year 1995'' and
inserting ``$20,000,000 for fiscal year 2000''; and
(2) by striking ``four'' and inserting ``five''.
(d) Statement of Purpose.--Section 10501 of the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 8131) is
amended--
(1) by redesignating subsections (d) and (e) as subsections
(g) and (h), respectively;
(2) by redesignating subsections (a) through (c) as
subsections (b) through (d), respectively; and
(3) by inserting after the section heading the following:
``(a) Purpose.--The purpose of this program is to establish
and implement a model partnership between a governmental
entity and a private entity, to help prepare young children
for reading, and motivate older children to read, through the
distribution of inexpensive books. Local reading motivation
programs assisted under this section shall use such
assistance to provide books, training for volunteers,
motivational activities, and other essential literacy
resources, and shall assign the highest priority to serving
the youngest and neediest children in the United States.''.
(e) New Provisions.--Section 10501 of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 8131) is amended
by inserting before subsection (g) (as so redesignated by
subsection (d)) the following:
``(e) Special Rules for Certain Subcontractors.--
``(1) Funds from other federal sources.--Subcontractors
operating programs under this section in low-income
communities with a substantial number or percentage of
children with special needs, as described in subsection
(c)(3), may use funds from other Federal sources to pay the
non-Federal share of the cost of the program, if those funds
do not comprise more than 50 percent of the non-Federal share
of the funds used for the cost of acquiring and distributing
books.
``(2) Waiver authority.--Notwithstanding subsection (c),
the contractor may waive, in whole or in part, the
requirement in subsection (c)(1) for a subcontractor, if the
subcontractor demonstrates that it would otherwise not be
able to participate in the program, and enters into an
agreement with the contractor with respect to the amount of
the non-Federal share to which the waiver will apply. In a
case in which such a waiver is granted, the requirement in
subsection (c)(2) shall not apply.
``(f) Multi-Year Contracts.--The contractor may enter into
a multi-year subcontract under this section, if--
``(1) the contractor believes that such subcontract will
provide the subcontractor with additional leverage in seeking
local commitments; and
``(2) the subcontract does not undermine the finances of
the national program.''.

SEC. 202. EFFECTIVE DATE.

The amendments made by section 201 shall take effect on
October 1, 2000.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Kuykendall) and the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs.
McCarthy) 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 H.R. 3222.
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.

[[Page H7462]]

Mr. Speaker, the greatest problem facing the Nation, in my estimation
and that of many, is the fact that we have close to 100 million people
in the United States at the present time who are functioning on either
Level I or Level II literacy skills. Level I literacy skill will ensure
that they will never receive a piece of the American dream. With Level
II, it will be very, very difficult in the 21st century, in the high-
tech century, to ever be able to compete.
That is a real tragedy. That is a tragedy that in my estimation will
destroy this Nation. All nations generally fall from within. There are
many reasons why this one could fall from within, but none, in my
estimation, more likely to cause that downfall than the fact that we do
have close to 100 million people who are having a very difficult time
surviving in this 21st century.
At the same time, of course, we are being asked to bring in hundreds
of thousands of people from other countries in order to fill our
$40,000, $50,000, and $60,000 jobs, and all of those we have, of
course, cannot rise to any level where they would begin to think about
$40,000, $50,000, $60,000 jobs.
So we have had Even Start working for quite a few years. It has been
working well. The reason we are here tonight is because I do not want
to wait, as we did with Head Start. In Head Start I tried to say for 10
or 12 years that the program, so well-intended, was not working, and
all the studies would show that it was not working. It was not working
because no one was paying any attention to whether there were quality
programs or not, so it became a poverty jobs program, it became a baby-
sitting program, but it was supposed to be a reading readiness program
for preschoolers. It was supposed to be a program to make sure children
were ready to learn by the time they came to first grade.
The reason we are here tonight is to make sure we do not fall into
that trap, but that as a matter of fact we improve a piece of
legislation that has been doing well.
These are just some of the results that we have from programs and
evaluations, which are meaningful evaluations because they were done as
technical evaluations by those who are qualified to do such.
A high percentage of adults get their GED or their high school
certification. Sixty-two percent of those seeking certification from
the program have received those certifications. A significant
percentage obtain and keep employment, a 50 percent increase. Parents
continue to seek employment and enroll in education and training
programs. Families reduce their reliance on public assistance, and 45
percent reduced it dramatically or are completely off.
Even Start helps children. Eighty percent are rated at class average
or above after they leave an Even Start program and go on to
kindergarten. Children continue to perform average or better in their
classes, as judged by their teachers. In third grade, 75 percent of
children perform well on formal assessments, 60 percent at average or
better in reading, 80 percent in language, and 73 percent in math.
What we have done in the Even Start program is something that we
should have done years and years ago. If we are going to break the
cycle of illiteracy, we do not just deal with children or adults, we
have to deal with the family.
Of course, this was not a new idea of mine when I arrived here and
introduced it. We began it in Spring Grove School District when I was
superintendent there, when I asked our early childhood specialists,
what is it we can do to break the cycle? We know every parent that did
not graduate from high school that now has children in the school. We
know every older brother and sister that did not graduate. Is there not
some way to break the cycle?
She said, yes, we will go out into the homes with 3- and 4-year-olds
and we will work with the parents and the 3- and 4-year-olds. We will
show the parents what it is we can do to help children to become
reading-ready and school ready. We will improve the literacy skills of
the parent so they can become the child's first and most important
teacher.

{time} 2130

We will help prepare those 3- and 4-year olds so they do not have a
failing experience when they arrive in first grade.
It has been a successful program but we want to make sure it is even
more successful. So we strengthen the accountability in this
reauthorization. States will review the progress of local programs to
make sure that they are meeting the goals of helping parents to read,
helping children to learn, and training parents on how to be good
teachers for their children.
We have quality improvement so that the States use a portion of their
Federal money to provide training and Federal assistance to Even Start
instructors to make sure they are at the highest level. We have the
scientific research standards, additional money in there, because we
have a lot of research on how children learn to read. We have very
little research on how adults learn to read.
We have family literacy in Title I and the migrant programs where it
is most needed. And then we have qualifications for instructional
personnel so that, as a matter of fact, they are of the highest
caliber.
These are just some of the things that we have done. We have also
included the Inexpensive Book Distribution Program, the RIF program,
and we add a new title extending and amending the reauthorization for
this program.
These are some of the things that we are trying to do to make sure
that, as a matter of fact, we do not fail from within simply because we
have a growing number of people who cannot compete in a 21st century
high-tech society.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by first thanking the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Chairman Goodling) for his wisdom and guidance as
the chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce. It has
been a pleasure working with the gentleman from Pennsylvania. I know
that I speak for the entire House of Representatives when I wish him
all the happiness and health in his retirement. I use that word loosely
because we have already had some conversation, so I do not really think
he will be retiring, he will just be starting on a new journey. But he
will be missed here in the House.
In addition, Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3222 to
express my support for the Literacy Involves Families Together Act.
This bill strengthens Even Start in the focus of family literacy in
Title I and our Native American Education Programs.
This legislation will also define staff qualifications, which we know
is so important for programs using Federal funds to support
instructional staff. The bill will require that academic instructors
have a post-secondary degree or meet State qualifications. By requiring
a higher level of qualifications, we are ensuring the highest returns
for our Even Start children and families.
Mr. Speaker, this bill levels the playing field for our neediest
families who often need special services to provide basic education to
their children. Finally, this bill will strengthen the accountability
of Even Start programs by ensuring that program performance is measured
by local goals tied to State performance indicators.
While I do support this program, Mr. Speaker, I do have some concerns
about two changes that have been made to this bill. Both the amount of
money that we are authorizing and the length of time we are authorizing
this program have been reduced significantly.
Mr. Speaker, just last year in Nassau County, part of my district,
BOCES, which is as an educational school, served over 100 families. Can
my colleagues imagine how many more families we could serve with the
full reauthorization of this bill? I find in my district alone that
more and more families are looking for services like this.
As the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Goodling) has said, if
we help educate the parent, certainly the children are only going to do
better.
It is my sincere hope that we can work out these issues in
conference. Until then, I urge all of my colleagues to support this
important legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page H7463]]

Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
South Carolina (Mr. Graham), a member of the Committee on Education and
the Workforce.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Speaker, I will try to do this in 2 minutes, but I do
not know if I will make it. We are here to talk about something that is
probably worth more than 2 minutes to spend on, and that is the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), the chairman himself.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3222, the Literacy Involves
Families Together Act. This important legislation extends and improves
the Even Start Family Literacy Program and the Inexpensive Book
Distribution Program, better known as Reading is Fundamental.
Mr. Speaker, there is no one that deserves more credit for bringing
the attention to the problem of illiteracy in this country than the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), the chairman of the
Committee on Education and the Workforce and author of the Even Start
Family Literacy Program.
Since his election to the House of Representatives almost 26 years
ago, and, yes, it has been that long, the gentleman from Pennsylvania
(Mr. Goodling) has fought to ensure that every child and adult has the
literacy skills they need to succeed in school and the workplace and in
their local communities.
The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Goodling) has worked
diligently to improve the quality of adult education programs. Through
his efforts, those with the lowest levels of literacy have been able to
overcome obstacles, obtain gainful employment, and share in the
opportunities of this great Nation.
In 1991, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) was the
driving force behind the enactment of the National Literacy Act which
established the National Institute for Literacy. The Institute
coordinates literacy efforts among the Departments of Education, Health
and Human Services and Labor. In addition, the National Institute for
Literacy works with States as well as local providers to provide them
with the latest information on quality adult education and family
literacy programs.
The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) has also pioneered
legislation to change the way children are taught to read. Through the
development and enactment of the Reading Excellence Act of 1988, the
gentleman from Pennsylvania helped ensure that teachers are taught to
teach reading using instructional programs based on scientifically
based reading research. This has marked a major change in the way
reading is taught in schools. Instead of fly-by-night fad programs,
this legislation helps ensure our Nation's children are receiving the
best possible reading instruction.
However, the greatest contribution to combatting illiteracy of the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Goodling) was the enactment of
the Even Start Family Literacy Program. Back in 1988, at a time when
Republicans were the minority party in the House, the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) successfully pursued the enactment of this
legislation.
Based on his experiences as an educator, he strongly believed that
illiteracy can most successfully be eliminated by working with
families. He knew that, unless we first empowered parents with poor
reading skills to be their child's first and most important teacher,
that their ability to help their children succeed in school would be
greatly diminished.
Mr. Speaker, family illiteracy programs such as Even Start are one of
the most effective methods of breaking the cycle of illiteracy in
families, and we have the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) to
thank. I am, therefore, immensely pleased that the committee has
included in H.R. 3222 my amendment to renaming the program the
``William F. Goodling Even Start Family Literacy Program.''
I am sure families and family literacy providers throughout the
United States join me in thanking the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Goodling) for all of his contributions to combatting illiteracy in this
country. I encourage my colleagues to join me in commending the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Goodling) for all of his
contributions to creating a literate society. I also urge support of
H.R. 3222, the Literacy Involves Families Together Act.
Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee).
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York for
yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, today's floor action represents another portion of the
work of the Committee on Education and the Workforce on the
reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.
Even Start has been, as we all know here, the result of the love and
the hard work of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), my
chairman and my friend.
I have had the privilege of serving with my colleague for 24 years on
the Committee on Education and the Workforce. He was here before I got
here. He has been here 26 years, I believe, Mr. Speaker.
The work of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) has
touched the lives of so many children during his career, providing many
of them with the means to better themselves.
Indeed, I find myself a better person because of the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling). He is a great friend and a very, very
helpful mentor. His retirement at the end of this Congress is a great
loss to this institution and the children of our country.
He has always been dedicated to quality and results for our Nation's
children and our families. That is one thing he has taught me over and
over again, we have to look at results.
This reauthorization of Even Start very much reflects these
principles, his principles. It is extremely fitting that we honor the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Goodling) by renaming Even Start
after him through this legislation.
The bill before us today strengthens Even Start in the focus of
family literacy in Title I and Indian Education Programs. In addition,
this substitute would increase the set-aside for migrant and Indian
Even Start programs from 5 to 6 percent when the total appropriation
reaches $200 million. I believe this provision is especially important
in increasing funding to Native Americans, a population that can
greatly benefit from family literacy services.
In closing, I want to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman
Goodling) for successfully getting this legislation to the floor
despite the many roadblocks placed in his way. He was very, very
persistent; and we owe him a deep debt of gratitude for that. His hard
work on this program deserves the admiration of every Member of this
House and the people of this country.
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
North Carolina (Mr. Ballenger), a member of the Committee on Education
and the Workforce.
Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
this time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3222, the Literacy
Involves Families Together Act. However, I would like to first say a
couple things about the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman
Goodling). In all my years in Congress, I sincerely believe that the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) is the most knowledgeable
person on the issue of education. Before coming to Congress, the
gentleman from Pennsylvania was a teacher, a principal, and
superintendent. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) knows
education. We in Congress have been fortunate to have him.
It is safe to say that we will miss the leadership of the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Chairman Goodling), his bipartisan spirit, and his
passion for better education of all Americans. I think the respect for
his leadership is shown by the number of the committee members that are
here tonight at this late hour.
Back in 1988, when we served together on the Committee on Education
and the Workforce as minority Members, the gentleman from Pennsylvania
(Mr. Goodling) worked tirelessly to enact the Even Start Family
Literacy

[[Page H7464]]

Program. Even Start is based on his experience as an educator and his
belief that illiteracy can most successfully be eliminated by working
with families.
Even Start works with the adults without a GED and high school
diploma and their children to break the cycles of illiteracy. This
program has been successful in motivating and providing parents with
the skills they need to play an active role in their children's
education.
Today we have an opportunity to enhance this act and substantially
increase the funding authorization to $250 million for fiscal year
2001. This is a program that works. Not only does it increase literacy
and active participation by parents in their children's education, but
it provides enhanced opportunities for parents as well.
The bill epitomizes everything that the gentleman from Pennsylvania
(Chairman Goodling) has represented during his tenure in Congress. It
increases charitable choice, strengthens accountability, ensures
instruction is based on scientifically based research, it prevents
waste, and actively increases parental involvement in education. This
is a program that helps everyone who is involved.
I ask my colleagues to support H.R. 3222 and the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Chairman Goodling) in his efforts on behalf of American
families.
Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), also from the Committee on
Education and the Workforce.
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in reluctant opposition to H.R. 3222,
the Literacy Involves Families Together Act.
Before I go into the purpose of my opposition, I would like to take a
moment to thank and honor the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman
Goodling) for his service to the Committee on Education and the
Workforce.
The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Goodling) cares about
education passionately, and many would say that he is an educator
before he is a legislator. Today it is fitting that we honor the Even
Start program, a program that he authored, with his name.
Mr. Speaker, I rise, however, in reluctant opposition to the bill
because it contains a provision known as charitable choice. Charitable
choice permits religious organizations to participate in various grant
programs but allows them to discriminate on the basis of religion in
their hiring with public funds.

{time} 2145

Even Start is an excellent program that attacks education problems at
the most fundamental level: The family. Family literacy programs such
as Even Start are particularly important for my own congressional
district because adults in the Third Congressional District of Virginia
have the lowest level of literacy skills in the State, but I will not
support a program that turns the clock back on civil rights laws by
allowing publicly funded employment discrimination as charitable choice
does in this bill, and several other bills.
The majority accommodated several of my concerns about the original
charitable choice provisions in order to provide better protection for
beneficiaries and to ensure that no proselytization would occur during
the federally funded program. However, the bill still affords religious
organizations participating in the Even Start program the right to
discriminate in their hiring with public funds.
Now let me make it clear that I am not suggesting that we take away a
religious organization's ability to discriminate in their hiring with
their private funds, as protected under Title VII of the Civil Rights
Act and as protected by the First Amendment. Here we are talking about
discriminating and hiring on the basis of religion when using public
funds. That is wrong.
It is important to note that this marks the first time the charitable
choice has been added to an elementary and secondary education program.
Mr. Speaker, public education programs ought to be the last place
that we should tolerate religious discrimination. Even the original
author of the charitable choice in his legislative proposals to expand
charitable choice provisions to other programs specifically carved out
education programs.
Mr. Speaker, a number of organizations have expressed opposition to
discrimination based on religion with Federal funds, and I would like
to read part of a letter which states the charitable choice provision
also allows the government to give taxpayer money to religious
institutions and then allows those religious institutions to refuse to
hire certain taxpayers for taxpayer-funded positions because they are
not of the right religion. While allowing religious institutions to
discriminate on the basis of religion in their privately funded
activities is quite appropriate, tax-funded employment discrimination
is not.
Mr. Speaker, that letter is signed by the American Association of
University Women; the American Federation of Teachers; the American
Jewish Committee; the American Jewish Congress; the Americans United
for Separation of Church and State; the Anti-Defamation League; the
Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs; the Central Conference of
American Rabbis; the Council of Chief State School Officers; Friends
Committee of National Legislation; Hadassah, the Women's Zionist
Organization of America; the National Alliance of Black School
Educators; the National Council of Jewish Women; the National Education
Association; the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force; the National PTA;
the National School Boards Association; People for the American Way;
School Social Work Association of America; the Service Employees
International Union, AFL-CIO; the Union of American Hebrew Congresses;
and the Women of Reform Judaism.
Mr. Speaker, I submit the complete text of the letter into the
Record.

Americans United for

Separation of Church and State,

Washington, DC.
Dear Representative: We, the undersigned religious, civil
rights, civil liberties, and education organizations, are
writing to urge you to oppose the ``charitable choice''
section of H.R. 3222, the Literacy Involves Families
Together, or ``Even Start'' bill. We urge you to oppose this
section because charitable choice is a frontal assault on the
First Amendments guarantee of the separation of church and
state.
Attaching ``charitable choice'' to Even Start represents
the first time this controversial proposal has been included
in education legislation. Although ``charitable choice'' was
never envisioned to govern education programs, Even Start
opens the door to tax funding of religious schools in all
education programs in the future.
The charitable choice provision also allows the government
to give taxpayer money to religious institutions and then
allows those religious institutions to refuse to hire certain
taxpayers for tax-funded positions because they are not of
the ``right'' religion. While allowing religious institutions
to discriminate on the basis of religion in their privately
funded activities is quite appropriate, tax-funded employment
discrimination is not.
The charitable choice provision further threatens to
excessively entangle the institutions of church and state.
Despite the provisions in charitable choice that purport to
protect the religious autonomy of institutions that receive
tax money, the government will regulate what it funds. This
will result in government oversight, accounting and
monitoring of houses of worship and other religious
institutions.
For these reasons, we strongly urge you to oppose the
``charitable choice'' section of the ``Even Start'' bill.
Sincerely,
American Association of University Women
American Federation of Teachers
American Jewish Committee
American Jewish Congress
Americans United for the Separation of Church and State
Anti-Defamation League
Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs
Central Conference of American Rabbis
Council of Chief State School Officers
Friends Committee on National Legislation
Hadassah, the Women's Zionist Organization of America
National Alliance of Black School Educators
National Council of Jewish Women
National Education Association
National Gay and Lesbian Taskforce
National PTA
National School Boards Association
People For the American Way
School Social Work Association of America
Service Employees International Union (SEIU), AFL-CIO
Union of American Hebrew Congregations
Women of Reform Judaism
Rachel Joseph, Legislative Associate

Mr. Speaker, family literacy programs are extremely important; and we
should not be required to tolerate religious discrimination as a
condition for

[[Page H7465]]

the passage of this bill. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I regret that I
cannot support the bill and support the gentleman from Pennsylvania
(Mr. Goodling) in this worthwhile endeavor, although I appreciate his
hard work and dedication to education.
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. McKeon), another subcommittee chair.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman, the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Literacy Involves
Families Together bill. This legislation builds on a strong legacy of
support for literacy programs by this Congress and in particular our
Committee on Education and the Workforce chairman, the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling). We believe that if children learn to read
early their chance for success in school is much greater. At the same
time, if the entire family is part of the learning process, all members
of the family have the opportunity to reach their full potential.
I have heard it said that the family that prays together stays
together, and the family that plays together stays together. I would
like to add that the family that reads together progresses together.
With this bill, we will help break the cycle of poverty, unemployment
and welfare that is often a result of illiteracy. This legislation
accomplishes these goals through strengthened services under the Even
Start literacy program. Specifically, H.R. 3222 provides more resources
to train Even Start instructors. The need for more training is acute.
For example, last year during a hearing on teacher preparation, we
heard from a young African American teacher who was given a third grade
class and told to teach them how to read. He had never had any training
on teaching how to read.
He was simply told, you know how to read; teach them how to read.
He was frustrated. His students were not learning; and he was ready
to quit. It was not until he received some additional training that he
was able to really connect with and teach the children in his class and
reach his full potential as a teacher.
Passage of this bill will give reading instructors the additional
help they need.
Finally, I would like to take this opportunity to share my gratitude,
along with my other colleagues, for the work of the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) on this important bill. As the author of
several important literacy initiatives, including the Reading
Excellence Act, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling)
recognized long ago the need for quality reading programs for the
entire family. I have had the privilege of serving with the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) on the Committee on Education and the
Workforce since coming to Congress in 1993, and I have learned a lot
from him on this and other education issues.
This legislation culminates the outstanding work that the chairman
has done on literacy and will be a highlight of his legacy when he
retires at the end of the 106th Congress. His dedication to the young
people of this Nation is extraordinary and should be emulated by all
Members of this body. I am sorry to see him go but wish him well in all
that he does.
I urge all of my colleagues to support H.R. 3222.
Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, a little over 24 hours ago, as a father, I
was reading at home in Waco, Texas, my home, to our 3-year-old and 4-
year-old sons. As a father who cares deeply about encouraging my
children to learn how to read and to enjoy reading and learning, I
appreciate deeply the chairman's leadership in literacy programs before
this and previous Congresses, but I rise tonight to express the same
reservation mentioned by my colleague from Virginia (Mr. Scott).
It seems to me to continue on a great program, and the program, the
Even Start program is a great program, it is not necessary to use
Federal tax dollars to allow organizations to discriminate against
American citizens based simply on their own religious faith. It is not
necessary to not only allow but to actually subsidize with Federal tax
dollars religious discrimination in order to give children an even
start in life.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask, perhaps with the agreement of the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), if I could ask the chairman
perhaps a question. With the chairman's indulgence, if I could just
clarify a point by asking him a question, if I could, on page 20 of the
bill it talks about treatment of program participants. In fact, if we
go back to page 17 it talks about, under section 1213, religious
organizations included and partnership participants.
Could I ask the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), so we can
be clear on the definition, when the term religious organizations is
mentioned in this language does the chairman intend that that includes
directly churches, synagogues and houses of worship or separate
entities, perhaps secular separate entities set up by those churches,
synagogues and houses of worship?
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. EDWARDS. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, it could be either, because we do not
express in the legislation one or the other.
Mr. EDWARDS. For clarification purposes, it would allow dollars to go
either directly from the Secretary or from one of the partners directly
not to Catholic charities but to St. Mary's Catholic Church and
communities somewhere in our country. I appreciate that.
One of the concerns that I have had about charitable choice in so
many other bills is that what that then does is either require the
Federal Government to not be accountable for how those dollars are
spent or to actually have the Federal Government go in and audit the
books of churches and synagogues and houses of worship.
I see in the gentleman's bill actually language in there saying that
if the church actually or house of worship separates the funds, then
the Federal Government can only audit that particular account. Does
that then mean if a church that gets this money directly under this
program does not separate that, then the Federal Government will have
to come in and perhaps audit all of the books of that church?
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. EDWARDS. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. GOODLING. I would like to respond to the gentleman's inquiry.
First of all, the church cannot be a fiscal agent. They cannot, in our
legislation, be a fiscal agent.
Mr. EDWARDS. They can receive the funds from the fiscal agent?
Mr. GOODLING. Right. Secondly, only the partnership gets the money.
The church itself cannot get the money. The partnership that the church
is working with gets the money, not the church itself.
Mr. EDWARDS. The church decides who to hire; the church does not get
the money directly?
Mr. GOODLING. They cannot get the money directly.
Mr. EDWARDS. In this bill, okay. But I guess the point I would raise
is that if the church is involved in hiring people and being
responsible for expenditures of Federal tax dollars, it opens up the
possibility that in some way or another a church or a house of worship
is going to have to be audited in order to ensure the taxpayers that
their monies are being spent for the purpose for which this bill
intended.
Mr. Speaker, clearly my greatest objection is not that this is good
legislation. It has worked well and could continue to work well, but it
is wrong even in the best of legislation to take our Federal tax
dollars and give to any organization and say they can take those
Federal tax dollars and put out a sign that says, such as a Bob Jones'
related church they could say, no Catholic need apply here for a
federally funded job.
I understand why the Civil Rights Act says the Methodist church can
hire a Methodist pastor, a Jewish synagogue can hire a Jewish rabbi.
That is why there was an exception in the Civil Rights Act for that
kind of quote/unquote discrimination, but the Civil

[[Page H7466]]

Rights Act passed in the 1960s never envisioned Federal dollars going
directly to pervasively sectarian organizations.
In fact, I found it interesting in this bill it says it has to be
consistent with the establishment/separation clause of the First
Amendment of the Bill of Rights. The 1988 Kendrick case, Bowen versus
Kendrick, basically said clearly one cannot send direct tax dollars to
pervasively sectarian organizations.
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds just to indicate
that, of course, as I have indicated on Ms. Johnson's bill, these
organizations who should really be participating when one is dealing
with families and are trying to improve family life, would not
participate, of course, if they have to give up their Title VII
protection. The President, the Vice President, have both indicated very
clearly, the President said common sense says that faith and faith-
based organizations from all religious backgrounds can play an
important role in helping children to reach their fullest potential. I
agree with that, and I believe that we have protected everybody in this
legislation.
Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to extend the time
by 10 minutes, to be divided and controlled between the gentlewoman
from New York (Mrs. McCarthy) and myself.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Pennsylvania?
There was no objection.
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Delaware (Mr. Castle), our subcommittee chair.
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Goodling) for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3222, the Literacy
Involves Families Together Act, legislation to ensure that every child
and every adult has literacy skills they need to succeed. I also want
to take a moment to commend the bill's sponsor, the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling).
As some of us may know, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Goodling) was the driving force behind the National Literacy Act and he
changed the way children learn to read with the enactment of the
Reading Excellence Act.

{time} 2200

Mr. Speaker, once again the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Goodling) is leading the charge to create a more literate society with
the reauthorization of the Even Start Family Illiteracy Program, a bill
he helped offer nearly 12 years ago.
Like the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), I believe that
the literacy skills of America's adults are simply not adequate to
encourage individual opportunity, increase worker productivity, or
strengthen our country's competitiveness around the world.
According to the National Center for Educational Statistics,
approximately 21 percent of the adult population, more than 40 million
Americans over the age of 16, has only rudimentary reading and writing
skills. An additional 8 million adults were unable to perform the most
basic literacy test and a smaller percentage had such limited skills
that they were unable to even respond to the survey.
Sadly, studies show that illiteracy is an intergenerational problem,
one that follows a parent-child pattern. Students who have not been
exposed to reading before they enter school are at a significant
disadvantage when compared with students whose parents read to them. In
addition, students with illiterate parents are more likely to perform
poorly in school, and they are more likely to drop out before
graduation.
The bill before us today, the Literacy Involves Family Together Act
seeks to remedy these problems by improving the quality of services
provided under the Even Start Family Literacy Program.
Specifically, LIFT would require Even Start programs to base reading
instruction on scientifically based research. As part of the National
Reading Panel, the National Institute for Child Health and Human
Development has conducted extensive research on the best way to teach
children to read, and I believe it is of utmost importance for our
literacy centers to make use of this data.
LIFT would also fund a research project to find the most effective
way to improve literacy among parents and reading difficulties and to
help parents use their new skills to support their children's
redevelopment.
Finally, the LIFT act raises the quality of family literacy programs
to allow States to use a portion of their Even Start dollars to provide
expert training and technical assistance to Even Start providers and
family literacy instructors.
We live in a Nation where both the volume and variety of written
information are growing and where increasing numbers of citizens are
expected to be able to read, understand, and use these materials.
Mr. Speaker, I commend the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman
Goodling) for his leadership and wish him a long and enjoyable
retirement.
Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne).
(Mr. PAYNE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, let me commend the gentlewoman from New York
(Mrs. McCarthy) for managing this bill and for the hard work that the
gentlewoman has done on this legislation that is so important to us, in
particular, gun violence. And I would like to say that I associate
myself with her fight to control that.
As it relates to this bill, I would also like to pay my respects to
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), a gentleman that I have
had the opportunity for the past 12 years to work with on the committee
that has changed its name several times, the former Education and Labor
Committee, now Committee on Education and the Workforce, and I would
like to wish him a healthy and a useful retirement.
Mr. Speaker, as a matter of fact, I had the privilege to chat with
him on the elevator today and asked what is the gentleman going to do
with all of his time. We know it is going to be used in a very positive
way. And so I feel privileged to have served on the committee with the
gentleman.
I do, as many may know, for a number of years from around 1990 until
about 1995, I introduced a National Literacy Day bill, which at that
time under the other rules of the House if we had 218 Members to sign
the resolution, it would come to the floor, and for a number of years,
we moved the National Literacy Day.
I do recall working very closely with the gentleman when we had White
House conferences dealing with the question of literacy when the
National Literacy headquarters was conceived and State literacy
councils were formed.
Mr. Speaker, I feel very close to this question of literacy, and
Literacy Involves Families Together Act is certainly in the right
direction. As I have indicated, this has been really one of my pet
projects that I have worked with in many years. However, as the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), as he raised in a bill last week,
which was also a very good bill dealing with welfare reform, but also
in that piece of legislation, there was this question about Charitable
Choice.
It seems like every piece of legislation that we will see from now on
will have this question about Charitable Choice. As we know, Charitable
Choice provision allows the government to give taxpayer money to
religious institutions and then allows those religious institutions to
refuse to hire certain taxpayers for tax-funded positions, because they
are not of the right religion. While allowing religious institutions to
discriminate on the basis of religion in their privately funded
activities is quite appropriate and no one opposes that, tax-funded
employment discrimination is wrong.
And as we know, it permits religious institutions that receive
Federal funds to discriminate in their employment based on religious.
It opens the door to tax funding of religious schools in all
educational programs in the future. It harms religion by transforming
religious ministries into administrative

[[Page H7467]]

agencies of government benefits and services requiring them to
terminate certain benefits, report on individuals, and otherwise police
the system. It undermines the traditional role of religion. For that
purpose, too, a bill which I commend, a bill that I feel embodied in
what it stands for, because of this provision, which I see raising its
ugly head continuously and continuously and continuously, for that
purpose, I must oppose the bill.
Mr. Speaker, I once again wish the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Goodling), who has done an outstanding work, a good retirement and good
health.
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Georgia (Mr. Isakson), an important member of the Committee on
Education and the Workforce.
Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania
(Mr. Goodling) for yielding the time to me, and I associate myself with
all the positive remarks that have been made about his service.
I would observe that in most cases in the twilight of a politician's
career, they search desperately for a legacy that is a testimony to
that which they have done. Some find it in an edifice or a building,
some find it in a last minute grant.
But today we memorialize a legacy that walks all over America and is
a tribute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania. It is young adults and
children since 1988 who have learned together the fundamental key to
success in life, which is the ability to read. This program supplies
materials, sound fundamentals, and breaks the cycle and the stigma that
is the biggest problem in adult literacy.
We have learned in education that an adult who otherwise would be
stigmatized and not go to learn will relish the opportunity to learn
with their child. That is the legacy of the gentleman from Pennsylvania
(Mr. Goodling) and today's increase in that legacy is a testimony to
what he has done.
There are schools all over this country, but there is one in my State
called Pitts Elementary, Mr. Chairman, 100 percent poverty, 100 percent
free and reduced lunch in the middle of a public housing project.
Because of Even Start and the materials, the techniques and using the
resources of a community, in Pitts Elementary children without hope and
hopeless parents learn to read.
The generational cycle of literacy can only be broken when the child
and the parent learn together, thanks to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling).
Mrs. McCARTHY on New York. Mr. Speaker, I have no additional
speakers, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Bilbray). He can tell us just how important the
program is, as well as the organization that helps support the program.
(Mr. BILBRAY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the bill, and I would
like to rise in respect to the chairman, the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), for all the hard work he has done with
this issue.
Mr. Speaker, I have had the privilege of cofounding the Literacy
Council of San Diego County that serves over 3 million people in
Southern California. And I must say sincerely that as we discussed
opportunities and access for our citizens, there was an interesting
term brought up called Charitable Choice. I would just ask all of us to
remember what kind of choice this country is giving to the 20 percent
of English-speaking learners who do not have a choice of being able to
do what we ran into in San Diego County while I was chairman. They
could not fill out an application for a job. They could not even find
applications to be able to get government services to get training for
the job.
A lot of people may think this is an issue of just a child learning
to read or an adult learning to read, and that is somebody else's
problem, because my family knows how to read. My children are going to
good schools. My parents know how to read. My brothers and sisters are
literate.
But let me tell my colleagues as someone who operated a system of
criminal justice and social welfare that is larger than 32 States of
the Union, that I found that 20 percent to 40 percent of the people
that were in welfare and were in our criminal justice system were
functionally illiterate. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I would just say if we
want to fight crime, if we want to fight unemployment, we need to
support bills like the gentleman's, and I thank him very much for his
proactive stance on this project.
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson).
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) for yielding to me.
Mr. Speaker, I congratulate him not only on the bill but for his
leadership on education issues over many years, both as Member of the
minority and then as chairman of the Committee on Education and the
Workforce. I also congratulate him on not only having passed the Even
Start bill in 1988, but having overseen what has happened under that
legislation and bringing us tonight this legislation that improves the
effectiveness of the Even Start program and improves the quality of the
teaching that will go on under Even Start.
Particularly, I want to commend the gentleman because he has never
forgotten that children are the children of parents; that children grow
up in families, and if children are not doing well, we need to look at
both what the child needs and what their families need.
The holistic approach to learning to read embodied in this bill is
the right answer, not just for children, but for families. Research has
shown for decades that children do better in school if their parents
are interested in their progress in school. Yet, if parents themselves
have not felt the power of education in their lives, they cannot
transmit to their children a love of learning, a respect for learning,
or the excitement that is necessary to motivate children to learn when
they are young and accomplish the goals so important in elementary
school.
Mr. Speaker, I commend the gentleman for his leadership and thank him
for his work over all of these decades here in the Congress.
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers), a very important member of the Committee on
Education and the Workforce.
Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Goodling) for yielding time to me.
Mr. Speaker, in the Congress all of us depend on each other in
dealing with a multitude of issues that are before us. But without
doubt, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Goodling) has been Mr.
Education to this Congress for many years. All of us have upon one
occasion or another gone to him for advice on how to deal with issues
regarding education. And I appreciate his efforts here.
In regard to the bill, there are several points I wanted to mention
that I think are outstanding. First of all, accountability. We have
passed many, many different pieces of legislation dealing with
education. Most of them have had very little accountability, most of
them have not accomplished anything near what their potential was, and
building accountability into this bill I think is essential.
The gentleman's step toward helping parents and children learn
together is a stroke of genius, something we need very badly. But,
again, it has to be accountable to make sure that it happens; but it
can be a wonderful experience for both parents and child. The emphasis
on research standards is important. Much of the research done in
education today is superb; much of it, unfortunately, is not very good.

{time} 2215

Particularly in the difficulties of reading, the study of dyslexia,
there is a great deal of work that needs to be done. Many people,
including one of my dear grandsons, suffer from that disease, and it is
incredibly difficult.
The final point I would make is that science also can be important in
teaching reading, and I have introduced a bill that the committee will
shortly consider on that.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). The gentlewoman from New York
(Mrs. McCarthy) has 6 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining.

[[Page H7468]]

Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) and ask unanimous consent
that he be allowed to control said time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from New York?
There was no objection.
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Indiana (Mr. Souder).
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman, and also want to
commend his leadership on the education issue. As I was a staffer here
for 10 years, 6 on the House side and 4 on the Senate, I watched as he
moved Even Start through. I watched as he has tried to change Head
Start back into a literacy program, to try to reach out to those who
are hurting and those who are behind and actually get them up to the
academic level with which to compete and to advance in school so that
they have the opportunities that the rest of America has.
I simply do not understand, in bill after bill after bill, why some
Members on the minority side object to having an opportunity in this
mix for faith-based organizations. The faith-based organizations that
we are talking about are so narrowly defined by court decisions, they
cannot spend taxpayers' dollars for any type of proselytization.
In this bill, because it goes through education, they have to be
cleared through the education institutions. We agreed that they have to
have a separation of anything else they do, including child care, from
this program.
But many of the most innovative leaders in America, particularly in
the black and Hispanic and other immigrant communities, are faith
based. When they first come to America, in Fort Wayne, Indiana, not a
hotbed of immigration, but we do have the largest Burmese immigration
in the United States. We have, like many areas, a huge Hispanic
immigration. We see areas of Fort Wayne, where the black churches have
worked together and are now the agent for the Federal Government in
housing partnerships, and as they try to redevelop the Hannah Creighton
and work with Head Start and other programs, why if the school system
decides they are not the best to do Even Start, what is this opposition
so much to faith-based organizations?
It is a shame for the minority leadership in this country, because
they need back up at the grassroots level.
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Mrs. McCARTHY. Of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling).
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is
recognized for 4 minutes.
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank all of those who, of
course, paid tribute to me, but I must say that we have had a wonderful
working relationship in areas of education on both sides of the aisle,
and could have accomplished very little even as chairman of the
committee without that kind of cooperation. The gentlewoman from New
York has been a joy to work with.
My friend from Michigan and I have been battling for, he said 24
years. I have been battling for 26, and he has been battling with me
for 24. Not battling for ourselves, as none of the committee has been
doing that, but what we are trying to do is make sure that every child
in this country has an equal opportunity to get a piece of the American
dream.
As I indicated when we started, there is no way that can happen if
they and their parents are illiterate, or even functionally illiterate
in this 21st century. There was a time a parent could get a job, rear a
family, and, of course, not let anyone know that he or she could not
read, but that time has gone, and is gone forever.
I would hope as we continue, as I have told the committee many times,
and as someone mentioned from the other side, I hope my portrait in the
room, the lips will move every time they are deliberating, and the lips
will say, We want to make sure that we have results, not process; we
want to make sure that it is quality, not quantity, because that is the
only way, in my estimation, we can be successful in preventing the fall
of this great Nation, which I truly believe will happen if we cannot
successfully deal with the literacy issue.
I want to thank the staffs. I have told the staffs over and over
again what I will miss most of all when I leave this institution are
the wonderful staffers that I have worked with for a long, long time.
Sitting next to me, I want to truly pay tribute to Lynn Selmser. She
has had to put up with me for 19 years. I do not know of anybody that
has probably put up with a Member of Congress for 19 years and
survived. But when there were literacy issues, she was there; if there
were nutrition issues, she was there; if there were Impact Aid issues,
she was there helping.
So it has been a wonderful experience in the Congress of the United
States. I am not going to say that I am going to miss the rigors of the
job. I am surely not missing the campaign that all of you are involved
in. In fact, I sit back and smile and say, go to it; I do not have to
do that any longer.
But I will miss our efforts that we jointly embarked upon to try to
make sure that we do have a literate workforce, that our workforce can
perform, that we do not have to rely on other countries to supply our
people to do the $40,000, $50,000 and $60,000 jobs.
We have lost a lot of time, because our whole effort from the very
beginning was to try to make sure that we close that achievement gap,
and we must close it, and I would hope that this legislation will go a
long way to do that.
I just hope that, as I leave, I watch the committee still making sure
that every parent and every child becomes literate, so that no child
goes to the first grade without the ability to learn and without the
ability to read, because they will fail, and that will be one more
tragedy.
So, again I thank all the members of the committee, and thank all of
the staff for the wonderful work that they have done over the years.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from New York has 1 minute
remaining.
Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of
my time.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to close again saying there are many of us
that support this amendment. I will also say that I have only been on
the committee chaired by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman
Goodling) for 4 years.
Mr. Speaker, I have a great deal of respect for him, for the work he
has done, and I know he has always put the children first. I support
what he is trying to do with this amendment. The gentleman and I agree
100 percent that if our children and parents cannot read, then we
cannot lift up everyone.
Again, it has been a pleasure working with the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling). I am sure when I first got there he had no
idea what kind of person I was going to be, but he found out I was
actually the strong, quiet type, and only spoke when I found it was
extremely important. He appreciated that, because I saved him time. We
will miss you, Chairman Goodling, and it has been a pleasure being with
you and learning from you over these 4 years.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to explain why
Congress should reject the Literacy Involves Families Together (LIFT)
Act (House Resolution 3222), which aims to increase ``family literacy''
by directing money from the American taxpayer to Washington and
funneling a small percentage of it back to the states and localities to
spend on education programs that meet the specifications of DC-based
bureaucrats. While all support the goal of promoting adult literacy,
especially among parents with young children, Congress should not
endorse supporting the unconstitutional and ineffective means included
in this bill. If Congress were serious about meaningful education
reform, we would not even be debating bills like H.R. 3222. Rather, we
would be discussing the best way to return control over the education
dollar to the people so they can develop the education programs that
best suit their needs.
Several of my colleagues on the Education and Workforce Committee
have expressed opposition to the LIFT Act's dramatic increase in
authorized expenditures for the Even Start family literacy programs. Of
course, I share their opposition to the increased expenditure, however,
my opposition to this bill is based not as much on the authorized
amount but on the bill's underlaying premise: that the American people
either cannot or will not provide

[[Page H7469]]

educational services to those who need them unless they are forced to
do so by the federal government.
In contrast to the drafters of the LIFT bill, I do not trust the
Congress to develop an education program that can match the needs of
every community in the United States. Instead, I trust the American
people to provide the type of education system that best suits their
needs, and the needs of their fellow citizens, provided Congress gives
them back control over the education dollar.
The drafters of the United States Constitution understood that the
federal government was incapable of effectively providing services such
as education. This is why they carefully limited the federal
government's powers to a few narrowly defined areas. This understanding
of the proper role of the federal government was reinforced by the
tenth amendment which forbids the Federal Government from controlling
education, instead leaving authority over education in the hands of
states, local communities and parents.
Reinforcing that the scariest words in the English language are ``I'm
from the federal government and I am here to help you,'' the American
education system has deteriorated in the years since Congress
disregarded the constitutional limitations on centralizing education in
order to ``improve the schools.'' One could argue that if the
federally-controlled schools did a better job of educating children to
read, perhaps there would not be a great demand for ``adult literacy
programs!''
Of course, family literacy programs do serve a vital purpose in
society, but I would suggest that not only would family literacy
programs exist, they would better serve those families in need of
assistance if they were not controlled by the federal government.
Because of the generosity of the American people, the issue is not
whether family literacy programs will be funded but who should control
the education dollars; the American people or the federal government?
Mr. Speaker, rather than give more control over education to the
people, H.R. 3222 actually further centralizes education by attaching
new requirements to those communities receiving taxpayer dollars for
adult literacy programs. For example, under this bill, federally-funded
Even Start programs must use instruction methods based on ``scientific
research.'' While none question the value of research into various
educational methodologies, it is doubtful that the best way to teach
reading can be totally determined through laboratory experiments.
Learning to read is a complex process, involving many variables, not
the least of which are the skills and abilities of the individual.
Many effective techniques may not be readily supported by
``scientific research.'' Therefore, this program may end up preventing
the use of many effective means of reading instruction. The requirement
that recipients of federal funds use only those reading techniques
based on ``scientific research,'' (which in practice means those
methods approved by the federally-funded ``experts'') ensures that a
limited number of reading methodologies will, in essence, be ``stamped
with federal approval.''
In addition to violating the United States Constitution, the LIFT
bill raises some serious questions regarding the relationship between
the state and the family. Promoting family literacy is a noble goal but
programs such as these may promote undue governmental interference in
family life. Many people around the country have expressed concern that
``parenting improvement'' programs have become excuses for the
government bureaucrats to intimidate parents into ceding effective
control over child-rearing to the government. While none of these
complaints are directly related to the Even Start program Even Start
does rest on the premise that it is legitimate for the federal
government to interfere with the parent-child relationship to
``improve'' parenting. Once one accepts that premise, it is a short
jump to interfering in all aspects of family life in order to promote
the federal government's vision of ``quality parenting.''
In order to give control over education back to the American people,
I have introduced several pieces of legislation that improve education
by giving the American people control over their education dollar. For
instance my Family Education Freedom Act (H.R. 935), provides parents
with a $3,000 per child tax credit for K-12 education expenses incurred
in sending their children to public, private, or home school. I have
also introduced the Education Improvement Tax Cut Act (H.R. 936), which
provides a tax donation of up to $3,000 for cash or in-kind donations
to public or private schools as well as for donations to elementary and
secondary scholarships. I am also cosponsoring legislation (H.R. 969)
to increase the tax donations for charitable contributions, as well as
several bills to provide tax credits for adult job training and
education.
Unleashing the charitable impulses of the American people is the most
effective means of ensuring that all Americans have access to the
quality education programs they need, and to make sure that those
programs are tailored to meet the particular needs of the local
communities and the individuals they serve.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I call on my colleagues to reject the
LIFT Act and instead embrace a program of education and charitable tax
credits that will give the American people the ability to provide for
the education needs of their children and families in the way that best
suits the unique circumstances of their own communities.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, as the former Chairman of the
Elementary, Secondary, and Vocational Education Subcommittee, I was one
of the original supporters of the Even Start program at its inception.
I rise in strong support of H.R. 3222 The Literacy Involves Families
Together Act, and commend the gentleman from Pennsylvania for his hard
work and dedication to our children and their literacy. It is because
of his efforts that we have been able to reduce the number of
illiterate individuals in our communities, and I find it a fitting
tribute that this program will be named after him.
We all realize that to succeed in today's society every person must
be able to read and write. It is unacceptable that in a country as
advanced as ours that we have millions of people who cannot read or
write. H.R. 3222 helps to address this issue in several ways.
First, it would improve the quality of Even start and other family
literacy programs in several areas. It would provide training and
technical assistance to local providers while at the same time assuring
that the level of assistance does not decrease. It also requires that
instructional programs are based on scientifically researched methods
of teaching reading, and provides funding for research on teaching of
reading to adults in family literacy programs. Finally, it establishes
qualifications for instructional staff in Even Start programs whose
salaries are paid with Even Start dollars.
Additionally, H.R. 3222 provides for charitable choice by allowing
government to consider religious organizations, as part of eligible
partnerships on the same basis as other groups receiving funding. Our
churches, Synagogues, Mosques, and other religious organizations have a
long tradition of helping those in need in our country including
helping those who cannot read. This legislation helps them to carry on
with that tradition in ensuring every American can read.
Finally, this legislation will help communities implement the
inexpensive book distribution program which helps local communities
provide books for disadvantaged children.
Once again I urge passage of H.R. 3222, and yield back the balance of
my time.
Mr. HORN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of a very important piece of
legislation, H.R. 3222, The Literacy Involves Families Together Act.
Even Start, and other family literacy programs, serve the most
vulnerable families in our Nation.
According to the Department of Education, twenty-three percent of
American adults were functionally illiterate in 1993.
We cannot expect these adults, and their families to become self-
sufficient without literacy skills.
By helping them to break the cycle of illiteracy, family literacy
programs help families lift themselves out of poverty and dependency on
government programs.
H.R. 3222 ensures that Even Start, and other literacy programs are
administered in the most effective way.
This legislation provides technical assistance to local providers,
establishes qualifications for teaching staff, and requires that
instruction be based on scientifically proven methods.
At the same time, it empowers parents to become involved in their
children's education.
As we all know, this is critical to a child's educational success.
Additionally, children whose parents read to them are much better
prepared to start school. They perform significantly better than those
who have not been exposed to reading at home.
Passing this legislation is the first step in opening up a world of
opportunities, not only for children, but their families as well.
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to support this legislation.
I am encouraged by the bipartisan support for this bill, and I am
hopeful that both sides of the aisle can work together for the sake of
all of America's families.
Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of
my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) that the House suspend the
rules and pass the bill, H.R. 3222, as amended.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor
thereof)

[[Page H7470]]

the rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
The title of the bill was amended so as to read: ``A bill to amend
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to improve literacy
through family literacy projects and to reauthorize the inexpensive
book distribution program.''
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________