[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 82 (Friday, May 13, 2022)]
[House]
[Pages H4925-H4951]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        COMMUNITY SERVICES BLOCK GRANT MODERNIZATION ACT OF 2022

  Ms. BONAMICI. Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1097, I 
call up the bill (H.R. 5129) to amend the Community Services Block 
Grant Act to reauthorize and modernize the Act, and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1097, in lieu 
of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the 
Committee on Education and Labor printed in the bill, an amendment in 
the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee 
Print 117-42, modified by the amendment printed in part E of House 
Report 117-320, is adopted and the bill, as amended, is considered 
read.
  The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:

                               H.R. 5129

       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 ``Community Services Block 
     Grant Modernization Act of 2022''.

     SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION.

       Subtitle B of title VI of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation 
     Act of 1981 (42 U.S.C. 9901 et seq.) is amended to read as 
     follows:

          ``Subtitle B--Community Services Block Grant Program

     ``SEC. 671. SHORT TITLE.

       ``This subtitle may be cited as the `Community Services 
     Block Grant Act'.

     ``SEC. 672. PURPOSES.

       ``The purposes of this subtitle are--
       ``(1) to reduce poverty in the United States by supporting 
     the activities of community action agencies and other 
     community services network organizations that improve the 
     economic security of low-income individuals and families and 
     create new economic opportunities in the communities where 
     they live; and
       ``(2) to accomplish the purposes described in paragraph (1) 
     by--
       ``(A) strengthening community capabilities for identifying 
     poverty conditions and opportunities to alleviate such 
     conditions;
       ``(B) empowering residents of the low-income communities 
     served to respond to the unique problems and needs in their 
     communities through their maximum feasible participation in 
     advising, planning, and evaluating the programs, projects, 
     and services funded under this subtitle;
       ``(C) using innovative community-based approaches that 
     produce a measurable impact on the causes and effects of 
     poverty, including whole family approaches that create 
     opportunities for, and address the needs of, parents and 
     children together;
       ``(D) coordinating Federal, State, local, and other 
     assistance, including private resources, related to the 
     reduction of poverty so that resources can be used in a 
     manner responsive to local needs and conditions; and
       ``(E) broadening the resources directed to the elimination 
     of poverty, so as to promote partnerships that include--
       ``(i) private, religious, charitable, and neighborhood-
     based organizations; and
       ``(ii) individuals, businesses, labor organizations, 
     professional organizations, and other organizations engaged 
     in expanding opportunities for all individuals.

     ``SEC. 673. DEFINITIONS.

       ``In this subtitle:
       ``(1) Agency-wide strategic plan.--The term `agency-wide 
     strategic plan' means a plan that has been adopted by an 
     eligible entity in the previous 5 years and establishes goals 
     that include meeting needs identified by the entity in 
     consultation with residents of the community through a 
     process of comprehensive community needs assessment.
       ``(2) Poverty line.--The term `poverty line' means the 
     poverty guideline calculated by the Secretary from the most 
     recent data available from the Bureau of the Census. The 
     Secretary shall revise the poverty line annually (or at any 
     shorter interval the Secretary determines to be feasible and 
     desirable). The required revision shall be accomplished by 
     multiplying the official poverty thresholds from the Bureau 
     of the Census by the percentage change in the Consumer Price 
     Index for All Urban Consumers during the annual or other 
     interval immediately preceding the time at which the revision 
     is made.
       ``(3) Community action agency.--The term `community action 
     agency' means an eligible entity (which meets the 
     requirements of paragraph (1) or (2), as appropriate, of 
     section 680(c)) that delivers multiple programs, projects, 
     and services to a variety of low-income individuals and 
     families.
       ``(4) Community action plan.--The term `community action 
     plan' means a detailed plan, including a budget, that is 
     adopted by an eligible entity, for expenditures of funds 
     appropriated for a fiscal year under this subtitle for the 
     activities supported directly or indirectly by such funds.
       ``(5) Community services network organization.--The term 
     `community services network organization' means any of the 
     following organizations funded under this subtitle:
       ``(A) A grantee.
       ``(B) An eligible entity.
       ``(C) A Tribal grantee.
       ``(D) An association with a membership composed primarily 
     of grantees, eligible entities, Tribal grantees, or 
     associations of grantees, eligible entities, or Tribal 
     grantees.
       ``(6) Department.--The term `Department' means the 
     Department of Health and Human Services.
       ``(7) Eligible entity.--The term `eligible entity' means an 
     entity--
       ``(A) that is an eligible entity described in section 
     673(1) of the Community Services Block Grant Act (as in 
     effect immediately before the date of the enactment of the 
     Community Services Block Grant Modernization Act of 2022) as 
     of the day before such date of enactment, or has been 
     designated by the process described in section 680(a) 
     (including an organization serving migrant or seasonal 
     farmworkers that is so described or designated); and

[[Page H4926]]

       ``(B) that has a tripartite board described in paragraph 
     (1) or (2), as appropriate, of section 680(c).
       ``(8) Evidence-based practice.--The term `evidence-based 
     practice' means an activity, strategy, or intervention that--
       ``(A) demonstrates a statistically significant effect on 
     improving relevant outcomes based on at least one well-
     designed and well-implemented experimental or quasi-
     experimental study, or at least one well-designed and well-
     implemented correlational study with statistical controls for 
     selection bias, and includes ongoing efforts to examine the 
     effects of such activity, strategy, or intervention; or
       ``(B) demonstrates a rationale based on high-quality 
     research findings or positive evaluation that such activity, 
     strategy, or intervention is likely to improve relevant 
     outcomes, and includes ongoing efforts to examine the effects 
     of such activity, strategy, or intervention.
       ``(9) Grantee.--The term `grantee' means a recipient of a 
     grant under section 675 or 676.
       ``(10) Private, nonprofit organization.--The term `private, 
     nonprofit organization' means a domestic organization that 
     is--
       ``(A) described in section 501(c)(3) of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 and exempt from taxation under section 
     501(a) of such Code; and
       ``(B) described in paragraph (1) or (2) of section 509(a) 
     of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
       ``(11) Secretary.--The term `Secretary' means the Secretary 
     of Health and Human Services.
       ``(12) Service area.--The term `service area' means the 
     unique geographic area which the State has designated as the 
     area to be served by an eligible entity with funding under 
     section 679(a)(1).
       ``(13) State.--The term `State' means any of the several 
     States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, American 
     Samoa, the United States Virgin Islands, or the Commonwealth 
     of the Northern Mariana Islands.
       ``(14) Tribal grantee.--The term `Tribal grantee' means an 
     Indian Tribe or Tribal organization, as defined in section 
     677(a), that receives a grant under section 677(c).

     ``SEC. 674. AUTHORIZATION OF COMMUNITY SERVICES BLOCK GRANT 
                   PROGRAM.

       ``(a) Authorization of Program.--The Secretary is 
     authorized to carry out a community services block grant 
     program and to make grants through the program, under 
     sections 675 and 676, to States to support local community 
     action plans carried out by eligible entities to reduce 
     poverty in the communities served by such entities.
       ``(b) Authority of Secretary.--The Secretary is authorized 
     to carry out other community programs described in section 
     690.

     ``SEC. 675. GRANTS TO TERRITORIES.

       ``(a) Apportionment.--The Secretary shall apportion the 
     amount reserved under section 691(c)(1) for each fiscal year 
     on the basis of need, based on the most recent applicable 
     data available from the Bureau of the Census to account for 
     poverty, to eligible jurisdictions among Guam, American 
     Samoa, the United States Virgin Islands, and the Commonwealth 
     of the Northern Mariana Islands.
       ``(b) Grants.--The Secretary shall make a grant to each 
     eligible jurisdiction to which subsection (a) applies for the 
     amount apportioned under subsection (a).
       ``(c) Plans for Apportionment to Territories.--No later 
     than six months after the enactment of this Act, the 
     Secretary shall make publicly available the Department's plan 
     for apportioning funds among territories, including factors 
     that contribute to the calculation of need and methodology 
     for calculating the apportionment for each territory. The 
     Secretary must make publicly available any updates or changes 
     to this plan no less frequently than any time new applicable 
     data are available from the Bureau of Census.

     ``SEC. 676. ALLOTMENTS AND GRANTS TO STATES.

       ``(a) Allotments in General.--From the amount appropriated 
     under section 691(a) for each fiscal year and remaining after 
     the Secretary makes the reservations required by section 
     691(c), the Secretary shall allot to each eligible State, 
     subject to section 677, an amount that bears the same ratio 
     to such remaining amount as the amount received by the State 
     for fiscal year 1981 under section 221 of the Economic 
     Opportunity Act of 1964 bore to the total amount received by 
     all States for fiscal year 1981 under such section, except as 
     provided in subsection (b).
       ``(b) Minimum Allotments.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall allot to each State 
     not less than \1/2\ of 1 percent of the amount appropriated 
     under section 691(a) for such fiscal year and remaining after 
     the Secretary makes the reservations required by section 
     691(c).
       ``(2) Years with greater available funds.--Notwithstanding 
     paragraph (1), if the amount appropriated under section 
     691(a) for a fiscal year and remaining after the Secretary 
     makes the reservations required by section 691(c) exceeds 
     $900,000,000, no State shall receive under this section less 
     than \3/4\ of 1 percent of the remaining amount.
       ``(c) Grants and Payments.--Subject to section 677, the 
     Secretary shall make grants to eligible States for the 
     allotments described in subsections (a) and (b). The 
     Secretary shall make payments for the grants in accordance 
     with section 6503(a) of title 31, United States Code. The 
     Secretary shall allocate the amounts allotted under 
     subsections (a) and (b) on a quarterly basis at a minimum, 
     notify the States of their respective allocations, and make 
     each State's first allocation amount in a fiscal year 
     available for expenditure by the State no later than 30 days 
     after receipt of an approved apportionment from the Office of 
     Management and Budget and, for subsequent allocation amounts 
     in the fiscal year, not later than 30 days after the start of 
     the period for which the Secretary is allocating the funds.
       ``(d) Definition.--In this section, the term `State' does 
     not include Guam, American Samoa, the United States Virgin 
     Islands, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana 
     Islands.

     ``SEC. 677. PAYMENTS TO INDIAN TRIBES.

       ``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) Indian.--The term `Indian' means a member of an 
     Indian Tribe or Tribal organization.
       ``(2) Indian tribe or tribal organization.--The term 
     `Indian Tribe or Tribal organization' means a Tribe, band, or 
     other organized group recognized in the State in which the 
     Tribe, band, or group resides, or considered by the Secretary 
     of the Interior to be an Indian Tribe or an Indian 
     organization for any purpose.
       ``(b) Reservation.--
       ``(1) Application.--Paragraph (2) shall apply only if, with 
     respect to any State, the Secretary--
       ``(A) receives a request from the governing body of an 
     Indian Tribe or Tribal organization in such State that 
     assistance under this subtitle be made available directly to 
     such Indian Tribe or Tribal organization; and
       ``(B) determines that the members of such Indian Tribe or 
     Tribal organization would be better served by means of grants 
     made directly to such Indian Tribe or Tribal organization to 
     provide benefits under this subtitle.
       ``(2) Amount.--The Secretary shall reserve from amounts 
     allotted to a State under section 676 for a fiscal year not 
     less than the amount that bears the same ratio to the State 
     allotment for the fiscal year as the population of all 
     eligible Indians in that particular State for whom a 
     determination has been made under paragraph (1) bears to the 
     population of all individuals eligible for assistance through 
     a grant made under section 676 to such State.
       ``(c) Awards.--The amount reserved by the Secretary on the 
     basis of a determination made under subsection (b)(1)(B) 
     shall be made available by grant to the Indian Tribe or 
     Tribal organization serving the Indians for whom the 
     determination has been made under subsection (b)(1)(B).
       ``(d) Plan.--In order for an Indian Tribe or Tribal 
     organization to be eligible for a grant award for a fiscal 
     year under this section, the Indian Tribe or Tribal 
     organization shall submit to the Secretary a plan for such 
     fiscal year that meets such criteria as the Secretary may 
     prescribe by regulation.
       ``(e) Alternative Performance Measurement System.--The 
     Secretary may implement alternative requirements for 
     implementation by an Indian Tribe or Tribal Organization of 
     the requirements of section 686(a).

     ``SEC. 678. STATE PLANS AND APPLICATIONS; COMMUNITY ACTION 
                   PLANS AND APPLICATIONS.

       ``(a) State Lead Agency.--
       ``(1) Designation.--The chief executive officer of a State 
     desiring to receive a grant under section 675 or 676 shall 
     designate, in an application submitted to the Secretary under 
     subsection (b), an appropriate State agency that agrees to 
     comply with the requirements of paragraph (2), to act as a 
     lead agency for purposes of carrying out State activities 
     under this subtitle.
       ``(2) Duties of state lead agencies.--The State lead 
     agency--
       ``(A) shall be authorized by the chief executive officer to 
     convene State agencies and coordinate information and 
     activities funded under this subtitle;
       ``(B) shall develop the State plan to be submitted to the 
     Secretary under subsection (b), which shall be based 
     primarily on the community action plans of eligible entities, 
     submitted to the State as a condition of receiving funding 
     under this subtitle;
       ``(C) may revise an existing State plan for submission to 
     the Secretary, if considered a major revision under criteria 
     established by the Secretary in regulations required under 
     section 689(a)(1));
       ``(D) in conjunction with the development or revision of 
     the State plan as required under subsection (b)--
       ``(i) shall hold at least 1 hearing in the State on the 
     proposed plan or a proposed major revision to a plan to 
     provide to the public an opportunity to comment on the public 
     record on the proposed use and distribution of funds under 
     the plan;
       ``(ii) not less than 15 days before the hearing, shall 
     distribute notice of the hearing and a copy of the proposed 
     plan or major plan revision statewide to the public and 
     directly to the chief executive officer and the chairperson 
     of the board of each of the eligible entities (or designees) 
     and other community services network organizations; and
       ``(iii) in the case of any proposed plan revision, without 
     regard to whether it is a major revision, shall notify and 
     distribute a copy of the proposed revision statewide directly 
     to the chief executive officer and the chairperson of the 
     board of each of the eligible entities (or designees) and 
     other community services network organizations, before 
     submission of such proposed revision to the Secretary; and
       ``(E) at least every 3 years, in conjunction with the 
     development of the State plan, shall hold at least 1 
     legislative hearing.
       ``(b) State Application for State Program and State Plan.--
     Beginning with the first fiscal year following the transition 
     period described in section 3 of the Community Services Block 
     Grant Modernization Act of 2022, to be eligible to receive a 
     grant under section 675 or 676, a State shall prepare and 
     submit to the Secretary for approval an application 
     containing a State plan covering a period of not more than 2 
     fiscal years. The application shall be submitted not later 
     than 60 days before the beginning of the first fiscal year 
     covered by the plan, and shall contain such information as 
     the Secretary shall require, including--
       ``(1) a description of the manner in which funds made 
     available through the grant under

[[Page H4927]]

     section 675 or 676 will be used to carry out the State 
     activities described in section 679(b) and the State's 
     community action plans;
       ``(2) a description summarizing the community action plans 
     of the eligible entities serving the State;
       ``(3) an assurance that the State and all eligible entities 
     in the State will participate in a performance measurement 
     system under section 686(a)(1)(A);
       ``(4) a plan for the State's oversight of eligible 
     entities;
       ``(5) an assurance that the State will make payments to 
     eligible entities in accordance with section 679(a)(2);
       ``(6) an assurance that no eligible entity in the State 
     that received, in the previous fiscal year, funding through a 
     grant made under section 675 or 676 will have funding reduced 
     below the proportional share of funding the entity received 
     from the State in the previous fiscal year, or eliminated, or 
     its designation as an eligible entity terminated, unless, 
     after providing the affected entity (or entities, as 
     applicable) with notice and an opportunity for a hearing on 
     the record, the State determines that cause exists for the 
     reduction or elimination of funding or for termination of 
     such designation, subject to review by the Secretary as 
     provided in section 684(c); and--
       ``(A) in the case of failure of an eligible entity to 
     comply with the terms of a corrective action plan relating to 
     correction of a serious deficiency, except according to the 
     procedures set forth in section 684(b); and
       ``(B) for purposes of this subsection, the term `cause' 
     means--
       ``(i) the failure of an eligible entity to comply with the 
     terms of a corrective action plan relating to correction of a 
     serious deficiency as described in subsection 684(b); or
       ``(ii) a statewide proportional distribution of funds 
     provided through a community services block grant under this 
     subtitle to respond to--

       ``(I) the results of the most recently available census or 
     other appropriate demographic data;
       ``(II) severe economic dislocation; or
       ``(III) the designation of an eligible entity to serve a 
     geographic area that has been unserved for at least the 
     previous 5 years;

       ``(7) an assurance that each eligible entity serving the 
     State has established procedures that permit a low-income 
     individual or organization to petition for adequate 
     representation of such individuals or organizations, 
     respectively, on the board of the eligible entity;
       ``(8) a description of outcome measures to be used to 
     measure State and eligible entity performance in achieving 
     the goals of the State plan and the community action plans, 
     respectively;
       ``(9) an assurance that the State will develop a policy on 
     board vacancies in accordance with section 680(c)(3) and 
     provide guidance to assist eligible entities in filling board 
     vacancies; and
       ``(10) an assurance that the State and the eligible 
     entities in the State will coordinate, and establish linkages 
     between, governmental and other social services programs to 
     assure the effective delivery of such services to low-income 
     individuals and to avoid duplication of such services, and a 
     description of how the State and the eligible entities will 
     coordinate the provision of employment and training 
     activities, as defined in section 3 of the Workforce 
     Innovation and Opportunity Act, in the State and in 
     communities with entities providing activities through 
     statewide and local workforce development systems under such 
     Act.
       ``(c) Approval.--The Secretary shall notify the chief 
     executive officer of each State submitting an application 
     containing a State plan under this section of the approval, 
     disapproval, or approval in part, of the application, not 
     later than 60 days after receiving the application. In the 
     event of a full or partial disapproval, the Secretary's 
     notification shall include a description of changes necessary 
     for final approval. In the event of a partial approval, the 
     Secretary may allow grantee use of funds for activities 
     included in the portions of the plan which the Secretary has 
     approved. In the event a State application fails to be 
     approved in whole or in part before the end of the third 
     month of the period covered by such plan the Secretary may 
     award funding as specified in section 684(a)(5)(B).
       ``(d) Public Inspection.--Each plan and major revision to a 
     State plan prepared under this section shall be distributed 
     for public inspection and comment. A hearing on such plan or 
     major revision shall be held as required under subparagraphs 
     (C) and (D) of subsection (a)(2), but a State application for 
     merger, combination, or privatization of entities under 
     section 680(b) shall not be considered a major revision.
       ``(e) Eligible Entity Application and Community Action 
     Plan.--Beginning with the first fiscal year following the 
     transition period described in section 3 of the Community 
     Services Block Grant Modernization Act of 2022, to be 
     eligible to receive a subgrant under section 679(a), each 
     eligible entity shall prepare and submit to the State an 
     application containing a community action plan or plans 
     covering a period of not more than 2 fiscal years. Such 
     application shall be submitted in a reasonable and timely 
     manner as required by the State. The application shall 
     contain information on the intended implementation of the 
     eligible entity's activities, including demonstrating how the 
     activities will--
       ``(1) meet needs identified in the most recent 
     comprehensive community needs assessment which has been 
     conducted in the previous 3 years and which may be 
     coordinated with community needs assessments conducted for 
     other programs; and
       ``(2) achieve the purposes of this subtitle through 
     programs, projects, and services.

     ``SEC. 679. STATE AND LOCAL USES OF FUNDS.

       ``(a) State Subgrants to Eligible Entities and Other 
     Organizations.--
       ``(1) In general.--A State that receives a grant under 
     section 675 or 676 shall use not less than 90 percent to make 
     subgrants to eligible entities that enable the entities to 
     implement programs, projects, and services for a purpose 
     described in section 672.
       ``(2) Obligational requirements.--
       ``(A) Date of obligation.--The State shall obligate the 
     funds for subgrants described in paragraph (1) and make such 
     subgrants available for expenditure by eligible entities not 
     later than the later of--
       ``(i) the 30th day after the date on which the State 
     receives from the Secretary a notice of funding availability 
     for the State's application under section 678 for a first or 
     subsequent allocation for a fiscal year; or
       ``(ii) the first day of the State program year for which 
     funds are to be expended under the State application.
       ``(B) Exception.--If funds are appropriated to carry out 
     this subtitle for less than a full fiscal year, a State may 
     request an exception from the Secretary from the requirement 
     to make subgrants available for expenditure by eligible 
     entities in accordance with subparagraph (A), except that a 
     State may not accumulate more than one fiscal quarter's worth 
     of funding without making such funds available for 
     expenditure by eligible entities.
       ``(C) Availability.--Funds allocated to eligible entities 
     through subgrants made under paragraph (1) for a fiscal year 
     shall be available for obligation by the eligible entity 
     during that fiscal year and the succeeding fiscal year.
       ``(b) Statewide Activities.--
       ``(1) Use of remainder.--
       ``(A) In general.--A State that receives a grant under 
     section 675 or 676 shall, after carrying out subsection (a), 
     use the remainder of the grant funds for activities described 
     in the State's application under section 678(b) as described 
     in subparagraph (B) and for administrative expenses subject 
     to the limitations in paragraph (2).
       ``(B) Training and technical assistance.--After applying 
     subsection (a), the State may use the remaining grant funds 
     for the purposes of--
       ``(i) providing to eligible entities training and technical 
     assistance and resources to respond to statewide or regional 
     conditions that create economic insecurity, including 
     emergency conditions;
       ``(ii) supporting professional development activities for 
     eligible entities that enhance the skills of their local 
     personnel (including members of the board of directors of 
     such entities) in organizational management, service 
     delivery, and program development and management, giving 
     priority to activities carried out through partnerships of 
     such entities with institutions of higher education;
       ``(iii) supporting information and communication resources 
     for the comprehensive community needs assessments described 
     in section 678(e)(1);
       ``(iv) supporting performance measurement systems 
     consistent with the requirements of section 686;
       ``(v) promoting coordination and cooperation among eligible 
     entities in the State, including supporting activities of a 
     statewide association of community services network 
     organizations;
       ``(vi) providing training and technical assistance and 
     resources to assist eligible entities in building and using 
     evidence of effectiveness in reducing poverty conditions, 
     including entities participating in or proposing to 
     participate in the Community Action Innovations Program 
     established under section 682(a)(2);
       ``(vii) supporting efforts of eligible entities to identify 
     and respond to physical and behavioral health challenges 
     (including substance use disorders) experienced by low-income 
     individuals, families, and communities; and
       ``(viii) analyzing the distribution of funds made available 
     under this subtitle within the State to determine if such 
     funds have been targeted to the areas of greatest need.
       ``(2) Administrative cap.--
       ``(A) Limitation.--Of the amounts remaining after the 
     required funding for subgrants described under subsection 
     (a)(1), a State shall not spend more than 5 percent of its 
     grant under section 675 or 676 for administrative expenses.
       ``(B) Definition.--In this paragraph, the term 
     `administrative expenses'--
       ``(i) means the costs incurred by the State's lead agency 
     for carrying out planning and management activities, 
     including monitoring, oversight, and reporting as required by 
     this Act; and
       ``(ii) does not include the cost of activities conducted 
     under paragraph (1)(B) other than monitoring.
       ``(c) Eligible Entity Use of Funds.--An eligible entity 
     that receives a subgrant under subsection (a)(1) shall use 
     the subgrant funds to carry out a community action plan that 
     shall include--
       ``(1) programs, projects, and services that provide low-
     income individuals and families with opportunities--
       ``(A) to identify and develop strategies to remove 
     obstacles and solve problems that block access to 
     opportunity, economic stability, and achievement of self-
     sufficiency;
       ``(B) to secure and retain meaningful employment at a 
     family supporting wage;
       ``(C) to secure an adequate education, improve literacy and 
     language skills, and obtain job-related skills;
       ``(D) to make effective use of available income and build 
     assets;
       ``(E) to obtain and maintain adequate housing and a safe 
     and healthy living environment;
       ``(F) to address health needs and improve health and well-
     being;
       ``(G) to obtain emergency materials or other assistance to 
     meet immediate and urgent needs, including to meet the 
     collective needs of a community, and prevent greater or more 
     prolonged economic instability;

[[Page H4928]]

       ``(H) to secure and identify assistance related to reducing 
     energy expenses and reducing energy consumption; and
       ``(I) to achieve greater participation in community 
     affairs; and
       ``(2) activities that develop and maintain--
       ``(A) partnerships for the purpose of addressing community, 
     economic, and social conditions of poverty and promoting 
     healthy communities, between the eligible entity and--
       ``(i) State and local public entities; and
       ``(ii) private partners, including statewide and local 
     businesses, associations of private employers, and private 
     charitable and civic organizations;
       ``(B) linkages with public and private organizations for 
     coordinating initiatives, services, and investments so as to 
     avoid duplication, and maximize the effective use, of 
     community resources for creating economic opportunity, 
     including developing lasting social and economic assets; and
       ``(C) new investments in the community to reduce the 
     incidence of poverty, including developing lasting social and 
     economic assets.
       ``(d) Eligibility Criterion.--
       ``(1) Subject to paragraph (2), 200 percent of the poverty 
     line shall be used as a criterion of eligibility for 
     services, assistance, or resources provided directly to 
     individuals or families through the community services block 
     grant program established under this subtitle.
       ``(2) A State or Tribal grantee may establish procedures to 
     ensure that a participant in a program, project, or service 
     funded under this subtitle remains eligible to participate as 
     long as the participant is successfully progressing toward 
     achievement of the goals of the program, project, or service, 
     regardless of the income eligibility criteria used to 
     determine the participant's initial eligibility.

     ``SEC. 680. ELIGIBLE ENTITIES AND TRIPARTITE BOARDS.

       ``(a) Designation and Redesignation of Eligible Entities in 
     Unserved Areas.--
       ``(1) In general.--If any geographic area of a State is 
     not, or ceases to be, served by an eligible entity, the State 
     lead agency may, in consultation with local officials and 
     organizations representing the area, solicit one or more 
     applications and designate a new community action agency to 
     provide programs, projects, and services to the area, that 
     is--
       ``(A) a community action agency that is a private, 
     nonprofit organization and that is geographically located in 
     an area in reasonable proximity of, or contiguous to, the 
     unserved area and that is already providing similar programs, 
     projects, and services, and that has demonstrated financial 
     capacity to manage and account for Federal funds; or
       ``(B) if no community action agency described in 
     subparagraph (A) is available, a private, nonprofit 
     organization (which may include an eligible entity) that is 
     geographically located in, or is in reasonable proximity to, 
     the unserved area and that is capable of providing a broad 
     range of programs, projects, and services designed to achieve 
     the purposes of this subtitle as stated in section 672.
       ``(2) Requirement.--In order to serve as the eligible 
     entity for the service area, an entity described in paragraph 
     (1) shall agree to ensure that the governing board of 
     directors of the entity will meet the requirements of 
     subsection (c).
       ``(3) Community.--A service area referred to in this 
     subsection or a portion thereof shall be treated as a 
     community for purposes of this subtitle.
       ``(4) Interim designation.--If no entity that meets the 
     requirements of paragraphs (1) and (2) is available for 
     designation as a permanent eligible entity, the State may 
     designate a private, nonprofit agency (or public agency if a 
     private, nonprofit is not available) on an interim basis for 
     no more than 1 year while the State completes a selection 
     process for a permanent eligible entity that meets the 
     requirements of paragraphs (1) and (2). An agency designated 
     on an interim basis shall be capable of providing programs, 
     projects, and services designed to achieve the purposes of 
     this subtitle as stated in section 672 and have demonstrated 
     financial capacity to manage and account for Federal funds, 
     and may be designated as a permanent eligible entity only if, 
     by the time of permanent designation, it meets all the 
     requirements of paragraphs (1) and (2).
       ``(b) Merger, Combination, or Privatization of Eligible 
     Entities.--
       ``(1) In general.--If an eligible entity receiving subgrant 
     funds makes a determination described in paragraph (2) and 
     notifies the State, the State--
       ``(A) shall assist in developing a plan for implementing 
     such merger, combination, or privatization, including a 
     budget for transitional costs not to exceed 2 years in 
     duration;
       ``(B) in the case of a merger or combination, shall provide 
     to the merged or combined entity an amount of funding under 
     section 679(a)(1) equal to the sum of amounts the merged or 
     combined entities each received under section 679(a)(1) 
     immediately before the merger or combination.
       ``(2) Covered merger, combination, or privatization.--This 
     subsection applies when--
       ``(A) 2 or more eligible entities determine that the 
     geographic areas of a State that they serve can be more 
     effectively served under common control or shared management; 
     or
       ``(B) a public organization that is an eligible entity 
     determines that the area it serves can be more effectively 
     served if it becomes a private, nonprofit organization.
       ``(3) Plans.--A State may establish requirements for 
     merger, combination, or privatization plans and for a 
     determination that the merged, combined, or privatized 
     entity, or entities, will be capable of conducting a broad 
     range of programs, projects, and services designed to achieve 
     the purposes of this subtitle as stated in section 672 
     consistent with the comprehensive community needs assessments 
     for the areas served.
       ``(4) State determination.--If a State determines that a 
     merged, combined, or privatized entity or entities will be 
     capable of conducting a broad range of programs, projects, 
     and services as specified in paragraph (3), it shall 
     designate the merged, combined, or privatized entity or 
     entities to serve the area(s) in question without soliciting 
     applications from other entities.
       ``(c) Tripartite Boards.--
       ``(1) Private, nonprofit organizations.--
       ``(A) Board.--In order for a private, nonprofit 
     organization to be considered to be an eligible entity for 
     purposes of section 673(7), the entity shall be governed by a 
     tripartite board of directors described in subparagraph (C) 
     that fully participates in the development, planning, 
     implementation, oversight, and evaluation of the programs, 
     projects, and services carried out or provided through the 
     subgrant made under section 679(a)(1) and all activities of 
     the entity.
       ``(B) Selection.--The members of the board referred to in 
     subparagraph (A) shall be selected by the private, nonprofit 
     organization.
       ``(C) Composition of board.--The board shall be composed so 
     as to assure that--
       ``(i) \1/3\ of the members of the board are elected public 
     officials holding office on the date of selection, or their 
     representatives (but if an elected public official chooses 
     not to serve, such official may designate a representative to 
     serve as the voting board member);
       ``(ii) not fewer than \1/3\ of the members are persons 
     chosen in accordance with democratic selection procedures 
     adequate to assure that such members are representative of 
     low-income individuals and families in the service area; and 
     if selected to represent a specific geographic area, such 
     member resides in that area; and
       ``(iii) the remainder of the members may be comprised of 
     representatives from business, industry, labor, religious, 
     educational, charitable, or other significant groups and 
     interests in the community.
       ``(D) Expertise.--The eligible entity shall ensure that the 
     members of the board are provided resources, which may 
     include contracted services with individuals and 
     organizations with expertise in financial management, 
     accounting, and law, to support the work of the board.
       ``(E) Compliance with tax-exempt and other requirements.--
     The board of a private, nonprofit organization shall ensure 
     that the board operates and conducts activities under the 
     subgrant made under section 679(a)(1) in a manner that 
     complies with--
       ``(i) the requirements for maintaining tax-exempt status 
     under section 501(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (26 
     U.S.C. 501(a)) regarding the governance of charities under 
     section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (26 
     U.S.C. 501(c)(3)); and
       ``(ii) applicable requirements of State nonprofit law.
       ``(2) Public organizations.--
       ``(A) Board.--In order for a local public (governmental) 
     entity to be considered to be an eligible entity for purposes 
     of section 673(7), the entity shall ensure that the programs, 
     projects, and services carried out or provided through the 
     subgrant made under section 679(a)(1) are administered under 
     the supervision of a tripartite board described in 
     subparagraph (C) that fully participates in the development, 
     planning, implementation, oversight, and evaluation of such 
     programs, projects, and services.
       ``(B) Selection.--The members of the board referred to in 
     subparagraph (A) shall be selected by the local public 
     entity.
       ``(C) Composition of board.--The board shall be composed so 
     as to assure that--
       ``(i) not more than \1/3\ of the members of the board are 
     employees or officials, including elected officials, of the 
     unit of government in which the organization is located;
       ``(ii) not fewer than \1/3\ of the members are persons 
     chosen in accordance with democratic selection procedures 
     adequate to assure that such members are representative of 
     low-income individuals and families in the service area; and 
     if selected to represent a specific geographic area, such 
     member resides in that area; and
       ``(iii) the remainder of the members may be comprised of 
     representatives from business, industry, labor, religious, 
     educational, charitable, or other significant groups and 
     interests in the community.
       ``(D) Expertise.--The eligible entity shall ensure that the 
     members of the board are provided resources, which may 
     include contracted services with individuals and 
     organizations with expertise in financial management, 
     accounting, and law, to support the work of the board.
       ``(E) Compliance with state requirements and policy.--The 
     board of a public organization shall ensure that the board 
     operates in a manner that complies with State requirements 
     for open meetings, financial transparency, and State open 
     records policy.
       ``(3) Board vacancies.--To fulfill the requirements under 
     this section, an eligible entity shall fill a board vacancy 
     not later than 6 months after such vacancy arises. In the 
     event that an eligible entity is unable to fill a board 
     vacancy in the 6-month period, the entity shall certify to 
     the State that it is making a good faith effort to fill the 
     vacancy and shall receive 1 additional 6-month period to fill 
     such vacancy.
       ``(4) Safeguard.--Neither the Federal Government nor a 
     State or local government shall require a religious 
     organization to alter its form of internal governance, except 
     (for purposes of administration of the community services 
     block grant program) as provided in section 680(c).
       ``(d) Operations and Duties of the Board.--The duties of a 
     board described in paragraph (1) or (2) of subsection (c) 
     shall include--
       ``(1) in the case of a board for a private, nonprofit 
     organization that is an eligible entity, having legal and 
     financial responsibility for administering and overseeing the 
     eligible entity, including making proper use of Federal 
     funds;

[[Page H4929]]

       ``(2) establishing terms for officers and adopting a code 
     of ethical conduct, including a conflict of interest policy 
     for board members;
       ``(3) participating in each comprehensive community needs 
     assessment, developing and adopting for the corresponding 
     eligible entity an agency-wide strategic plan, and preparing 
     the community action plan for the use of funds under this 
     subtitle;
       ``(4) approving the eligible entity's operating budget;
       ``(5) reviewing all major policies such that--
       ``(A) for private, nonprofit organizations that are 
     eligible entities, a review includes conducting annual 
     performance reviews of the eligible entity's chief executive 
     officer (or individual holding an equivalent position); and
       ``(B) for local public entities that are eligible entities, 
     a review includes participating in annual performance reviews 
     of the eligible entity's chief executive officer (or 
     individual holding an equivalent position);
       ``(6) performing oversight of the eligible entity to 
     include--
       ``(A) conducting assessments of the eligible entity's 
     progress in carrying out programmatic and financial 
     provisions in the community action plan; and
       ``(B) in the case of any required corrective action, 
     reviewing the eligible entity's plans and progress in 
     remedying identified deficiencies; and
       ``(7) concerning personnel policies and procedures--
       ``(A) in the case of private, nonprofit organizations that 
     are eligible entities, adopting personnel policies and 
     procedures, including for hiring, annual evaluation, 
     compensation, and termination, of the eligible entity's chief 
     executive officer (or individual holding a similar position); 
     and
       ``(B) in the case of local public entities that are 
     eligible entities, reviewing personnel policies and 
     procedures, including for hiring, annual evaluation, 
     compensation, and termination, of the eligible entity's chief 
     executive officer (or individual holding a similar position).
       ``(e) Conflict of Interest.--In establishing the conflict 
     of interest policy described in subsection (d)(2), a board 
     shall ensure that such policy--
       ``(1) requires a board member to recuse themself from any 
     discussion, deliberations, and votes relating to any contract 
     or transaction from which the following would receive a 
     direct financial benefit from the eligible entity:
       ``(A) such board member;
       ``(B) the immediate family member of such board member; or
       ``(C) an organization or a business from which such board 
     member, or an immediate family of such board member, receives 
     a direct financial benefit;
       ``(2) prohibits a board member from receiving compensation 
     for serving on the board from the eligible entity other than 
     for reasonable expenses, except that a board member's receipt 
     of an economic benefit from the eligible entity because such 
     member is eligible to receive benefits and services under 
     this subtitle shall not be considered to be compensation for 
     purposes of this subsection; and
       ``(3) ensures all activities funded under this subtitle are 
     conducted free of personal or family favoritism.''.

     ``SEC. 681. OFFICE OF COMMUNITY SERVICES.

       ``(a) Office.--
       ``(1) Establishment.--The Secretary shall establish an 
     Office of Community Services in the Department to carry out 
     the functions of this subtitle.
       ``(2) Director.--The Office shall be headed by a Director 
     (referred to in this section as the `Director').
       ``(b) Grants, Contracts, and Cooperative Agreements.--The 
     Secretary, acting through the Director, shall carry out the 
     functions of this subtitle through grants, contracts, or 
     cooperative agreements.

     ``SEC. 682. TRAINING, TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE, AND RELATED 
                   ACTIVITIES.

       ``(a) Activities.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall--
       ``(A) use amounts reserved under section 691(c)(2) for 
     training, technical assistance, planning, assessment, and 
     performance measurement, as described in this section and in 
     sections 684 and 686, to assist States, eligible entities, 
     Tribal grantees, and other community services network 
     organizations in--
       ``(i) building and using evidence of effectiveness in 
     reducing poverty conditions, including through development 
     and dissemination of information about clearinghouses and 
     other resources that identify relevant evidence-based 
     initiatives, for use in connection with the Community Action 
     Innovations Program established under paragraph (2);
       ``(ii) carrying out professional development activities 
     that expand the capacity of eligible entities and Tribal 
     grantees;
       ``(iii) carrying out performance measurement, data 
     collection, and reporting activities related to programs, 
     projects, and services carried out under this subtitle; and
       ``(iv) correcting programmatic deficiencies, including such 
     deficiencies of eligible entities or Tribal grantees; and
       ``(B) distribute the amounts reserved under section 
     691(c)(2)(A) through grants, contracts, or cooperative 
     agreements with eligible entities, Tribal grantees, and other 
     community services network organizations described in 
     subsection (b) for--
       ``(i) professional development for key community services 
     network organization personnel;
       ``(ii) activities to improve community services network 
     organization programs, financial management, compliance, and 
     governance practices (including practices related to 
     performance management information systems);
       ``(iii) activities that train community services network 
     organizations and their staff and board members to 
     effectively address the needs of low-income families and 
     communities through place-based strategies that address local 
     causes and conditions of poverty through coordinated 
     investment and integrated service delivery; and
       ``(iv) activities that train community services network 
     organizations in building and using evidence of effectiveness 
     in reducing poverty conditions and that support effective 
     administration of funds under the Community Action 
     Innovations Program established under paragraph (2).
       ``(2) Innovative and evidence-based projects to reduce 
     poverty.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall use amounts reserved 
     under section 691(c)(3) for a Community Action Innovations 
     Program to--
       ``(i) award grants, contracts, or cooperative agreements to 
     eligible entities, Tribal grantees, and other community 
     services network organizations, including consortia of such 
     entities, grantees, or organizations to facilitate innovation 
     and use of evidence-based practice designed to reduce poverty 
     conditions, including through whole family approaches that 
     create opportunities for, and address the needs of, parents 
     and children together; and
       ``(ii) disseminate results for public use.
       ``(B) Projects.--The Secretary shall award funds from its 
     Community Action Innovations Program for projects to enable--
       ``(i) replication or expansion of innovative practices with 
     demonstrated evidence of effectiveness, with priority given 
     to those with the strongest evidence base as determined 
     through a broad review of available studies; or
       ``(ii) testing of innovative practices to determine their 
     effectiveness, with priority given to those incorporating 
     rigorous, independent evaluation to further build the 
     evidence base.
       ``(C) Use of funds.--The funds reserved for use under this 
     paragraph may be used by awardees for resources or activities 
     necessary to replicate, expand, or test innovative and 
     evidence-based practices, including costs of training and 
     technical assistance, evaluation, data collection, and 
     technology.
       ``(D) Expenses.--The funds reserved for use under this 
     paragraph may be used for reasonable expenses of awardees, 
     associated with administration of projects and dissemination 
     of their results.
       ``(E) Awards and obligation.--The Secretary shall award and 
     obligate funds reserved for projects under this paragraph 
     during the first program year for which the funds are 
     appropriated. Grant funds awarded under this paragraph shall 
     remain available for expenditure by the awardee not later 
     than 36 months after the date of award by the Secretary, 
     unless a longer period of availability is approved by the 
     Secretary based on extenuating circumstances and demonstrated 
     evidence of effectiveness.
       ``(b) Eligible Entities, Tribal Grantees, and Other 
     Community Services Network Organizations.--Eligible entities, 
     Tribal grantees, and other community services network 
     organizations referred to in subsection (a)(1)(B) shall 
     include such entities, grantees, and organizations (and their 
     partners, including institutions of higher education) with 
     demonstrated expertise in providing training for individuals 
     and organizations on methods of effectively addressing the 
     needs of low-income families and communities and, if 
     appropriate, expertise in Tribal issues.
       ``(c) Training and Technical Assistance Process.--`The 
     process for determining the training and technical assistance 
     to be carried out under subsection (a)(1) shall--
       ``(1) ensure that the needs of eligible entities, Tribal 
     grantees, and programs relating to improving program quality 
     (including quality of financial management practices) are 
     addressed to the maximum extent feasible; and
       ``(2) incorporate mechanisms to ensure responsiveness to 
     local needs, including an ongoing procedure for obtaining 
     input from the national and State networks of eligible 
     entities.

     ``SEC. 683. STATE MONITORING OF ELIGIBLE ENTITIES.

       ``In order to determine whether eligible entities receiving 
     subgrants under this subtitle meet performance goals, 
     administrative standards, financial management requirements, 
     and other requirements under this subtitle, the State shall 
     conduct the following reviews of eligible entities:
       ``(1) A full onsite review of each eligible entity at least 
     once during each 3-year period.
       ``(2) An onsite review of each newly designated eligible 
     entity immediately after the completion of the first year in 
     which such entity receives funds through the community 
     services block grant program under this subtitle.
       ``(3) Followup reviews, including onsite reviews scheduled 
     in a corrective action plan (including return visits), in a 
     calendar quarter for eligible entities with programs, 
     projects, or services that fail to meet the State's 
     performance criteria, standards, financial management 
     requirements, or other significant requirements established 
     under this subtitle.
       ``(4) Other reviews as appropriate, including reviews of 
     eligible entities with programs, projects, and services that 
     have had other Federal, State, or local grants (other than 
     assistance provided under this subtitle) terminated for 
     cause.
       ``(5) In conducting reviews, including as required by 
     paragraph (1), a State may conduct a remote (including 
     virtual) review of an eligible entity in extraordinary 
     circumstances if approved by the Secretary on a case-by-case 
     basis.

     ``SEC. 684. ASSESSMENTS; CORRECTIVE ACTION; REDUCTION OR 
                   ELIMINATION OF FUNDING.

       ``(a) Assessments of States by the Secretary.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall conduct, in not 
     fewer than 1/5 of the States in each

[[Page H4930]]

     fiscal year, assessments (including investigations) of State 
     compliance with this subtitle, including requirements 
     relating to the use of funds received under this subtitle, 
     requirements applicable to State plans submitted under 
     section 678(b), and requirements of section 679(a)(2).
       ``(2) Report to states.--The Secretary shall submit to each 
     State assessed, and make available to the public on the 
     Department's website, a report containing--
       ``(A) the results of such assessment; and
       ``(B)(i) recommendations for improvements designed to 
     enhance the benefit and impact of the activities carried out 
     with such funds; and
       ``(ii) in the event a serious deficiency is found regarding 
     a State's compliance with this subtitle, including 
     requirements relating to the use of funds received under this 
     subtitle, a proposed corrective action plan.
       ``(3) State response.--Not later than 45 days after 
     receiving a report under paragraph (2)--
       ``(A) a State that received recommendations under paragraph 
     (2)(B)(i) shall submit to the Secretary and make available to 
     the public on the State lead agency's website a plan of 
     action in response to the recommendations; and
       ``(B) a State that received a proposed corrective action 
     plan under paragraph (2)(B)(ii) shall agree to implement the 
     corrective action plan proposed by the Secretary or propose 
     to the Secretary and make available to the public on the 
     State lead agency's website a different corrective action 
     plan, developed by the State in a timely manner that the 
     State will implement upon approval by the Secretary.
       ``(4) Report to congress.--The Secretary shall submit the 
     results of the assessments annually, as part of the report 
     submitted by the Secretary in accordance with section 
     686(b)(2).
       ``(5) Enforcement.--
       ``(A) Reduction or elimination of funding.--If the 
     Secretary determines, in a final decision based on an 
     assessment conducted under this section, that a State fails 
     to meet the requirements of this subtitle, the Secretary may, 
     after providing adequate notice and an opportunity for a 
     hearing, initiate proceedings to reduce or eliminate the 
     amount of funding apportioned and allocated to the State as 
     described in section 675 or 676, as applicable (and, if 
     necessary, deobligate such funding).
       ``(B) Direct awards to other entities.--
       ``(i) Reduction or elimination of state funding; lack of 
     approved state plan.--If the Secretary reduces or eliminates 
     funding to a State under subparagraph (A), the Secretary 
     shall award funding directly as provided under clauses (ii) 
     and (iii). If, for a particular fiscal year, a State plan is 
     not approved by the Secretary in accordance with section 
     678(c), the Secretary may award funding directly as provided 
     under clauses (ii) and (iii).
       ``(ii) Direct funding to eligible entities.--If funding 
     specified in section 679(a)(1) is reduced or eliminated due 
     to the Secretary's reduction or elimination of funding under 
     subparagraph (A), or if the Secretary chooses to award 
     funding directly due to the lack of an approved State plan as 
     authorized in clause (i), the Secretary shall award financial 
     assistance in the amount of such reduced or eliminated 
     funding, or in the amount the State would have received for 
     the purposes specified in section 679(a)(1) had a State plan 
     been approved, directly (by grant or cooperative agreement) 
     to affected eligible entities (provided that any such entity 
     has not had its funding under this subtitle eliminated or its 
     designation as an eligible entity terminated by the State in 
     accordance with subsections (b) and (c) of section 684) to 
     carry out the activities described in section 679(c). In 
     awarding such funding, the Secretary shall ensure that each 
     such affected eligible entity receives the same proportionate 
     share of funding under section 679(a)(1) that it received in 
     the previous fiscal year.
       ``(iii) Statewide funds.--If funding specified in section 
     679(b) is reduced or eliminated due to the Secretary's 
     reduction or elimination of funding under subparagraph (A), 
     or if the Secretary chooses to award funding directly due to 
     the lack of an approved State plan as authorized in clause 
     (i), the Secretary shall reserve an amount equal to the 
     amount of such reduced or eliminated funds, or to the amount 
     the State would have received for the purposes specified in 
     section 679(b) had a State plan been approved. The Secretary 
     may use such amount for such purposes directly or through a 
     grant or cooperative agreement to community services network 
     organizations (other than the State itself).
       ``(iv) Reduction.--In the case of expenditure as provided 
     in accordance with this subparagraph, the Secretary shall 
     reduce funding the State would otherwise have received under 
     section 675 or 676 (and, if necessary, deobligate such 
     funding) for the appropriate fiscal year by an amount equal 
     to the amount so expended.
       ``(6) Training and technical assistance.--The Secretary, 
     through the Department's own employees or contractors (rather 
     than under grants, contracts, or cooperative agreements 
     issued under section 682), shall provide training and 
     technical assistance to States with respect to the 
     development or implementation of the States' corrective 
     action plans.
       ``(b) Determination of Eligible Entity Failure To Comply.--
       ``(1) Corrective action by eligible entities.--If the State 
     determines, on the basis of a review pursuant to section 683 
     or section 685, that there is a serious deficiency regarding 
     an eligible entity's compliance with this subtitle, the State 
     shall inform the entity of the serious deficiencies that 
     shall be corrected and provide technical assistance for the 
     corrective action.
       ``(2) Eligible entity corrective action plans.--An eligible 
     entity that is found to have a serious deficiency under 
     paragraph (1) shall develop, in a timely manner, a corrective 
     action plan that shall be subject to the approval of the 
     State, and that shall specify--
       ``(A) the deficiencies to be corrected;
       ``(B) the actions to be taken to correct such deficiencies; 
     and
       ``(C) the timetable for accomplishment of the corrective 
     actions specified.
       ``(3) Final decision.--If the State determines, on the 
     basis of a final decision in a review conducted under section 
     683, that an eligible entity fails to comply with the terms 
     of a corrective action plan under paragraph (2) relating to 
     correction of a serious deficiency for the eligible entity, 
     the State may, after providing adequate notice and an 
     opportunity for a hearing, initiate proceedings to withhold, 
     reduce, or eliminate the funding provided under section 
     679(a)(1) to the eligible entity (including, in the case of 
     elimination of funding, terminating the designation under 
     this subtitle of the eligible entity) unless the entity 
     corrects the serious deficiency.
       ``(c) Review.--A State's decision to withhold, reduce, or 
     eliminate funding, or to terminate the designation of an 
     eligible entity (or eligible entities, as applicable) may be 
     reviewed by the Secretary. Upon request by a community 
     services network organization, the Secretary shall review 
     such a determination. The review shall be completed not later 
     than 60 days after the Secretary receives from the State all 
     necessary documentation relating to the determination. The 
     State shall submit such documentation within a reasonable 
     time frame established by the Secretary.
       ``(d) Direct Assistance.--Whenever the Secretary determines 
     that a State has violated the State plan described in section 
     678(b) (including the assurance described in section 
     678(b)(6)) and the State has reduced or eliminated the 
     funding provided under section 679(a) to any eligible entity 
     or entities or terminated the eligible entity designation of 
     any eligible entity or entities before the completion of the 
     State proceedings described in section 678(b)(6) (including, 
     if applicable, the proceedings required by subsection (b)) 
     and the Secretary's review as required by subsection (c), the 
     Secretary may provide financial assistance under this 
     subtitle to the affected eligible entity or entities directly 
     until the violation is corrected by the State. In such a 
     case, the Secretary may reduce funding the State would 
     otherwise have received under section 675 or 676 (and, if 
     necessary, deobligate such funding) for the appropriate 
     fiscal year by an amount equal to the financial assistance 
     provided directly by the Secretary to such eligible entity or 
     entities.

     ``SEC. 685. STATE AND LOCAL FISCAL CONTROLS AND AUDITS.

       ``(a) Fiscal Controls, Procedures, Audits, and 
     Inspections.--A State that receives funds under this subtitle 
     shall--
       ``(1) establish fiscal control and fund accounting 
     procedures necessary to assure the proper disbursal of, and 
     accounting for, Federal funds paid to the State under this 
     subtitle, including procedures for monitoring the funds 
     provided under this subtitle;
       ``(2) ensure that cost and accounting standards of the 
     Office of Management and Budget apply to a subrecipient of 
     the funds under this subtitle;
       ``(3) in accordance with subsections (b) and (c), prepare, 
     not less than once each year, an audit of the expenditures of 
     the State of amounts received under this subtitle; and
       ``(4) make appropriate books, documents, papers, and 
     records available to the Secretary and the Comptroller 
     General of the United States, or any of their duly authorized 
     representatives, for examination, copying, or mechanical 
     reproduction, on or off the premises of the appropriate 
     entity, upon a reasonable request for the items.
       ``(b) Independent Entity.--Subject to subsection (c), each 
     audit required by subsection (a)(3) shall be conducted by an 
     entity independent of any agency administering activities or 
     services under this subtitle and shall be conducted in 
     accordance with generally accepted accounting principles.
       ``(c) Single Audit Requirements.--
       ``(1) In general.--Any audit under this subsection shall be 
     conducted in the manner and to the extent provided in chapter 
     75 of title 31, United States Code (commonly known as the 
     `Single Audit Act Amendments of 1984') except in the event a 
     serious financial deficiency is identified.
       ``(2) Serious financial deficiency.--In the event that such 
     a deficiency is identified, the Secretary shall order--
       ``(A) an audit conducted as described in subsection (a); or
       ``(B) an audit of each of the accounts involved, in 
     accordance with subsections (b) and (d).
       ``(d) Submission of Copies.--Not later than 30 days after 
     the completion of each audit in a State as required in 
     subsection (a)(3), the chief executive officer of the State 
     shall submit copies of such audit, at no charge, to any 
     eligible entity that was the subject of the audit, to the 
     legislature of the State, and to the Secretary.
       ``(e) Repayments.--If the Secretary, after review of the 
     audit, finds that a State has not expended an amount of funds 
     in accordance with this subtitle, the Secretary is authorized 
     to withhold funds from a State under this subtitle until the 
     State remedies the improperly expended funds for the original 
     purposes for which the grant funds were intended.
       ``(f) Response to Complaints.--The Secretary shall respond 
     in an expeditious manner to complaints of a substantial or 
     serious nature that a State has failed to use grant funds 
     received under section 675 or 676 or to carry out State 
     activities under this subtitle in accordance with the 
     provisions of this subtitle.
       ``(g) Investigations.--Whenever the Secretary determines 
     that there is a pattern of complaints regarding failures 
     described in subsection (f) or a complaint of a serious 
     deficiency concerning any State, the Secretary shall conduct 
     an investigation of the use of the funds received under this 
     subtitle by such State in order

[[Page H4931]]

     to ensure compliance with the provisions of this subtitle.

     ``SEC. 686. ACCOUNTABILITY AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.

       ``(a) State Accountability and Reporting Requirements.--
       ``(1) Performance measurement.--
       ``(A) In general.--Beginning with the first fiscal year 
     following the transition period described in section 3 of the 
     Community Services Block Grant Modernization Act of 2022, 
     each State that receives funds under this subtitle shall 
     participate, and shall ensure that all eligible entities in 
     the State participate, in a results-oriented performance 
     measurement system that the Secretary is satisfied meets the 
     requirements of section 689(b)(1).
       ``(B) Subcontractors.--The State may elect to have 
     subcontractors of the eligible entities under this subtitle 
     participate in the results-oriented performance measurement 
     system. If the State makes that election, references in this 
     section to eligible entities shall be considered to include 
     such subcontractors.
       ``(C) Eligible entity reports.--Eligible entities shall 
     provide the results measured by their performance measurement 
     system and such other reports as the State may require.
       ``(2) Annual report.--Each State receiving funds under this 
     subtitle shall annually prepare, and submit to the Secretary 
     by March 31 of each year, a report on the performance of the 
     State and eligible entities in the State, including 
     achievement with respect to performance measurements that 
     were used by community services network organizations in the 
     State for the previous fiscal year. Each State shall also 
     include in the report--
       ``(A) an accounting of the expenditure of funds received by 
     the State through the community services block grant program, 
     including an accounting of funds spent on administrative or 
     indirect costs by the State and the eligible entities and 
     funds spent by the eligible entities on local programs, 
     projects, and services;
       ``(B) information on the number and characteristics of 
     participants served under this subtitle in the State, based 
     on data collected from the eligible entities;
       ``(C) a summary describing the training and technical 
     assistance offered by the State under subparagraph (B) of 
     section 679(b)(1) during the year covered by the report;
       ``(D) information on the total budget and activities of the 
     eligible entities receiving subgrants from the State under 
     this subtitle, including local and private resources 
     available for a purpose described in section 672; and
       ``(E) a report on the manner in which the State and 
     eligible entities and other recipients of funds under this 
     subtitle have implemented results-oriented management 
     practices based on their performance measurement systems.
       ``(b) Reporting Requirements.--
       ``(1) Contents.--Not later than September 30 of each year, 
     the Secretary shall, directly or by grant or contract, 
     prepare a report including--
       ``(A) the information included in the State annual reports 
     under subsection (a)(2) for the preceding fiscal year;
       ``(B) a report on the performance of the Department in the 
     preceding year regarding carrying out critical roles and 
     responsibilities under this subtitle, including with regard 
     to timeliness in allocating and making appropriated funds 
     available for expenditure to States, approvals or 
     notifications to States concerning State plans and plan 
     revisions, and conducting assessments of States and 
     implementation of State corrective action plans (including 
     status of and follow-up on recommendations made in previous 
     State assessments and corrective action plans);
       ``(C) a description of the training and technical 
     assistance activities funded by the Secretary under section 
     682 and the results of those activities; and
       ``(D) a report on the Community Action Innovations Program 
     authorized under section 682(a)(2), including a description 
     of training and technical assistance funded by the Secretary, 
     the rationale for projects that received support, a 
     description of funded activities and their results, and a 
     summary of ways in which the Program has expanded use of 
     evidence-based practice or contributed to building the 
     evidence base designed to reduce poverty conditions.
       ``(2) Submission.--The Secretary shall submit to the 
     Committee on Education and Labor of the House of 
     Representatives and to the Committee on Health, Education, 
     Labor, and Pensions of the Senate the report described in 
     paragraph (1) and any recommendations the Secretary may have 
     with respect to such report.
       ``(3) Electronic data system for reports to states and 
     eligible entities.--The Secretary, through the Department's 
     own employees or contractors (rather than under grants, 
     contracts, or cooperative agreements issued under section 
     682), shall provide technical assistance, including support 
     for the development and maintenance of an electronic data 
     system for the reports under this section, to the States and 
     eligible entities to enhance the quality and timeliness of 
     reports submitted under this subtitle. The system shall be 
     coordinated and consistent with the data systems established 
     for other programs of the Department that are managed by 
     eligible entities, including all programs of the 
     Administration for Children and Families or successor 
     administrative units in which the office is located.

     ``SEC. 687. LIMITATIONS ON USE OF FUNDS.

       ``(a) Construction of Facilities.--
       ``(1) Limitations.--Except as provided in paragraphs (2) 
     and (3) of this subsection and in paragraphs (2) and (3) of 
     section 690(a), grants or subgrants made under this subtitle 
     may not be used for the purchase or improvement of land, or 
     the purchase, construction or permanent improvement of any 
     building or other facility.
       ``(2) Waiver.--The Secretary may waive the limitation 
     contained in paragraph (1) upon a State request for such a 
     waiver if the Secretary finds that--
       ``(A) the request describes extraordinary circumstances to 
     justify the purchase or improvement of land, or the purchase, 
     construction, or permanent improvement of any building or 
     other facilities; and
       ``(B) permitting the waiver will contribute to the ability 
     of the State and eligible entities to carry out a purpose 
     described in section 672 at substantially reduced costs.
       ``(3) Architectural barriers to accessibility.--Grants or 
     subgrants made under this subtitle may be used by eligible 
     entities or Tribal grantees for making material improvements 
     in the accessibility of the physical structures for 
     individuals with disabilities seeking services of such 
     entities.
       ``(b) Political Activities.--
       ``(1) Treatment as a state or local agency.--For purposes 
     of chapter 15 of title 5, United States Code, any entity that 
     assumes responsibility for planning, developing, and 
     coordinating activities under this subtitle and receives 
     assistance under this subtitle shall be deemed to be a State 
     or local agency. For purposes of paragraphs (1) and (2) of 
     section 1502(a) of such title, any entity receiving 
     assistance under this subtitle shall be deemed to be a State 
     or local agency.
       ``(2) Prohibitions.--A program, project, or service 
     assisted under this subtitle, and any individual employed by, 
     or assigned to or in, such a program, project, or service 
     (during the hours in which the individual is working on 
     behalf of the program, project, or service) shall not engage 
     in--
       ``(A) any partisan or nonpartisan political activity or any 
     political activity associated with a candidate, or contending 
     faction or group, in an election for public or party office; 
     or
       ``(B) any activity to provide voters or prospective voters 
     with transportation to the polls or similar assistance in 
     connection with any election.
       ``(3) Registration.--None of the funds appropriated to 
     carry out this subtitle may be used to conduct voter 
     registration activities. Nothing in this subtitle prohibits 
     entities receiving assistance under this subtitle from making 
     its facilities available during hours of operation for use by 
     nonpartisan organizations to increase the number of eligible 
     citizens who register to vote in elections for Federal 
     office.
       ``(c) Nondiscrimination.--
       ``(1) In general.--No person shall, on the basis of race, 
     color, national origin, or sex, be excluded from 
     participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected 
     to discrimination under, any program, project, or service 
     funded in whole or in part with funds made available under 
     this subtitle. Any prohibition against discrimination on the 
     basis of age under the Age Discrimination Act of 1975 (42 
     U.S.C. 6101 et seq.) or with respect to an otherwise 
     qualified individual with a disability as provided in section 
     504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 794), or 
     title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 
     U.S.C. 12131 et seq.), shall also apply to any such program, 
     project, or service.
       ``(2) Action of secretary.--Whenever the Secretary 
     determines that a State that has received a payment under 
     this subtitle has failed to comply with paragraph (1) or an 
     applicable regulation, the Secretary shall notify the chief 
     executive officer of the State and shall request that the 
     officer secure compliance. If within a reasonable period of 
     time, not to exceed 60 days, the chief executive officer 
     fails or refuses to secure compliance, the Secretary is 
     authorized to--
       ``(A) refer the matter to the Attorney General with a 
     recommendation that an appropriate civil action be 
     instituted;
       ``(B) exercise the powers and functions provided by title 
     VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq.), 
     the Age Discrimination Act of 1975 (42 U.S.C. 6101 et seq.), 
     section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 
     794), or title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 
     1990 (42 U.S.C. 12131 et seq.), as may be applicable; or
       ``(C) take such other action as may be provided by law.
       ``(3) Action of attorney general.--When a matter is 
     referred to the Attorney General pursuant to paragraph (2), 
     or whenever the Attorney General has reason to believe that 
     the State is engaged in a pattern or practice of 
     discrimination in violation of the provisions of this 
     subsection, the Attorney General may bring a civil action in 
     any appropriate United States district court for such relief 
     as may be appropriate, including injunctive relief.

     ``SEC. 688. CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES AND REFERRALS.

       ``During each fiscal year for which an eligible entity 
     receives a subgrant under section 679(a), such entity shall--
       ``(1) inform custodial parents or legal guardians that 
     participate in programs, projects, or services carried out or 
     provided under this subtitle about the availability of child 
     support services; and
       ``(2) refer custodial parents or legal guardians to the 
     child support offices of State and local governments.

     ``SEC. 689. REGULATIONS.

       ``(a) Regulations.--The Secretary shall promulgate 
     regulations implementing this subtitle, including regulations 
     regarding--
       ``(1) State plans, including the form and information 
     required for State plans submitted to the Secretary, and 
     criteria for determining whether a State plan revision is to 
     be considered a major revision;
       ``(2) community action plans, including the form and 
     information required for community action plans submitted to 
     States;

[[Page H4932]]

       ``(3) State monitoring of eligible entities; and
       ``(4) reports to the Secretary described in section 686.
       ``(b) Guidance.--
       ``(1) Performance measurement.--The Secretary shall issue 
     guidance regarding State and local performance measurement 
     systems. Guidance may include one or more model performance 
     measurement systems, facilitated by the Secretary, that 
     States and eligible entities may use to measure their 
     performance in carrying out the requirements of this subtitle 
     and in achieving the goals of their community action plans.
       ``(2) Comprehensive analysis of poverty conditions.--The 
     Secretary shall issue guidance (including models) for 
     comprehensive community needs assessments described in 
     section 678(e)(1). The guidance shall include methods for 
     preparing an analysis of all poverty conditions affecting a 
     community and of local and regional assets for alleviating 
     such conditions.

     ``SEC. 690. DISCRETIONARY COMMUNITY PROGRAMS.

       ``(a) Grants, Contracts, Arrangements, Loans, and 
     Guarantees.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall, from funds 
     appropriated under section 691(b), make grants, loans, or 
     guarantees to States and public agencies and private, 
     nonprofit organizations, or enter into contracts or jointly 
     financed cooperative arrangements with States and public 
     agencies and private, nonprofit organizations (and for-profit 
     organizations, to the extent specified in paragraph (2)(E)) 
     for each of the objectives described in paragraphs (2) 
     through (4).
       ``(2) Community economic development.--
       ``(A) Economic development activities.--The Secretary shall 
     make grants described in paragraph (1) on a competitive basis 
     to private, nonprofit organizations that are community 
     development corporations to provide technical and financial 
     assistance for economic development activities designed to 
     address the economic needs of low-income individuals and 
     families by creating employment and business development 
     opportunities.
       ``(B) Consultation.--The Secretary shall exercise the 
     authority provided under subparagraph (A) after consultation 
     with other relevant Federal officials.
       ``(C) Governing boards.--For a community development 
     corporation to receive funds to carry out this paragraph, the 
     corporation shall be governed by a board that shall--
       ``(i) consist of residents of the community and business 
     and civic leaders; and
       ``(ii) have as a principal purpose planning, developing, or 
     managing low-income housing or community development 
     projects.
       ``(D) Geographic distribution.--In making grants to carry 
     out this paragraph, the Secretary shall take into 
     consideration the geographic distribution of funding among 
     States and the relative proportion of funding among rural and 
     urban areas.
       ``(E) Reservation.--Of the amounts made available to carry 
     out this paragraph, the Secretary may reserve not more than 1 
     percent for each fiscal year to make grants to private, 
     nonprofit organizations or to enter into contracts with 
     private, nonprofit, or for-profit organizations to provide 
     technical assistance to aid community development 
     corporations in developing or implementing activities funded 
     to carry out this paragraph and to evaluate activities funded 
     to carry out this paragraph.
       ``(3) Rural community development activities.--The 
     Secretary shall provide the assistance described in paragraph 
     (1) for rural community development activities, which shall 
     include providing--
       ``(A) grants to private, nonprofit organizations to enable 
     the organizations to provide assistance concerning home 
     repair to rural low-income families and planning and 
     developing low-income rural rental housing units; and
       ``(B) grants to multi-State, regional, private, nonprofit 
     organizations to enable the organizations to provide training 
     and technical assistance to small, rural communities 
     concerning meeting their community facility needs.
       ``(4) Broadband navigator projects.--
       ``(A) Navigator project authority.--The Secretary is 
     authorized to provide assistance described in paragraph (1) 
     for broadband navigator projects consistent with the purposes 
     of this Act to address the educational and economic needs of 
     low-income individuals and communities.
       ``(B) Navigator grants.--The Secretary shall make grants 
     consistent with subparagraph (A) to community action agencies 
     and Tribal grantees to enable them to provide assistance 
     through trained navigators to low-income individuals and 
     communities to help facilitate access to affordable high-
     speed broadband service, internet-enabled devices, digital 
     literacy training, technical support, and other services to 
     meet the broadband and digital needs of such individuals and 
     communities.
       ``(C) Priority.--Priority in the awarding of such grants 
     under paragraph (4) shall be given to community action 
     agencies and Tribal grantees serving underserved areas with 
     the most significant unmet broadband and digital needs.
       ``(D) Technical assistance.--Of the amounts made available 
     to carry out broadband navigator projects, the Secretary may 
     reserve up to 5 percent for grant review, technical 
     assistance, and evaluation.
       ``(b) Evaluation.--The Secretary shall require all 
     activities receiving assistance under this section to be 
     evaluated for their effectiveness. Funding for such 
     evaluations shall be provided as a stated percentage of the 
     assistance or through a separate grant or contract awarded by 
     the Secretary specifically for the purpose of evaluation of a 
     particular activity or group of activities.
       ``(c) Annual Report.--The Secretary shall compile an annual 
     report containing a summary of the evaluations required under 
     subsection (b) and a listing of all activities assisted under 
     this section. The Secretary shall annually submit such report 
     to the chairperson of the Committee on Education and Labor of 
     the House of Representatives and the chairperson of the 
     Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions of the 
     Senate.

     ``SEC. 691. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       ``(a) In General.--There are authorized to be appropriated 
     to carry out this subtitle (excluding section 690)--
       ``(1) $1,000,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2023 through 
     2027; and
       ``(2) such sums as may be necessary for fiscal years 2028 
     through 2032.
       ``(b) Discretionary Programs.--There are authorized to be 
     appropriated to carry out section 690 such sums as may be 
     necessary for fiscal years 2023 through 2032.
       ``(c) Reservations by the Secretary.--Of the amounts 
     appropriated under subsection (a) for each fiscal year, the 
     Secretary shall reserve--
       ``(1) \1/2\ of 1 percent for carrying out section 675 
     (relating to grants to territories);
       ``(2) 2 percent for activities authorized in section 
     682(a)(1), of which--
       ``(A) not less than 50 percent of the amount reserved by 
     the Secretary under this paragraph shall be awarded through 
     grants, contracts, or cooperative agreements to eligible 
     entities, Tribal grantees, and other community services 
     network organizations described in section 682(b), for the 
     purpose of carrying out activities described in section 
     682(a)(1)(B); and
       ``(B) the remainder of the amount reserved by the Secretary 
     under this paragraph may be awarded through grants, 
     contracts, or cooperative agreements to eligible entities, 
     Tribal grantees, and other community services network 
     organizations described in section 682(b), or other entities 
     with demonstrated expertise in providing training for 
     individuals and organizations on methods of effectively 
     addressing the needs of low-income families and communities 
     and, if appropriate, expertise in Tribal issues;
       ``(3) 1 percent for the Community Action Innovations 
     Program authorized in section 682(a)(2); and
       ``(4) up to $5,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2023, 
     2024, and 2025, to carry out section 686(b)(3).

     ``SEC. 692. REFERENCES.

       ``A reference in any provision of law to the poverty line 
     set forth in section 624 or 625 of the Economic Opportunity 
     Act of 1964 shall be construed to be a reference to the 
     poverty line defined in section 673 of this subtitle. Except 
     as otherwise provided, any reference in any provision of law 
     to any community action agency designated under title II of 
     the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 shall be construed to be 
     a reference to an entity eligible to receive funds under the 
     community services block grant program.''.

     SEC. 3. TRANSITION PERIOD.

       (a) Transition Period.--The Secretary of Health and Human 
     Services shall expeditiously announce a transition period for 
     the implementation of any changes in regulations, procedures, 
     guidance, and reporting requirements of the Community 
     Services Block Grant Act (42 U.S.C. 9901 et seq.) as amended 
     by this Act, from the regulations, procedures, guidance, and 
     reporting requirements of the Community Services Block Grant 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 9901 et seq.) as in effect immediately before 
     the date of enactment of this Act.
       (b) Federal Training.--The transition period shall include 
     the availability of Federal training for States and eligible 
     entities regarding compliance with new requirements under the 
     Community Services Block Grant Act (42 U.S.C. 9901 et seq.) 
     as amended by this Act.
       (c) Timing.--The transition period described in this 
     section--
       (1) may not extend later than the date that is 3 months 
     prior to the start of the second fiscal year after the date 
     of enactment of the Community Services Block Grant 
     Modernization Act of 2022;
       (2) notwithstanding (1), may not extend later than two 
     years after the date of enactment of the Community Services 
     Block Grant Modernization Act of 2022 for the issuance of 
     final regulations implementing this subtitle; and
       (3) may require that certain regulations, procedures, and 
     reporting requirements be adopted before other regulations, 
     procedures, or reporting requirements.

     SEC. 4. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.

       Section 306(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Older Americans Act of 1965 
     (42 U.S.C. 3026(a)(6)(C)(ii)) is amended by inserting ``or 
     subsequent years'' after ``fiscal year 1982'' and by striking 
     ``section 676B of the Community Services Block Grant Act'' 
     and inserting ``section 680(c) of the Community Services 
     Block Grant Act''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill, as amended, shall be debatable for 
1 hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
member of the Committee on Education and Labor or their respective 
designees.
  The gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici) and the gentlewoman from 
North Carolina (Ms. Foxx) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici).


                             General Leave

  Ms. BONAMICI. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and 
include extraneous material on H.R. 5129, the Community Services Block 
Grant Modernization Act of 2022.

[[Page H4933]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Oregon?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. BONAMICI. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of my bipartisan 
legislation, H.R. 5129, the Community Services Block Grant 
Modernization Act of 2022.
  In 1964, Congress first established the Community Action Program to 
support locally driven anti-poverty efforts.
  Today, community action agencies, or CAAs, form a network of more 
than 1,000 organizations with a dedicated mission of assisting people 
in finding their way out of poverty.
  These agencies provide services and programs that meet the unique 
needs of our local communities by helping individuals and families with 
low incomes achieve economic stability, secure meaningful employment, 
and adequate education, gain and improve job-related skills, obtain 
housing, access childcare, and participate in the community.
  During our legislative hearing on updating the community services 
block grant, Katherine King Galian, the director of Family and 
Community Resources at Community Action in Washington County, Oregon, 
told us the story about Patricia.
  Patricia lost her job and her home in the fall of 2019. Facing 
unaffordable rent and a rising risk of homelessness, she turned to 
Community Action and she got the support she needed.
  At Community Action of Washington County, she accessed career 
coaching, help affording needed materials for her nursing curriculum, 
and other services that helped Patricia and her family get back on 
their feet. Patricia's story is just one of many from all across the 
United States where community action agencies have been helping low-
income Americans get back on their feet for decades.
  Unfortunately, the community services block grant program, CSBG, has 
not been reauthorized since 1998, the year Google was founded, and John 
Glenn flew the Discovery space shuttle mission. We are long overdue for 
Congress to pass a comprehensive reauthorization of this significant 
law.
  Our bill continues the long tradition of broad bipartisan support for 
this program and makes important improvements to update CSBG. It will 
reauthorize CSBG for 10 years--the longest period in its history--which 
will provide critical stability to our local service providers.
  Recognizing that there are many more families like Patricia's who can 
be served by CSBG, our bill strengthens funding for community action 
agencies and raises the program's income eligibility threshold to 
expand access to their important services.
  I also highlight a provision championed by my friend and colead, 
Congressman G.T. Thompson, to create broadband navigator projects so 
community action agencies can assist their clients in accessing 
internet services and connected devices that are necessary for 
learning, finding employment, and other basic activities of everyday 
life.
  Finally, the bill will modernize the statute to strengthen 
accountability and performance requirements, putting CSBG on solid 
footing so the program can continue to meet the complex and changing 
needs of low-income individuals in communities without changing the 
local control that is such an important part of CSBG's success.
  I very much appreciate the productive collaboration with my 
bipartisan partner from the Education and Labor Committee, Congressman 
Thompson, and his staff, in leading this legislation.
  I also thank our other Education and Labor Committee coleads, 
Representatives DeSaulnier, Stefanik, and Comer for leading us in this 
effort. I must also knowledge Congresswoman Betty McCollum, who led 
early iterations of this proposal in prior Congresses and has joined us 
this session to build on her foundational work to get this across the 
finish line.
  Additionally, David Bradley, the CEO of National Community Action 
Foundation has been instrumental in offering his expertise to help us 
bring this bill to the floor today.
  Finally, and importantly, I would thank Chairman Scott and his 
dedicated staff, particularly, Theresa Thompson, Jessica Schieder, 
Emily Hopkins, and Carrie Hughes, for working with us to bring this 
bill. I also thank my staff, Allison Smith, Jack Arriaga, Andrew Dunn, 
and Rachael Bornstein, who worked diligently on this bill from drafting 
and introduction through the committee markup.
  I urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support 
this important bill to renew our Nation's commitment to reducing 
poverty through community action.
  Additionally, I include in the Record letters by the National 
Community Action Foundation, National Association of Counties, and 
National Association for State Community Service Programs in support of 
passing the Community Services Block Grant Modernization Act of 2022.

                                               National Community 


                                            Action Foundation,

                                                     May 10, 2022.
     Hon. Suzanne Bonamici,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Glenn Thompson,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Rep. Bonamici and Rep. Thompson: We are writing to you 
     today to share our enthusiastic endorsement of your 
     bipartisan legislation, HR 5129, the Community Services Block 
     Grant (CSBG) Modernization Act of 2022.
       As you know, CSBG touches virtually every community in the 
     United States. With 90 percent of each state's CSBG 
     allocation being distributed to local Community Action 
     Agencies (CAAs), our communities rely upon this unique 
     flexible funding. CAAs use it to combat poverty and promote 
     self-sufficiency, respond rapidly to unforeseen crises such 
     as natural disasters and the COVID-19 pandemic and implement 
     gap-filling activities that address unmet community needs. 
     Additionally, CAAs use CSBG to organize and support other 
     local charities and community-based initiatives, ensuring 
     services are streamlined and not duplicative. Without CSBG, 
     every single community in America would be hurt.
       Your bill would codify critical updates to the program. It 
     provides security and reliability to communities across the 
     country by authorizing CSBG for 10 years and ensuring money 
     flows in a timely manner. The crucial modernizations included 
     in HR 5129, such as the new broadband navigator initiative, 
     will increase CAAs' ability to respond to emerging needs. We 
     are also pleased to see the emphasis on quality performance 
     at the federal, state and local level and that the essential 
     nature of CSBG as a locally-controlled program is retained 
     and bolstered.
       Because of HR 5129's local impact in almost every county in 
     the country, we join in support of the bill. We hope Congress 
     passes this essential piece of legislation quickly, thereby 
     strengthening each community in America.
           Sincerely,
       David Bradley, CEO, National Community Action Foundation; 
     Mona Stallins, Financial Specialist, East Missouri Action 
     Agency, Ironton, Missouri; Jean Ann Miller, Senior Director, 
     Office for Student Involvement Oakland University, Rochester 
     Hills, Michigan; Esther Shutters, Family Advocate East, 
     Missouri Action Agency, Cape Girardeau, Missouri; Lisa 
     Straske, Manager, Oakland County Michigan Works! Southfield, 
     Hamtramck, Michigan; Jay Black, Jr., President CEO, Pathway 
     Inc., Toledo, Ohio; James Fox, President/CEO, Community 
     Action Wayne/Medina, Wooster, Ohio; Lisa Schmidtfrerick-
     Miller, Owner PMT Services, Inc., Jamestown, New York; Myra 
     Lawson, Processer, East Missouri Action Agency, Park Hills, 
     Missouri; Denise Schneider, City Manager, City of Guttenberg, 
     Guttenberg, Iowa; Melissa Skaggs, Receptionist, East Missouri 
     Action Agency, Inc., Bonne Terre, Missouri; Vanessa Gibson, 
     Executive Director, Community Action of South Mississippi, 
     Gautier, Mississippi; Paul Mark, State Representative, 
     District 2, Commonwealth of Massachusetts; Johana Lovig, Vice 
     President of Compliance, Full Circle Services, Oelwein, Iowa; 
     Sandra Twardosz, CAC Board Member, Knoxville-Knox County 
     Community Action Committee, Knoxville, Tennessee; Michael J 
     Murphy, Sheriff, Livingston County, Howell, Michigan; Amy 
     Kruppe, Superintendent, Hazel Park Schools, Hazel Park, 
     Michigan; Brenda Robbins, Teacher, LCCAA Head Start, Lorain, 
     Ohio; Dawn Godshall, Executive Director, Community Action 
     Lehigh Valley, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania.
       Keyon S. Payton, Lead Pastor, New Bethel Missionary Baptist 
     Church, Pontiac, Michigan; Yvonne Cherell, CEO, Ohio Urban 
     Resources System, Columbus, Ohio; Denise Schneider, City 
     Manager, City of Guttenberg, Guttenberg, Iowa; Jan Cooley, 
     Head Start Deputy Director, East Missouri Action Agency, 
     Bonne Terre, Missouri; Kris Rowe, Executive Director, 
     Community Action Association of Alabama, Birmingham, Alabama; 
     Mary B. Killian, East Missouri Action Agency, Cape Girardeau, 
     Missouri; Nancy Ann Smith, Program Administrative Assistant, 
     Lorain County Community Action Agency, Lorain, Ohio; Margaret 
     L. Flood, Executive Director, Oberlin Community Services 
     Council, Oberlin, Ohio; Daniel Petersen, Member, Dan's Law 
     Office, PLC, St.

[[Page H4934]]

     Joseph, Michigan; Sharon Harmon, Apprentice Program Manager, 
     Lorain County Community Action Agency Head Start, Lorain, 
     Ohio; Betty Cantley, Parent Advocate, End Childhood Lead 
     Poisoning, Grafton, Ohio; Teresa Beltran, Assistant Teacher, 
     Lorain County Community Action, Lorain, Ohio; Sherri 
     Hallauer, Finance and Administration Assistant, Lorain County 
     Community Action Agency, Elyria, Ohio; Rena Mellon, Community 
     Integration Coordinator, Imagine the Possibilities, 
     Guttenberg, Iowa; Kenyadah Sullivan, Board Member, CAC, 
     Knoxville, Tennessee; Lynn A. Harden, Executive Director, 
     Brown County Public Library, Mt. Orab, Ohio; Denise Teasley, 
     Site Manager, East Missouri Action Agency Head Start, Park 
     Hills, Missouri; Trisha Wilkins, Executive Director, NEICAC, 
     Decorah, Iowa; Jolene Leon, Admin, Children's Alliance, 
     Pleasanton, Texas; Kim L. Smith Oldham, Executive Director, 
     Southwest Michigan Community Action Agency, Benton Harbor, 
     Michigan; Patricia Kennedy, Family Self-Sufficiency, 
     Coordinator, East Missouri Action Agency, St. Genevieve, 
     Missouri; Deborah L. Rhodes, Board Member, Gallia-Meigs 
     Community Action Agency, Gallipolis, Ohio; Dennis Phelps, 
     Executive Director, Trehab, Montrose, Pennsylvania; David 
     Coulter, County Executive, Oakland County, Michigan; Laura L. 
     Smith, Owner, Asset4You Professional Services, Lorain, Ohio; 
     Mike Mellon, Regional Assoc; Exec; Director, Imagine the 
     Possibilities, Inc.--Northeast Region, Guttenberg, Iowa; 
     Roger McCann, Executive Director, Community Action Kentucky, 
     Frankfort, KY, Kentucky.
       Jennifer Patrick, Board Member, ABCAP, Mt. Orab, Ohio; 
     Cheryl Williams, Board Member, Adams Brown Community Action 
     Program, Georgetown, Ohio; Jan F. Demers, VCAP Coordinator, 
     Vermont Community Action Partnership, Burlington, Vermont; 
     Linda Stepp, Board Member, Adams Brown Community Action 
     Agency, Winchester, Ohio; Suzanne Shears, CEO, Niagara 
     Community Action Program, Inc, Niagara Falls, New York; 
     Sharon Daugherty, Staff Accountant, EMAA, Potosi, Missouri; 
     Daniel Wickerham, Executive Director, Adams Brown Community 
     Action Partnership, West Union, Ohio; Amber Coleman, 
     Associate Executive Director, Capital Area Head Start, 
     Harrisburg, Pennsylvania; Barbara Bilek, Head Start Site 
     Manager, East Missouri Action Agency, Millersville, Missouri; 
     Deana Hageman, Director, Northeast Iowa RSVP, Decorah, Iowa; 
     Desiree Beasley, Board Secretary, Knoxville-Knox County CAC, 
     Knoxville, Tennessee; Brenda S; Wilmer, Executive Director, 
     Avoyelles Progress Action, Committee, Inc., Mansura, LA 
     71351, Louisiana; Darlene Bigler, CEO, Blueprints, 
     Washington, Pennsylvania; Gale Zalar, Chief Executive 
     Officer, Central Susquehanna Opportunities, Inc., Shamokin, 
     Pennsylvania; Shirley Vermace, Supervisor, District 3, 
     Winneshiek County, Iowa; Lisa Spencer, CEO, SSCAC, Inc., 
     Plymouth, Massachusetts; Lenora Leifheit, Coordinator Health 
     Ministries, Meigs Cooperative Parish, Pomeroy, Ohio; Patricia 
     A. Keys, Low Income Board Member Ohio, Great Lakes Community 
     Action Partnership, Port Clinton, Ohio.
       Brenda Fry, Executive, Director, South Central Iowa 
     Community Action Program, Inc., Chariton, Iowa; Cynthia 
     Zwick, Executive Director, Wildfire: Igniting Community 
     Action to End Poverty in Arizona, Phoenix, Arizona; Debbie 
     Myers, Executive Secretary/Administration, Manager, East 
     Missouri Action Agency, Park Hills, Missouri; Florence 
     Greiman; County Supervisor, Hancock County Iowa, Garner, 
     Iowa; Terry L. Barley, Board Member, Emeritus Tri-County 
     Community Action, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania; Rhonda 
     Williamson, Executive Director, Safer Path Family Violence 
     Shelter, Inc., Pleasanton, Texas; Eugene M. Brady, Executive 
     Director, Commission on Economic Opportunity, Wilkes Barre, 
     Pennsylvania; Kenneth Loy, Veterans Resources Coordinator, 
     Community Council of South-Central Texas, Jourdanton, Texas; 
     Jennifer Wintermyer, Chief Executive Officer, Community 
     Action Commission, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania; Megan Shreve, 
     CEO, South Central Community Action Programs, Inc., 
     Gettysburg, Pennsylvania Ewing M. Johnson, Board Member; 
     Knoxville-Knox County Community Action, Committee, Knoxville, 
     Tennessee; Janine Robinson, Finance Director/Co-Director, 
     Frontier Community Action Agency, Winnemucca, Nevada; Scott 
     Zahorik, Executive Director, Arrowhead Economic Opportunity 
     Agency, Inc., Virginia, Minnesota; Karen Snair, Executive 
     Director, Allegheny Valley Association of Churches, Natrona 
     Heights, Pennsylvania; Renee Hungerford, Executive Director, 
     Community Action of Orleans and Genesee, Albion, New York; 
     Katherine Riley Harrington, Executive Director, Iowa 
     Community Action Association, Des Moines, Iowa; Joseph 
     Barden, Executive Director, Margert Community Corporation, 
     Far Rockaway, New York.
       Tom Heidenwirth, Board Member, North Iowa Community Action 
     Organization, Greene, Iowa; W. Anthony West, COO, Virginia 
     CARES Inc., Roanoke, Virginia; Georjean W. Trinkle, Executive 
     Consultant, Community Action Partnership NJ, Inc., Clinton, 
     New Jersey; Bailey Maulding, President, Casey Chamber of 
     Commerce, Casey, Illinois; Jeriemy Jones, CSR, East Missouri 
     Action Agency, Park Hills, Missouri; Mary Jane, Ostrander, 
     Human Services Division Manager, Carson City Health and Human 
     Services, Carson City, Nevada; Andrea Olson, Executive 
     Director, Community Action Partnership of North Dakota, West 
     Fargo, North Dakota; Jim Schuyler, President & CEO, Virginia 
     Community Action Partnership, Richmond, Virginia; Michele 
     Bautista, Board Member, Chautauqua Opportunities Inc., 
     Dunkirk, New York; Carol L. Kern, Local Income Rep., GLCAP, 
     Tiffin, Ohio; Harold Monroe, CEO, Pennyrile Allied Community 
     Services, Hopkinsville, Kentucky; Melinda Gault, Chief 
     Executive Officer, Community Action Planning Council of 
     Jefferson, County, Inc., Watertown, New York; Amber Freeman, 
     Associate Director, INCA Community Services, Inc., Ardmore, 
     Oklahoma; Patricia McFarland, Executive Director, North 
     Central West Virginia Community Action, Association, Inc., 
     Fairmont, West Virginia; Roger Tjarks, Board Member, District 
     5, Titonka, Iowa; Brian Mullins, CEO, Kentucky River 
     Foothills Development Council, Inc., Richmond, Kentucky; Joe 
     Pisney, County Supervisor, District 2, Howard County, Iowa; 
     Nicole Laurin, CEO, Joint Council for Economic Opportunity of 
     Clinton and Franklin Counties, Plattsburgh, New York; Yasmin 
     Abdul Ghafu, Outreach Aide, East Missouri Action Agency, Cape 
     Girardeau, Missouri; Marcia Erickson, CEO, GROW South Dakota, 
     Sisseton, South Dakota; Erik Schoen, Executive Director, 
     Community Chest, Inc., Virginia City, Nevada; Megan Sowers, 
     Executive Director, Jackson-Vinton Community Action, 
     Wellston, Ohio; Sharon Price, Executive Director, Community 
     Action Council for Lexington-Fayette, Bourbon, Harrison and 
     Nicholas Counties, Inc. Lexington, Kentucky; Chong-Anna 
     Canfora, Executive Director, Michigan Community Action 
     Association, Okemos, Michigan; Rene Ewing, Board Member, 
     Multi Service Center, Federal Way, Washington; Debbie K. 
     Herndon, Case Manager, Community Action of Laramie County, 
     Inc., Cheyenne, Wyoming.
       Brenda L. Fox, Executive Director, Tri-County Community 
     Action Agency, LaGrange, Kentucky; Tom Baker, Executive 
     Director North Hills Community Outreach, Pittsburgh, 
     Pennsylvania; Katie Ecker, Board Member, CAO, Kendall, New 
     York; Gina Ward, Associate Director, Southern Tier 
     Environments for Living Inc., Jamestown, New York; Craig A. 
     Reiter, Board Chair, Menominee-Delta-Schoolcraft Community 
     Action, Gulliver, Michigan; David Knight, Executive Director, 
     California Community Action Partnership Association, 
     Sacramento, California; Josephine M. Howard, Ed. S., Board 
     Member, The Agricultural and Labor Program, Inc, Haines City, 
     Florida; Daniel Brown, Executive Director, Community Action 
     Team, Inc., St. Helens, Oregon; Heather Cole, Director of 
     Advocacy and Public Innovation, United Way of Southwest 
     Michigan, Saint Joseph, Michigan; Duane Yoder, President, 
     Garrett County Community Action Committee, Inc., Swanton, 
     Maryland; David Coplan, Executive Director, Human Services 
     Center Corporation, Turtle Creek, Pennsylvania; Robin 
     Whitaker, Executive Director, Daniel Boone CAA, Inc., 
     Manchester, Kentucky; Robert S. Jones, CEO, Audubon Area 
     Community Services, Inc, Owensboro, Kentucky; Brittany Tonet, 
     Director of Finance & Administration/CFO, North Hills 
     Community Outreach, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Joe Diamond, 
     Executive Director, Massachusetts Association for Community 
     Action, (MASSCAP), Boston, Massachusetts; Pearl L. Barth, 
     Housing Specialist II, East Missouri Action Agency, Park 
     Hills, Missouri; Julie Pearson, Community Service 
     Representative, East Missouri Action Agency, Bismarck, 
     Missouri; Amy Lynn Roark, Vice Chair, Community Action 
     Advisory Board in Clark County, Vancouver, Washington; 
     Heather Wallace, Board Member, Community Action of Skagit 
     County Burlington, Washington; Kimberly Ashley-Pauley, 
     Governing Board Chairwoman, Community Action Program of 
     Central Arkansas, (CAPCA), Conway, Arkansas; Cindy Davis, 
     Executive Director, North Iowa Community Action Organization, 
     Mason City, Iowa; Angela Martin, CEO, Maryland Community 
     Action Partnership, Annapolis, Maryland; Jill Sutton, 
     Executive Director Mid-Michigan Community Action, Farwell, 
     Michigan; Lyndsey Schoelzel, Executive Director, Nevada 
     Community Action Association, Reno, Nevada; Susan L. Carr, 
     Executive Director, Community Services Network of Wyoming, 
     Sheridan, Wyoming; Tara Glover, Executive Director, 
     Lowcountry Community Action Agency, Inc, Walterboro, South 
     Carolina.
       Phil Verges, Board President, WestCAP, Spring Valley, 
     Wisconsin; Alex Fortune, City Councilperson, City of Cresco, 
     Iowa; Philip E. Cole, Executive Director, Ohio Association of 
     Community Action Agencies, Columbus, Ohio; James Fails, Board 
     Member, Great Lakes Community Action Partnership, Fremont, 
     Ohio; Carmen A. Ortega, Board Member, Great Lakes Community 
     Action Partnership (GLCAP), Bowling Green, Ohio;
       Ruthann House, President/CEO, Great Lakes Community Action 
     Partnership, Fremont, Ohio; Keri McCrorey, Executive 
     Director, East Missouri Action Agency, Inc., Farmington, 
     Missouri; Michael Crouse, Executive Director, STEP Inc., 
     Rocky Mount, Virginia; Tina Tate, Commissioner, Hospital 
     District 304, Skagit County, Washington; Reshella Hawkins, 
     Executive Director, Emergency Shelter Services INC, Benton 
     Harbor, Michigan; Roseann Marchetti, Commissioner, District 
     4, Cass County, Michigan; Alyssa Jarrett, Community Services 
     Representative, East Missouri Action Agency, Farmington, 
     Missouri; Myron Gray, Owner

[[Page H4935]]

     of Service Enterprises LLC, St. Louis, Missouri; Charles 
     Hargitt, Maintenance Supervisor E.M.A.A., Fredericktown, 
     Missouri; Nancy Jones, Board Member and Secretary, Mid-
     Michigan Community Action Agency, Farwell, Michigan; Patti 
     Hall, Financial Specialist EMAA, Park Hills, Missouri; Amanda 
     Garner, Board Member GLCAP, Fremont, Ohio; Ruth Johnson, 
     Board of Directors, Gladwin County, Gladwin, Michigan; 
     Jacqueline Orr, CEO, New York State Community Action 
     Association, Guilderland, New York; Donna Dodgen, Mayor, City 
     of Seguin, Texas; Karen McCandless, Chief Executive Officer, 
     Community Action Services and Food Bank, Provo, Utah; Maria 
     M. Tracy, Board Member, Multi-Service Center, Federal Way, 
     Washington; C. Shawn Yardley, CEO Community Concepts, Inc., 
     Lewiston, Maine; George T. Simon Jr., Executive Director, 
     TriCounty Community Action, Inc., San Augustine, Texas; 
     Thomas Mainella, Mayor, City of Fairmont, West Virginia; Bill 
     Grant, Executive Director, Minnesota Community Action 
     Partnership (MinnCAP), St. Paul, Minnesota; Elizabeth 
     Jennings, Director of Community Engagement, Community Action 
     of Skagit County, Bellingham, Washington; Roger Pavey, Sr., 
     Chief Executive Officer, Community Action of Eastern Iowa, 
     Davenport, Iowa.
       Steven Zittergruen, City Councilperson, Ward 5, City of 
     Decorah, Iowa; Shanna Yount, Community Services Rep, East 
     Missouri Action Agency Inc, Potosi, Missouri; Anita Leiws, 
     Section 8 Area Coordinator, East MO Action Agency, 
     Caruthersville, Missouri; Don Munson, Board Chairperson, 
     District 5, Douglas County, Illinois; Clint Cottam, Executive 
     Director, Community Action Partnership of Utah, Layton, Utah; 
     Susan Cooper, Executive Director, Community Action 
     Partnership of Sonoma County, Santa Rosa, California; Daneen 
     Adams, Assistant Executive Director, Open Doors, Clearfield, 
     Utah; Teleda S. Holmes, Board Member, Multi-Service Center, 
     Federal Way, Washington; Michelle Faught, Executive Director 
     ICCAP, Indiana, Pennsylvania; James Hemm, Consultant, New 
     Jersey Association on Correction, Trenton, New Jersey; 
     Deborah Leonczyk, Executive Director, Berkshire Community 
     Action Council, Inc., Pittsfield, Massachusetts; Barbara 
     Kelly, Executive Director, Knoxville Knox County CAC, 
     Knoxville, Tennessee; Kathy DiNolfi, Chief Program Officer, A 
     New Leaf, Mesa, Arizona; Kim Embrey Hill, Executive Director, 
     Multi-Purpose Community Action Agency, Inc., Louisville, 
     Kentucky; Kimberly Skaggs, Housing Administrative Secretary, 
     EMAA, Park Hills, Missouri; Erica Pogue, Associate Director, 
     INCA Community Services, Inc., Atoka, Oklahoma; Patricia F. 
     White, Board Member Community Action Council-Lexington, 
     Lexington, Kentucky; Eva Felix, Director, A New Leaf, 
     MesaCAN, Mesa, Arizona; Robin Corak, CEO, Multi-Service 
     Center, Federal Way, Washington; Kati Ortiz, Board Member, 
     Community Action of Skagit County, Sedro Woolley, Washington; 
     Kenneth Walters, Executive Director, Licking Valley Community 
     Action Program, Flemingsburg, Kentucky; David A. Rumsey, DSS 
     Commissioner CAOG Board, Member, BOD Community Action of 
     Orleans and Geneseee, Batavia, New York; Carol A. Mack, 
     Teacher, East Missouri Action Agency Cape, Girardeau, 
     Missouri; John W. Edwards, Jr., Interim Executive Director, 
     Texas Association of Community Action Agencies, Austin, 
     Texas; Chris Berry, Board Member--Treasurer, Multi Service 
     Center, Milton, Washington; Lynne M. Johnson, Board Member, 
     Community Action of Orleans and Genesee Counties, 
     Lyndonville, New York.
       Sandra Slade, Coordinator, East Missouri Action Agency, 
     Belgrade, Missouri; Mary L. Chipps, Executive Director, West 
     Virginia Community Action Partnerships, Inc., Charleston, 
     West Virginia; Megan Adkins, Home Care Coordinator, Gallia 
     County Council on Aging, Gallipolis, Ohio; Jennifer 
     Trowbridge, President/CEO, Northwest Indiana Community 
     Action, Crown Point, Indiana; Lisha Whitt, CEO, Pride 
     Community Services, Inc., LOGAN, West Virginia; Hal B. Goode, 
     Executive Director, Central Kentucky Community Action 
     Council, Lebanon, Kentucky; Charlene Engle, CEO, Gateway 
     Community Action, West Liberty, Kentucky; Kristin L. 
     Peterson, Council Member At Large, City of Oberlin, Ohio; 
     Janet Merrell, Executive Director, Community Action 
     Partnership of Oregon, Portland, Oregon; Richard Brocksmith, 
     City Councilperson, District 1, Mount Vernon, Washington; 
     Jimmy Jones, Executive Director, Mid-Willamette Valley 
     Community Action Agency, Salem, Oregon; Rebecca Missey, Cook 
     Aide, EMAA, Bonne Terre, Missouri; Michael Lincoln, White 
     County Judge, White County, Arkansas; Jada Shirriel, CEO, 
     Healthy Start, Inc., Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
       Amanda Ewing, Executive Director, Oklahoma Association of 
     Community Action Agencies, Edmond, Oklahoma; Rebecca N. 
     Brumagin, Town Supervisor, Town of Mina, New York; Dreama 
     Padgett, CEO, Mountain Heart Community Services, Inc., 
     Oceana, West Virginia; Barbara Shine, CA Board of Directors 
     Chair, Community Action of Orleans Genesee, Batavia, New 
     York; William Reder, Chairman Board of Directors, Mid-
     Michigan Community Action Agency, Auburn, Michigan; Janet 
     Keefe, Board Member, Chautauqua Opportunities Inc., Fredonia, 
     New York; Steve Luse, City Councilperson, City of Decorah, 
     Iowa; John L. Hasten, Mayor, City of Marshall, Illinois; Dean 
     King, Board Member, GLCAP, Perrysburg, Ohio; Dean Bellack, 
     Executive Director, United Way of Orleans County, Medina NY, 
     New York; Susan Harding, CEO, OLHSA, Pontiac, Michigan; Paula 
     A. Brown, Head Start Collaboration Director, Oklahoma Head 
     Start Collaboration Office, Stillwater, Oklahoma; Tamara 
     Turner, Board Member, Seneca County, Fostoria, Ohio; Daniel 
     Byrnes, County Supervisor, Allamakee County, Iowa; Randy 
     Weldon, CEO, Southwest Georgia Community Action Council, 
     Inc., Moultrie, Georgia.
                                  ____


                                 National Association of Counties.
     Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
     Speaker, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Kevin McCarthy,
     Minority Leader, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Speaker Pelosi and Minority Leader McCarthy:
       On behalf of the National Association of Counties (NACo), 
     the only organization representing the nation's 3,069 
     counties, parishes, and boroughs, I write to urge you to pass 
     the bipartisan Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) 
     Modernization Act (H.R. 5129) led by Reps. Suzanne Bonamici 
     (D-Ore.), Glenn Thompson (R-Pa.), Betty Mccollum (D-Minn.), 
     Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.), Mark DeSaulnier (D-Calif.) and James 
     Comer (R-Ky.). While CSBG continues to receive funding 
     through the annual appropriations process, it has not been 
     reauthorized since 1998, making it overdue for substantive 
     changes that could increase its ability to serve vulnerable 
     county residents. Counties support H.R. 5129, which would 
     strengthen funding and local administration of eligible anti-
     poverty programs focused on housing, health, employment, 
     income and civic engagement.
       CSBG, which supports local agencies in activities that 
     mitigate the root causes of poverty, represents a unique and 
     effective partnership between counties, states, federal 
     government and community organizations. CSBG-eligible 
     activities vary depending on local needs, but often include 
     services related to educational attainment, accessing and 
     maintaining employment and self-sufficiency, household budget 
     management, obtaining adequate housing and promoting greater 
     community participation. In FY 2019, the CSBG network 
     operated in 99 percent of the nation's counties through over 
     1,000 eligible public or private entities to serve 10.2 
     million individuals living in poverty, including 3.2 million 
     children.
       The CSBG Modernization Act would strengthen these efforts 
     through both the reauthorization and authorization of 
     appropriations that create more program certainty and allow 
     Congress to provide additional funding to meet our nation's 
     growing needs. The bill specifically reauthorizes the program 
     for 10 years and authorizes appropriations of $1 billion per 
     year for the first five years and ``such sums as necessary'' 
     for the following five years. Counties also support the 
     proposed change of H.R. 5129 that would make permanent a 
     COVID-era flexibility that allowed states to use CSBG funding 
     to provide services to individuals earning up to 200 percent 
     of the federal poverty line, allowing the program to reach 
     more people in need.
       The CSBG Modernization Act would additionally create a 
     federally administered Community Action Innovations Program 
     to invigorate the CSBG network's ability to test new 
     approaches to reducing poverty. The bill strengthens local 
     control and responsiveness to local needs through strategic 
     plans that set goals and create an action plan for meeting 
     community needs. It would also authorize Broadband Navigator 
     Projects as a new federal discretionary program available to 
     Community Action Agencies. Increased internet access has 
     major implications on socio-economic well-being and service 
     delivery.
       NACo supports these efforts to expand public-private 
     partnerships and close the digital divide to provide reliable 
     high-speed broadband services, especially in rural 
     underserved areas.
       Passing this bipartisan bill would ensure CSBG is meeting 
     the current needs of counties and local communities through 
     fully funded evidence-based program activities. During the 
     COVID-19 pandemic, CSBG has played a key role in providing 
     crucial services for struggling Americans including helping 
     communities access personal protective equipment, vaccines 
     and other health services and school supplies for remote 
     learning. As the nation recovers from the economic impacts of 
     COVID-19, we are long past due for Congress to pass a 
     comprehensive reauthorization of CSBG as it is vital to anti-
     poverty efforts across the country.
       Now that the CSBG Modernization Act (H.R. 5129) was voted 
     out of the U.S. House Education and Labor Committee on a 
     bipartisan basis, NACo strongly urges the U.S. House of 
     Representatives to pass this legislation as soon as possible.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Matthew Chase,
                                               Executive Director.

[[Page H4936]]

     
                                  ____
                                    National Association for State


                                  Community Services Programs,

                                                      May 9, 2022.
     Rep. Nancy Pelosi,
     House Speaker, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
     Rep. Kevin McCarthy,
     Minority Leader, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
     Rep. Steny Hoyer,
     Majority Leader, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
     Rep. Bobby Scott,
     Ed & Labor Committee Chairman, House of Representatives, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Madam Speaker Pelosi, Majority Leader Hoyer, Minority 
     Leader McCarthy, and Chairman Scott: My name is Jeannie 
     Chaffin, and I am the Interim Executive Director of the 
     National Association for State Community Services Programs 
     (NASCSP). NASCSP is the sole national association charged 
     with advocating for and enhancing the leadership role of 
     States in the administration of the Community Services Block 
     Grant (CSBG) and Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP) 
     across all 50 states, Washington D.C., and five U.S. 
     territories.
       As the membership association for all Community Services 
     Block Grant State Offices, we are intimately familiar with 
     the current CSBG Act, how it has helped individuals and 
     communities in all corners of the Nation and how it can be 
     improved upon. We are excited that the CSBG Modernization Act 
     is moving forward and has such strong bipartisan support with 
     more than 125 cosponsors from more than 25 states and the 
     District of Columbia. We are incredibly grateful for such a 
     strong showing of support for CSBG.
       I am writing to you today not simply out of gratitude but 
     also to express our support for the CSBG Modernization Act 
     (HR 5129). The Act changes the eligibility criterion from 
     125% of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL) to 200% of the FPL, 
     enabling the funding to reach more households in need, 
     especially as we recover from the nationwide impact of COVID-
     19. Important language is also included in the Act that 
     provides for the ongoing eligibility of clients so that they 
     do not lose assistance as they work toward achieving their 
     goal. This is critical to households' ability to exit poverty 
     meaningfully and sustainably. The State Offices that are 
     responsible for overseeing this funding and ensuring it is 
     thoughtfully spent fully and enthusiastically support these 
     changes in CSBG.
       While our network is excited for and supportive of the 
     aforementioned language, we also have a few concerns and must 
     note our primary concern below. As partners in the work of 
     CSBG, State Offices carry a great deal of responsibility. 
     States provide oversight of CSBG funds via monitoring, 
     contract management, policy development, and evaluation of 
     results. As State Offices fill these various roles, we 
     recognize that there are aspects of the CSBG Modernization 
     Act of 2021 that could be refined to support the efficient 
     and effective implementation of CSBG at the state and local 
     levels.
       We recommend revising grant obligational requirements in 
     Section 679 to `date of obligation' and removing language 
     that refers to `available for expenditure' as it creates an 
     unrealistic requirement on State Offices to release funding 
     in extremely short periods of time (30 days). We recommend 
     focusing on continuous funding to Eligible Entities over 
     prescriptive timelines (Sec. 679(a)(2)(A) and Sec. 
     679(a)(2)(A)(i)). We believe this addresses concerns about 
     any gaps in funding while simultaneously acknowledging that 
     each state has its own policies, procedures and regulations 
     that dictate how funding is distributed from the federal to 
     local level.
       We are deeply committed to the success of the CSBG and know 
     just what a difference it makes in communities across the 
     country. It is through the cooperation of all stakeholders, 
     from the Federal level to Eligible Entities and, of course, 
     State Offices, that make the great work of CSBG possible, and 
     as such we want to be sure that the Modernization Act enables 
     all to be successful partners. Thank you for your support of 
     CSBG and considering our suggestions for improvements.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Jeannie Chaffin,
                               Interim Executive Director, NASCSP.

  Ms. BONAMICI. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, today I stand in opposition to H.R. 5129, 
the Community Services Block Grant Modernization Act of 2022, CSBG.
  While I recognize that the CSBG program has been serving those in 
need for decades, I do not believe that this reauthorization bill 
improves CSBG services or fixes the program's flaws.
  As Members of Congress, we have an obligation to ensure that taxpayer 
dollars are being spent as efficiently and effectively as possible. In 
that regard, the CSBG program is missing the mark. Spending $1 billion 
on a program that has limited accountability is yet another reason why 
our country is experiencing the biggest inflation crisis we have seen 
in 41 years.
  With our national debt exceeding $30 trillion, it is time to stop 
mortgaging the future of the next generation with spending on programs 
that may not even work. There is little proof that CSBG programs are 
accomplishing the one goal they were created for: moving Americans out 
of poverty.
  In fact, there is more proof that CSBG has become nothing but another 
welfare program, which keeps Americans in poverty instead of lifting 
them into self-sufficiency.
  Under current law, CSBG lets States set their own benchmarks for 
progress, allowing ineffective programs to continue receiving taxpayer 
dollars despite poor performance. This bill continues that ineffective 
policy rather than creating commonsense measures to judge the programs' 
outcomes. This does not help people in need, and it is an irresponsible 
use of taxpayer dollars.
  When creating programs like CSBG, our goal should be self-
sufficiency, not government dependence. This is particularly true with 
some of the changes proposed in H.R. 5129.
  For example, the bill raises the income threshold for individuals who 
can receive services under CSBG programs from 125 percent of the 
Federal poverty level to 200 percent.
  In addition, it will allow individuals in the program to continue 
receiving services even after they have exceeded the income threshold. 
This program was created to help individuals most in need, but 
Democrats are trying to twist it into a permanent welfare pipeline.
  H.R. 5129 has other troubling provisions.
  Under this bill, organizations would be able to use grantee 
facilities for voter registration activities. While promoting political 
participation is important, it is simply not the purpose of this 
program.
  This new provision risks distracting servicers from their primary 
purpose and opening the door to partisan politics. We must preserve the 
integrity of CSBG by keeping in place important safeguards that protect 
against intertwining Federal policy and partisan political activity.
  This legislation also adds a new requirement that will allow CSBG 
funds to be used for vague, undefined ``healthcare needs.'' With 
Democrats' increasingly radical stance on abortion and attempts to 
strip the Hyde amendment from Federal legislation, this legislation 
could open the door for taxpayer-funded abortions and gender 
transitions. This is an unacceptable risk.
  Lastly, one of the most concerning points of this bill is how it got 
protections for faith-based organizations. Religious workers have been 
on the front lines serving the poor long before this program began. 
Instead of honoring their long history of service, this bill would 
require religious organizations to check their faith at the door to 
participate in the CSBG program. Faith-based providers deserve an equal 
opportunity to serve those in need.
  Our Founding Fathers wrote the First Amendment to protect the free 
exercise of religion from interference by the Federal Government. Yet, 
this bill suggests that faith-based organizations should not be able to 
hire employees who share the same faith if they are going to 
participate in a Federal program. This is unacceptable.
  The Constitution protects the right of religious organizations to 
hire in accordance with their beliefs. Congress recognized this right 
in enacting title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Supreme 
Court unanimously upheld the constitutionality of a religious 
employer's staffing exemption in 1987.
  The current law protections, which were adopted in a bipartisan 
manner nearly 25 years ago, should be uncontroversial, but H.R. 5129 
makes these provisions controversial because Democrats think religious 
belief is backward and discriminatory.

                              {time}  0930

  Democrats have claimed that these current law protections allow 
faith-based providers to discriminate against program beneficiaries. 
But that simply isn't true. Democrats can't point to a single instance 
of widespread discrimination in the CSBG program. These faith-based 
organizations exist to serve the neediest among us. The current law 
protections ensure they can continue to do that. If the purpose of H.R. 
5129 was to improve CSBG, then I am afraid the bill has failed 
miserably. This modernization attempt is a false start.

[[Page H4937]]

  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. BONAMICI. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Scott), who is the chairman of the Education and Labor 
Committee.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for 
yielding and for her leadership on this legislation.
  Today the committee action agencies, or CAAs, form a network of more 
than 1,000 organizations that meet the unique needs of communities to 
help lift low-income individuals and families out of poverty. For 
decades community action agencies have been central pillars to our 
communities. They administer programs such as Head Start, to provide 
quality early childhood education for low-income children and support 
their families; Meals on Wheels, to support seniors experiencing hunger 
and isolation; and LIHEAP, the Low Income Home Energy Assistance 
Program that helps people keep up with their utilities.
  In fact, it is the only Federal program whose broad mission is to 
address poverty conditions and allow community action agencies to 
tailor services for low-income individuals in their communities, and 
they do this with the goal of giving a hand up, not a handout.
  Community action agencies' work is made possible by the community 
services block grant, the CSBG. Unfortunately, the CSBG program has not 
been reauthorized since 1998 creating uncertainty in the program.
  The bipartisan Community Services Block Grant Modernization Act of 
2022 reauthorizes CSBG for 10 years, the longest period in history, and 
improves the statute to help CAAs expand their work and reduce poverty 
across the country.
  This includes increased authorization levels and raising the CSBG 
program income eligibility thresholds to expand access to their 
services. This will put CSBG on solid footing so that the program 
continues to meet the complex and changing needs of low-income 
individuals and communities without changing local control to this 
important program.
  I thank the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici), the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Thompson), the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. 
McCollum), the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Stefanik), the gentleman 
from California (Mr. DeSaulnier), and the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. 
Comer) for championing this bipartisan legislation.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the legislation.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Banks).
  Mr. BANKS. Madam Speaker, I thank the ranking member for her 
leadership.
  Today I stand in opposition to H.R. 5129 because it removes 
longstanding religious protections for community service providers that 
receive funds through the community service block grant program.
  Religious providers all around the country provide food for the 
hungry, healthcare and hospice programs for the terminally ill, and 
educational opportunities for the less fortunate. This partisan bill 
will likely prevent certain religious groups from engaging in charity, 
simply because of what motivates their charity.
  In 2019, the community action agencies partnered with more than 
19,000 faith-based organizations around the country. In Indiana, the 
funds reached 335,000 Hoosiers by providing health services, housing 
aid, education help, income improvement, and more. If charitable choice 
language is removed from this bill, religious organizations may be 
forced to choose between serving their community and honoring their 
sincerely held faith beliefs. That means more Hoosiers in need. It is 
shameful to cut religious protections from such an impactful program.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose the bill as it will 
mean less charity tomorrow for all Americans. We must defend our 
religious freedom, and this bill is a direct attack on it.
  Ms. BONAMICI. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from New Mexico (Ms. Leger Fernandez), who is a member of Education and 
Labor Committee.
  Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Madam Speaker, last week, I was approached by 
Larry Martinez who was there when the Community Service Block Grants 
first started in New Mexico. He told me that my late father worked 
tirelessly to secure funds so the State of New Mexico could match this 
new program. He called my late father the conscience of the Senate.
  My father knew that these funds would make a real impact in the lives 
of New Mexicans, and he was right. It has made a difference. The 
benefits are undeniable. Instead of a family shivering in the cold in 
northern New Mexico, we have families using LIHEAP to keep their 
children warm. Instead of a family being turned out of their home 
because they couldn't afford rising rent, CSBG provides rental 
assistance. Instead of a promising young man falling into homelessness 
or despair without an income, we have CSBG programs helping with career 
training and job searches.
  One of my favorite programs is Head Start. I started my academic 
career as a Head Start baby and fell in love with learning, and we know 
that an investment in our children at the earliest age is the biggest 
and best investment we can work; and this provides Head Start.
  CSBG touches every aspect of our community because there is not one 
root cause of poverty. We need to uplift our most vulnerable by meeting 
them where they are because they have aspirations that we need to help 
them achieve. The Communities Services Block Grant Modernization Act 
would strengthen CSBG by increasing its authorization for annual 
appropriations. The bill would allow the Community Action Network to 
serve more people by increasing the income eligibility for services.

  We should not kick people off a cliff back into poverty when they can 
rise into the working middle class. These are changes that will 
strengthen CSBG and strengthen our communities. We must be the 
conscience of our communities in the House.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Allen).
  Mr. ALLEN. Madam Speaker, I thank the ranking member for her work on 
this important legislation. In fact, you can't miss it. Above our flag 
here have the words ``In God We Trust.''
  Really?
  Our Nation's Founders rightly recognized that every human being has a 
natural right to religious liberty. This right is so important that, 
like I said, it is enshrined as the First Amendment to our 
Constitution.
  When language was added to the CSBG program in 1998 to protect the 
religious character of faith-based organizations, Congress rightly 
recognized the importance of this fundamental right to religious 
liberty and the value that religious organizations add to our society. 
We need to stand by these principles today.
  Unfortunately, Democrats do not believe it is important to respect 
the religious freedom of faith-based organizations to hire according to 
their religious beliefs or to display religious symbols like a Bible or 
the Star of David while serving low-income Americans through the CSBG 
program. The Democrats' removal of this important language--language 
that has been in the law for over two decades without causing harm to 
anyone--shines a spotlight on their intolerance of different viewpoints 
and beliefs.
  My colleague from Michigan offered an amendment that would have taken 
the important and commonsense step to reinstate this longstanding 
language making clear that faith-based providers should be able to live 
out their faith while participating in the CSBG program. I was very 
disappointed that Democrats rejected this amendment during markup and 
refused to allow a floor vote on it.
  All we are asking is that the deeply held religious beliefs of faith-
based organizations continue to be accommodated under the law. This 
approach allows many different viewpoints to exist alongside one 
another in our diverse country, and it makes sure that faith-based 
organizations can continue to do the work they do so well, and that is, 
help low-income Americans.
  Madam Speaker, faith-based organizations are important partners to 
provide vital services, and for this reason I oppose this bill.

[[Page H4938]]

  

  Ms. BONAMICI. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Thompson), who is a member of the Education and Labor 
Committee and a lead cosponsor of the legislation.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman 
for yielding.
  Today, we have the great opportunity to move one step closer to 
reducing poverty across the Nation. The community services block grant 
is the only Federal program with the explicit and overreaching goal of 
reducing poverty regardless of its cause.
  Originally, created in 1964, the program established local community 
action agencies to help identify why people were in poverty and how to 
address it using public and private resources. It was a public-private 
partnership. Community action agencies are governed by boards that are 
largely made up of business and industry community leaders in those 
counties.
  Funds for this program help families and individuals achieve self-
sufficiency, find and retain meaningful employment, attain an 
education, make better use of available income, obtain housing, and 
achieve greater participation in community affairs. Virtually every 
county in the United States has a community action agency which helps 
low-income individuals and families move from poverty to independence.
  CSBG has not been reauthorized in more than two decades, and today's 
vote will renew our commitment to reducing poverty and strengthening 
communities across the country.
  H.R. 5129 reauthorizes the community services block grant program for 
10 years at an annual level of $1 billion for the first 5 years. It 
maintains local control of community action planning and activities. It 
is largely business and industry leaders that constitute those boards. 
It authorizes a broadband navigator program to respond to the broadband 
and digital needs of low-income families and communities to find 
pathways out of poverty.
  Madam Speaker, it does so much more.
  CSBG requires some modernization to allow agencies the ability to tap 
their full potential and better serve families and communities. While 
this program has a strong history of bipartisan support, some of my 
colleagues have alleged faith-based organizations will no longer be 
able to participate in the CSBG program if this bill becomes law. This 
is simply untrue.
  Faith-based organizations are longstanding and essential partners in 
community action networks. They serve as incredible forces of good in 
their communities.
  Philippians 2:4 tells us, ``Let each of you look not only to his 
interests, but also to the interests of the others.''
  Madam Speaker, as a man of faith and longtime member of the 
Congressional Prayer Caucus, the last thing I would do is support 
legislation that removes faith-based organizations entirely from 
actively and equally participating in CSBG. There have been 
longstanding Federal regulations which were expanded under the George 
W. Bush administration that allow faith-based organizations to partake 
in Federal programs without compromising their religious beliefs. These 
regulations now apply to nine Federal departments and agencies, 
including HHS.
  The Trump administration also reaffirmed these regulations through 
the final rule titled Equal Participation of Faith-Based Organizations 
in the Federal Agencies' Programs and Activities.

  This bill makes Federal policy clearer, and it maintains the same 
protections for faith-based providers in CSBG-funded activities.
  Madam Speaker, it is time for Congress to reaffirm our Nation's 
commitment to reducing poverty by reauthorizing the CSBG, and I urge my 
colleagues to support the passage of this righteous legislation.
  Ms. BONAMICI. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Walberg).
  Mr. WALBERG. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, at the appropriate time I will offer an amendment to 
recommit H.R. 5129 and ask to have my amendment to restore current law 
protections for faith-based organizations included in the Record.
  Madam Speaker, religious liberty is foundational to America. It is 
enshrined as the First Amendment to our Constitution. Given this 
Nation's dedication to religious liberty, it is so appalling that H.R. 
5129 strikes current law protections for faith-based organizations that 
participate in the CSBG program.
  Faith-based providers have a history of leading America's fight to 
help those in need. From the Salvation Army to Catholic Charities, 
religious organizations formed the front line in assisting people in 
poverty. They did so not out of a desire for selfish gain or 
recognition but because they truly believe it is a calling.

                              {time}  0945

  That faith allows them to help those in need in unique ways that the 
government cannot. But instead of honoring these organizations for 
their long history of service, this bill suggests that religious 
organizations should leave their faith behind when they want to serve 
those in need.
  This is ridiculous. More than that, it is un-American. I would also 
argue it directly contradicts our Constitution.
  Madam Speaker, we must give faith-based organizations and providers 
the same opportunity to serve low-income Americans through the CSBG 
program that we would give any other organization. We must also 
guarantee faith-based providers' rights to live out and express their 
faith through their work.
  I include in the Record a letter from a coalition of religious 
providers, led by the Institutional Religious Freedom Alliance, which 
discusses the importance of maintaining current law protections for 
faith-based organizations--protections, I might add, that President 
Biden himself supported when he was a Member of the Senate.

                                                     May 10, 2022.
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative: As leaders of faith-based service 
     organizations, religious freedom advocates, and people of 
     faith, we strongly implore you and your colleagues to retain 
     the Charitable Choice provisions when reauthorizing the 
     Community Services Block Grant [CSBG]. The current language 
     of H.R. 5129, the Community Services Block Grant 
     Modernization Act of 2021, would replace the detailed 
     Charitable Choice provisions with a bare sentence. This would 
     be a negative change that creates a harmful precedent. We ask 
     the House instead to reaffirm Charitable Choice in the CSBG 
     program by retaining the Charitable Choice provisions 
     currently in the CSBG statute.
       The Charitable Choice provisions (42 U.S. Code 9920) give 
     faith-based organizations an equal opportunity to compete for 
     CSBG funding and safeguard their religious character while 
     also protecting beneficiary rights by prohibiting the use of 
     CSBG grant funds for explicitly religious activities. The 
     presence of this detailed language in the statute is a 
     billboard announcing a welcome for faith-based organizations 
     to compete for funding.
       The provisions were added to the CSBG program in 1998 in a 
     reauthorization bill co-sponsored by Republican Senators Dan 
     Coats (IN) and Jim Jeffords (VT) and Democratic Senators Ted 
     Kennedy (MA) and Christopher Dodd (CT). They sought to 
     improve the effectiveness of CSBG spending by prohibiting 
     local governments and Community Action Agencies [CAAs] from 
     marginalizing faith-based organizations. Protecting 
     participation in CSBG funding by faith-based providers and 
     houses of worship ensures that the procurement process is 
     competitive and that CAAs utilize the most effective and 
     accountable service providers.
       The Charitable Choice provisions extend to faith-based 
     organizations no novel or unconstitutional rights. Its 
     principles are codified in the Equal Treatment regulations 
     that apply to Department of Health and Human Services funding 
     programs (45 CFR 87), but only partially to CSBG. CSBG has 
     its own regulations, similar but distinct. If Charitable 
     Choice is taken out of the CSBG statute, CAAs would have no 
     guarantee that they will be afforded the same rights and 
     protections due to other faith-based organizations under the 
     Equal Treatment regulations. It would be better to retain the 
     CSBG statutory language and the accompanying regulations. 
     Statutory language provides more certainty over time to 
     Community Action Agencies and to faith-based organizations 
     interested in partnering with them in service.
       Some in the CAA movement claim that the Charitable Choice 
     language is dispensable because, despite its presence, few 
     faith-based organizations receive CSBG funding. If 
     participation is truly low, then the remedy is action by 
     Congress and the Office of Community Services in HHS to 
     remove the non-statutory barriers that inhibit more extensive 
     partnerships, not to remove the protections that enable the 
     participation of those few.

[[Page H4939]]

       The addition of Charitable Choice in 1998 to the CSBG 
     program was the second time that Congress and the Clinton 
     administration added such language to a federal program 
     (Charitable Choice was first added to the TANF program in 
     1996). These actions launched the faith-based or partnership 
     initiative. The four succeeding administrations of both 
     parties (Bush, Obama, Trump, and Biden) have worked with 
     energy to ensure that federal social programs are maximally 
     effective because they partner with the best non-government 
     organizations, including faith-based organizations, with full 
     protection for the religious freedom of the ultimate 
     beneficiaries.
       Senators Coats, Jeffords, Kennedy, and Dodd were right to 
     add Charitable Choice to the CSBG program. Removing it will 
     be detrimental to the participation of faith-based 
     organizations, when it is their greater involvement that will 
     most benefit the communities that CSBG funding is intended to 
     serve. Removing it will create a terrible precedent by 
     signaling that Congress is no longer as boldly committed to 
     equal opportunity for service organizations of every faith or 
     none.
       We ask the House to reaffirm Charitable Choice in the CSBG 
     program by amending H.R. 5129 to restore this language before 
     the reauthorization moves forward.
       Thank you for your consideration of this important matter.
           Signed,
       [University professors sign in their personal capacities 
     only. Their employing universities take no position on this 
     bill, and are listed only to help identify the individual 
     signers.]
       Stanley Carlson-Thies, Senior Director, Institutional 
     Religious Freedom Alliance, Washington, DC; Stephanie 
     Summers, CEO, Center for Public Justice, Washington, DC; His 
     Eminence Timothy Cardinal Dolan, Archbishop of New York, 
     Chairman, U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops Committee for 
     Religious Liberty, Washington, DC; Rev. Dr. Galen Carey, Vice 
     President of Government Relations, National Association of 
     Evangelicals, Columbia, MD; Rabbi Abba Cohen, Vice President 
     for Government Affairs and Washington Director, Agudath 
     Israel of America, Washington, DC; Melissa Reid, Director of 
     Government Affairs, Seventh-day Adventist Church--North 
     American Division, Columbia, MD; Rev. Dr. Jo Anne Lyon, 
     General Superintendent Emerita, The Wesleyan Church, Fishers, 
     IN; Yaakov Menken, Managing Director, Coalition for Jewish 
     Values, Baltimore, MD.
       Shirley V. Hoogstra, President, CCCU--Council for Christian 
     Colleges & Universities, Washington, DC; Robert C. Andringa, 
     Ph.D. President Emeritus, CCCU, Washington, DC; P. George 
     Tryfiates, Vice President for Public Policy & Legal Affairs, 
     Association of Christian Schools International, Washington, 
     DC; Jedd Medefind, President, Christian Alliance for Orphans, 
     Falls Church, VA; Ronald L. Sider, Founder, Christians for 
     Social Action, Lansdale, PA; Gary W. Blackard, President & 
     CEO, Adult & Teen Challenge USA, Ozark, MO; Ryan Jay VerWys, 
     CEO, ICCF Community Homes, Grand Rapids, MI; Jonathan 
     Bradford, President and CEO Emeritus, ICCF Community Homes, 
     Grand Rapids, MI; Douglas Laycock, Professor of Law, 
     University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA.
       Carl H. Esbeck, R.B. Price Emeritus Professor of Law, 
     University of Missouri, Columbia, MO; Phillip L. McIntosh, 
     Professor of Law, Mississippi College School of Law, Jackson, 
     MS; Paul Marshall, Professor, Baylor University, Washington, 
     DC; Robert Osburn, Ph.D., Senior Fellow, Wilberforce 
     International Institute, Roseville, MN; Joseph M. 
     Knippenberg, Professor of Politics, Oglethorpe University, 
     Brookhaven, GA; Abby M. Foreman, Professor, Dordt University, 
     Sioux Center, IA; Ryan T. Anderson, President, The Ethics and 
     Public Policy Center, Washington, DC; Charles Leslie Glenn 
     Jr., Professor emeritus of Educational Policy, Boston 
     University, Boston, MA; Gail Frances Jansen, Retired 
     Attorney, Former Trustee Center for Public Justice, Tucson, 
     AZ; James W. Skillen, President (retired), Center for Public 
     Justice, Birmingham, AL; Marc Andreas, Professor, Kuyper 
     College, Grand Rapids, MI; Michelle C. Kirtley, Fellow, 
     Center for Public Justice, Chapel Hill, NC; Chelsea Langston 
     Bombino, Fellow, Center for Public Justice, Catonsville, MD; 
     Bruce Rowell, Chief Clinical Officer, Lawndale Christian 
     Health Center, Chicago, IL; Rev. Girien R. Salazar, Minister, 
     Ciudad de Esperanza, Farmers Branch, TX; Rev. Marian Edmonds-
     Allen, Executive Director, Parity, New York, NY; Mr. Roger 
     Metcalf, Chairman Board of Trustee, Oklahoma Wesleyan 
     University, Gresham, OR; Michael Kozlarek, City Director, The 
     Navigators, San Diego, CA; Mark Rodgers, Principal, Clapham 
     Group, Burke, VA; James B. Bolds, Lead Pastor, Victory 
     Church, Yorktown, VA; Joyce Campbell, Concerned community 
     member, Christian Reformed Church, Greenbelt, MD; Randall 
     Kroll, Executive Consultant, Platinum Group, Minneapolis, MN; 
     Kathryn Vaselkiv, Not for profit board member, St Moses 
     Church, Baltimore, MD.
       Deanna Stacy, Former Associate Director, HHS Center for 
     Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, Alexandria, VA; Ashley 
     Weiss, Staff, Youth with A Mission, Lakeside, MT; Greg Enas, 
     Venture Catalyst, Innovatov LLC, Indianapolis, IN; Jerry S. 
     Herbert, Elder, Washington Community Fellowship, Washington, 
     DC; Karyl Savageau, Capitol Hill Pregnancy Center, 
     Washington, DC; Clarke Cochran, Deacon, St. Peter Catholic 
     Church, Charlotte, NC; Carol Veldman Rudie, Board member, 
     Association for Public Justice, Minneapolis, MN; Dr. Paul 
     Wrobbel, Head of School, Trinity Oaks Christian Academy, 
     Cary, IL; Bethany Schuttinga, Ph.D., President, Avail 
     Academy, Minneapolis, MN; Steven Groen, Principal, Avail 
     Academy, Edina, MN; Andrew Ryskamp, Christian Reformed Church 
     in North America, Grand Rapids, MI; Perry Recker, Librarian 
     emeritus and Ruling Elder, Eastminster Presbyterian Church, 
     Pittsburgh, PA; Rev. Dr. Steven J. Koster, Pastor of 
     Congregational Life, Grace Church, Grand Rapids, MI; David E. 
     Campbell, Christian Reformed Church of Washington, DC., 
     Washington, DC; Henry G. Gunnink, Regional Pastor, Classis 
     Lake Superior of the Christian Reformed Church of North 
     America, Inver Grove Heights, MN; Randall Hedman, Donor 
     Relations, World Renew, Bloomington, MN.

  Mr. WALBERG. Madam Speaker, I offered an amendment during a markup 
that would have protected faith-based providers, making sure they don't 
have to leave their faith at the door when they work to serve America's 
families in need. This is not only good for the religious organizations 
serving these families but also for the neediest among us.
  Unfortunately, my Democrat colleagues rejected this commonsense 
amendment. I was further disappointed when they did not make my 
amendment in order for floor consideration. This is a forthright attack 
on religious liberty by the Democrats, and we cannot stand for it.
  Madam Speaker, if we adopt this motion to recommit, we will instruct 
the Committee on Education and Labor to reconsider my amendment to 
restore these current law provisions.
  Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of this 
amendment in the Record immediately prior to the vote on the motion to 
recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Michigan?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. BONAMICI. Madam Speaker, how much time is remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Oregon has 18 minutes 
remaining.
  Ms. BONAMICI. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Madam Speaker, we all agree that the inclusion of faith-based 
organizations and faith leaders is important for the community action 
network. In fact, they have a long history of being involved with 
community action since the very beginning of the war on poverty in the 
1960s, and I have no doubt that they will continue to do their 
important work.
  In recent years, the Supreme Court has made clear that religious 
entities cannot be excluded from participation in publicly funded 
programs because of their religious status. This legislation, despite 
what the ranking member and others claim, would not change that.
  We are here today to reauthorize and modernize the community services 
block grant program, which is almost 20 years past its authorization 
expiration.
  I also note that the bipartisan bill introduced in the previous 
Congress, the 116th, also removed the charitable choice provision with 
broad bipartisan support, and H.R. 5129 reflects the same sensible 
compromise on this issue.
  In fact, some Members would have liked the legislation to go further 
to expressly address other nondiscrimination issues, but I did not take 
that approach as we crafted the bill because I wanted to maintain the 
bipartisan agreement we reached to make real progress toward the much-
needed reauthorization of CSBG.
  Twenty years is too long for this program, our community action 
agencies, and the communities they serve. It is too long for them to 
wait for us to reach an agreement, and we have reached an agreement.
  Additionally, Madam Speaker, for 60 years, community action agencies 
have had relationships with faith-based organizations. The involvement 
of faith-based organizations in community action programs long predates 
the charitable choice provision, and their involvement will continue 
without this controversial provision.
  We also know that HHS regulations have existed for nearly 20 years 
incorporating many of the same principles. Eliminating the duplicative 
charitable choice provision in CSBG allows us to move forward with a 
reauthorization that is vital to so many of our agencies

[[Page H4940]]

and allows HHS to apply a single set of rules across programs.
  This is a distraction that should not prevent us from moving forward 
with this reauthorization and maintaining the bipartisan consensus we 
have achieved.
  Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the Coalition 
Against Religious Discrimination, a broad and diverse group of leading 
religious, civil rights, labor, and health organizations supporting the 
removal of the charitable choice provision from the community services 
block grant program.

                                             The Coalition Against


                                     Religious Discrimination,

                                                     May 11, 2022.
       Dear Representative: As members and allies of the Coalition 
     Against Religious Discrimination (CARD), we write to support 
     the changes in H.R. 5129, the Community Services Block Grant 
     (CSBG) Modernization Act of 2022, that would remove 
     charitable choice, a highly controversial policy.
       CARD is a broad and diverse group of leading religious, 
     civil rights, labor, and health organizations that formed in 
     the 1990s to oppose adding charitable choice to social 
     service program authorizations. Since then, CARD has 
     continued to advocate for strengthening the constitutional 
     and legal safeguards that apply to such partnerships in this 
     and other social service programs. We appreciate the 
     important role that religiously affiliated organizations 
     historically have played in addressing many of our nation's 
     most pressing social needs, including in some cases, with the 
     use of government funds; indeed, many members of CARD know 
     this firsthand. We also recognize that the separation of 
     church and state is the cornerstone of religious freedom.
       Contrary to claims of its supporters, charitable choice 
     provisions did not remove any ``barriers'' to participation 
     for faith-based providers. Faith-based organizations 
     partnered with the government to provide services long before 
     the addition of charitable choice to the Community Services 
     Block Grant programs. Charitable choice instead changed the 
     rules. But faith-based organizations should follow the same 
     rules as all other providers, and effective government 
     collaboration with faith-based entities does not require 
     government-supported discrimination.
       Charitable choice removed traditional church-state 
     safeguards that applied to social service providers that 
     accept taxpayer funds. It allows taxpayer-funded faith-based 
     organizations to discriminate in hiring, including by 
     undermining state and local nondiscrimination protections, 
     and threatens the rights of beneficiaries when delivering 
     services.
       People in need should never be faced with the stark choice 
     between accessing the services they need or retaining their 
     religious freedom protections. And no one should be forced to 
     choose between conforming to a religious litmus test or 
     losing a government-funded job.
       Charitable choice does not protect religious freedom, 
     rather it uses the guise of religious freedom to justify 
     discrimination against employees and put people who need 
     government services at risk of harm. Thus, we support the 
     removal of the charitable choice provisions from the CSBG 
     authorization.
           Sincerely,
       ADL (Anti-Defamation League), African American Ministers in 
     Action, American Atheists, American Civil Liberties Union, 
     American Federation of Teachers, American Humanist 
     Association, Americans United for Separation of Church and 
     State, B'nai B'rith International, Baptist Joint Committee 
     for Religious Liberty (BJC), Bend the Arc: Jewish Action, 
     Catholics for Choice, Center for Inquiry and the Richard 
     Dawkins Foundation for Reason & Science, Central Conference 
     of American Rabbis, Disciples Center for Public Witness, 
     Disciples Justice Action Network.
       Equal Partners in Faith, Family Equality, Freedom From 
     Religion Foundation, GLSEN, Hindu American Foundation, Human 
     Rights Campaign, Interfaith Alliance, Jewish Women 
     International, Lambda Legal, The Leadership Conference on 
     Civil and Human Rights, MAZON: A Jewish Response to Hunger, 
     Metropolitan Community Churches, Global Justice Institute, 
     NAACP, NARAL Pro-Choice America.
       National Center for Transgender Equality, National Council 
     of Jewish Women, National LGBTQ Task Force, National Women's 
     Law Center, People For the American Way, PFLAG National, 
     Presbyterian Church (USA), Secular Coalition for America, 
     Secular Policy Institute, SPLC Action Fund, Union for Reform 
     Judaism, United Church of Christ, Justice and Local Church 
     Ministries, The United Methodist Church--General Board of 
     Church and Society.

  Ms. BONAMICI. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Scott), the chairman of the Education and Labor 
Committee.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for 
yielding.
  The chair of the subcommittee has said a lot about the charitable 
choice provision and the fact that faith-based entities have long 
participated in community action programs from the very beginning in 
the 1960s, and there is no evidence that they will stop participating.
  Charitable choice purports to advance religious freedom, ensuring 
participation of faith-based organizations. The fact is, they are going 
to participate. Some may not because they cannot operate without 
discriminating. Well, that is their right. But if you are going to take 
Federal money, you should not discriminate.
  This language that is being offered, the language that is not in the 
bill, authorizes broad religious discrimination against employees and 
fails to adequately protect religious liberty rights of beneficiaries 
in taxpayer-funded social services.
  Now, when a church runs a program, they can hire whoever they want 
based on religion with church money. But when you take Federal money, 
there ought to be equal opportunity in hiring.
  So, the charitable choice language, which is not in the bill as it 
is, requires equal opportunity, so if you apply for a job, you won't be 
discriminated against.
  Unfortunately, this charitable choice thing kind of redefines the 
victim of discrimination. When somebody applies for a job under 
charitable choice and is told, ``We don't hire your kind because you 
are the wrong religion,'' we have redefined the victim in that as the 
agency discriminating because if we don't let them discriminate, we are 
violating their religious liberty.
  What about the person who applied for the job? They have been denied 
a job solely on the basis of religion. It is my view that that is the 
one who needs the protection. We don't need to protect the right to 
discriminate.
  In fact, that is why a broad coalition of civil rights, labor, and 
health organizations supports the removal of the language that allows 
that kind of discrimination, and that is in the letter that the 
chairwoman has offered.
  That letter says, in part: ``Charitable choice does not protect 
religious freedom; rather, it uses the guise of religious freedom to 
justify discrimination against employees and put people who need 
government services at risk.''
  I think it is time that this language be removed, as this bill before 
us does, so that the real victims of discrimination who are being 
discriminated against can get the protection of the Federal Government 
as they have since the 1964 civil rights bill.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Madam Speaker, if CSBG programs were fulfilling their statutory 
purpose, we would be hearing lots of numbers of people lifted out of 
poverty. But those numbers have been notably absent in the committee 
debate and here today.
  We have been given no proof, no proof at all, that these programs are 
working as they have been set up. We are asking hardworking taxpayers--
let me repeat that--hardworking taxpayers to give money to support 
these programs that have no accountability.
  The goal is to take people out of poverty and have them become 
hardworking taxpayers to balance out the burden here in this country, 
but that is not happening, Madam Speaker.
  This bill would appropriate $1 billion. I said in my opening comments 
that we are $30 trillion in debt. We are going to add to our debt with 
this program with no accountability. We should not spend a dime of 
taxpayer dollars without knowing that those dollars are being spent 
effectively.
  Republicans support commonsense efforts to fight poverty and provide 
a safety net for Americans truly in need. We want to make our Nation's 
antipoverty programs the best they can be, a streamlined network that 
specifically focuses on aiding those in dire need and helps lift them 
out of poverty, but that is not what we have here.
  H.R. 5129 fails to reform CSBG. In fact, the program widely expands 
the pool of eligible beneficiaries, leaving those most in need with 
fewer resources.
  It goes along with other programs that my colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle and the Biden administration keep proposing, and that 
is to put more people in dependency in this country, not make them 
independent.
  It also attacks religious liberty. I believe my colleagues have 
basically admitted that in the last few minutes.

[[Page H4941]]

  Over 19,000 vital faith-based organizations work tirelessly to help 
their communities through the CSBG program. Yet, H.R. 5129 sets a 
terrible and destructive precedent. Preventing faith-based 
organizations from competing for grants while remaining true to their 
religious character means fewer low-income Americans will receive the 
help they need.
  This legislation is another Washington-knows-best approach that will 
keep Americans dependent on hardworking taxpayers' dollars. My 
colleagues should reject this legislation, and I yield back the balance 
of my time.
  Ms. BONAMICI. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a Statement of Administration 
Policy from the Executive Office of the President supporting H.R. 5129 
and praising the legislation's commitment to ensuring that communities 
have the tools they need to address poverty and achieve economic 
mobility.

                   Statement of Administration Policy


 H.R. 5129--Community Services Block Grant Modernization Act of 2022--
                Rep. Bonamici, D-OR, and 126 cosponsors

       The Administration supports the poverty-fighting goals of 
     H.R. 5129, the Community Services Block Grant Modernization 
     Act of 2022, to provide states, territories, and Tribes with 
     resources for critical community services. This legislation 
     will reauthorize the Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) 
     for a decade and help ensure that communities have the tools 
     they need to fight poverty and build economic mobility.
       The CSBG has been supporting tribal and local governments 
     and community organizations across the country for over 50 
     years with funding to help them serve low-income individuals 
     and families. Local administration of some of the most 
     essential community programs--such as job training and 
     placement, food and nutrition assistance, Head Start, housing 
     and homelessness assistance, and the Low Income Home Energy 
     Assistance Program--is supported by CSBG funds. While these 
     services and strategies have always been key to helping 
     Americans get ahead and stay ahead, the COVID-19 pandemic 
     underscored just how vital it is to invest in the 
     organizations that deliver them. Faced with unprecedented 
     demand and the operational challenges of the pandemic, the 
     more than 1,000 organizations supported by CSBG continued 
     working to help low-income communities address housing and 
     food insecurity, provide high-quality early childhood 
     education, and support individuals re-entering the workforce. 
     Now, as this Administration works to build a strong and 
     equitable recovery, it is more important than ever to invest 
     in locally based solutions to the causes and conditions of 
     poverty in communities.
       The CSBG update proposed by this Act would result in 
     greater equity for Tribes, expanded income eligibility data 
     modernization, strengthened performance management, and 
     support for community-based services and strategies. In 
     addition, this Act would support new broadband navigator 
     efforts and continues critical support for community economic 
     development and rural development activities. And 
     reauthorizing CSBG for the first time since 1998 would 
     provide organizations and the millions of families they serve 
     with the confidence and stability to make the long-term 
     investments communities need.
       The Administration looks forward to working with Congress 
     to ensure that this bipartisan legislation achieves its 
     purposes, continues expanding opportunity for all Americans, 
     and ultimately is enacted.

  Ms. BONAMICI. Madam Speaker, I thank Representative McCollum for 
supporting H.R. 5129. I am thankful for her leadership in the 116th 
Congress' legislation to reauthorize CSBG and her continued strong 
support for this program.
  Madam Speaker, I also include in the Record letters from various 
organizations, individuals, and localities supporting this bipartisan 
legislation to reauthorize this community services block grant.


                                                          LOA,

                                      Roanoke, VA, April 19, 2022.
     Hon. Suzanne Bonamici,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Glenn Thompson,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Rep. Bonamici and Rep. Thompson: I am writing to you 
     today to share my endorsement of your bipartisan legislation 
     that supports community action agencies, including Total 
     Action for Progress (TAP). I have the pleasure of serving on 
     TAP's board. H.R. 5129, the Community Service Block Grant 
     (CSBG) Modernization Act of 2022 is important to me and our 
     community.
       As you know, CSBG touches virtually every community in the 
     United States. With 90 percent of each state's CSBG 
     allocation being distributed to local Community Action 
     Agencies (CAAs), our communities rely upon this unique 
     flexible funding. CAAs, like TAP, use the funds to combat 
     poverty and promote self-sufficiency, respond rapidly to 
     unforeseen crises such as natural disasters and the COVID-19 
     pandemic and implement gap-filling activities that address 
     unmet community needs. Additionally, CAAs use CSBG to 
     organize and support other local charities and community-
     based initiatives, ensuring services are streamlined and not 
     duplicative. Without CSBG, every single community in America 
     would be hurt.
       Your bill would codify critical updates to the program. It 
     provides security and reliability to communities across the 
     country by authorizing CSBG for 10 years and ensuring money 
     flows in a timely manner. The crucial modernizations included 
     in H.R. 5129, such as the new broadband navigator initiative, 
     will increase CAAs' ability to respond to emerging needs. We 
     are also pleased to see the emphasis on quality performance 
     at the federal, state, and local level and that the essential 
     nature of CSBG as a locally-controlled program is retained 
     and bolstered.
       Because of H.R. 5129's local impact in almost every county 
     in the country, I join in support of the bill. It is hoped 
     that Congress passes this essential piece of legislation 
     quickly, thereby strengthening each community in America.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Ron D. Boyd,
     President & CEO.
                                  ____


                                    Rescue Mission Ministries,

                                      Roanoke, VA, April 19, 2022.
     Hon. Suzanne Bonamici,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Glenn Thompson,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Rep. Bonamici and Rep. Thompson: I am writing to you 
     today to share my endorsement of your bipartisan legislation 
     that supports community action agencies, including Total 
     Action for Progress {TAP). I have the pleasure of serving on 
     TAP's board. H.R. 5129, the Community Service Block Grant 
     (CSBG) Modernization Act of 2022 is important to me and our 
     community.
       As you know, CSBG touches virtually every community in the 
     United States. With 90 percent of each state's CSBG 
     allocation being distributed to local Community Action 
     Agencies (CAAs), our communities rely upon this unique 
     flexible funding. CAAs, like TAP, use the funds to combat 
     poverty and promote self-sufficiency, respond rapidly to 
     unforeseen crises such as natural disasters and the COVID-19 
     pandemic and implement gap-filling activities that address 
     unmet community needs. Additionally, CAAs use CSBG to 
     organize and support other local charities and community-
     based initiatives, ensuring services are streamlined and not 
     duplicative. Without CSBG, every single community in America 
     would be hurt.
       Your bill would codify critical updates to the program. It 
     provides security and reliability to communities across the 
     country by authorizing CSBG for 10 years and ensuring money 
     flows in a timely manner. The crucial modernizations Included 
     In H.R. 5129, such as the new broadband navigator initiative, 
     will increase CAAs' ability to respond to emerging needs. We 
     are also pleased to see the emphasis on quality performance 
     at the federal, state, and local level and that the essential 
     nature of CSBG as a locally-controlled program Is retained 
     and bolstered.
       Because of H.R. 5129's focal impact in almost every county 
     in the country, I join in support of the bill. It Is hoped 
     that Congress passes this essential piece of legislation 
     quickly, thereby strengthening each community in America.
           Sincerely,
     C. Lee Clark, CEO.
                                  ____

                                                County of Orleans,


                                         Office for the Aging,

                                       Albion, NY, April 14, 2022.
     Hon. Suzanne Bonamici,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Rep. Bonamici: We are writing to you today to share 
     our enthusiastic endorsement of your bipartisan legislation, 
     H.R. 5129, the Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) 
     Modernization Act of 2022.
       As you know, CSBG touches virtually every community in the 
     United States. With 90 percent of each state's CSBG 
     allocation being distributed to local Community Action 
     Agencies (CAAs), our communities rely upon this unique 
     flexible funding. CAAs use it to combat poverty and promote 
     self-sufficiency, respond rapidly to unforeseen crises such 
     as natural disasters and the COVID-19 pandemic and implement 
     gap-filling activities that address unmet community needs. 
     Additionally, CAAs use CSBG to organize and support other 
     local charities and community-based initiatives, ensuring 
     services are streamlined and not duplicative. Without CSBG, 
     every single community in America would be hurt.
       Your bill would codify critical updates to the program. It 
     provides security and reliability to communities across the 
     country by authorizing CSBG for 10 years and ensuring money 
     flows in a timely manner. The crucial modernizations included 
     in H.R. 5129, such as the new broadband navigator initiative, 
     will increase CAAs' ability to respond to emerging needs. We 
     are also pleased to see the emphasis on quality performance 
     at the federal, state and local level and that the essential 
     nature of CSBG as a locally-controlled program is retained 
     and bolstered.
       Because of H.R. 5129's local impact in almost every county 
     in the country, we join in

[[Page H4942]]

     support of the bill. We hope Congress passes this essential 
     piece of legislation quickly, thereby strengthening each 
     community in America.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Melissa Blanar,
     Director.
                                  ____

                                                  City of Roanoke,


                                          Office of the Mayor,

                                Roanoke, Virginia, April 18, 2022.
     Hon. Suzanne Bonamici,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Glenn Thompson,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Bonamici and Thompson: We are writing 
     to you today to share our endorsement of your bipartisan 
     legislation that supports community action agencies, 
     including Total Action for Progress (TAP) which assists 
     citizens in our jurisdiction. HR 5129, the Community Service 
     Block Grant (CSBG) Modernization Act of 2022.
       As you know, CSBG touches virtually every community in the 
     United States. With 90 percent of each state's CSBG 
     allocation being distributed to local Community Action 
     Agencies (CAAs), our communities rely upon this unique 
     flexible funding. CAAs, like TAP, use the funds to combat 
     poverty and promote self-sufficiency, respond rapidly to 
     unforeseen crises such as natural disasters and the COVID-19 
     pandemic and implement gap-filling activities that address 
     unmet community needs. Additionally, CAAs use CSBG to 
     organize and support other local charities and community-
     based initiatives, ensuring services are streamlined and not 
     duplicative. Without CSBG, every single community in America 
     would be hurt.
       Your bill would codify critical updates to the program. It 
     provides security and reliability to communities across the 
     country by authorizing CSBG for 10 years and ensuring money 
     flows in a timely manner. The crucial modernizations included 
     in HR 5129, such as the new broadband navigator initiative, 
     will increase CAAs' ability to respond to emerging needs. We 
     are also pleased to see the emphasis on quality performance 
     at the federal, state, and local level and that the essential 
     nature of CSBG as a locally-controlled program is retained 
     and bolstered.
       Because of HR 5129's local impact in almost every county in 
     the country, I join in support of the bill. It is hoped that 
     Congress passes this essential piece of legislation quickly, 
     thereby strengthening each community in America.
           Sincerely,
       Members of Roanoke City Council, Roanoke, Virginia:
     Mayor Sherman P. Lea, Sr.,
       Mayor.
     Patricia White-Boyd,
       Vice-Mayor.
     William Bestpitch,
       Council Member.
     Vivian Sanchez-Jones,
       Council Member.
     Joseph Cobb,
       Council Member.
     Stephanie Moon Reynolds,
       Council Member.

  Ms. BONAMICI. Madam Speaker, millions of families and individuals 
across our country benefit from the locally driven antipoverty programs 
and services backed by the community services block grant program. We 
are here today to make sure it continues to meet their needs and the 
unique needs of our communities.
  I am pleased that the House is taking up this long-overdue update to 
the community services block grant program with strong bipartisan 
support.
  CSBG enables community action agencies to be innovative, leverage 
public and private resources for their communities, and cost-
efficiently administer many programs, including Head Start, LIHEAP, 
nutrition assistance, weatherization, job training, housing, and 
assistance for those experiencing homelessness.
  This bipartisan legislation will strengthen funding for community 
action agencies, raise the CSBG program's income eligibility threshold 
to expand its important services; promote innovation in the CAA network 
through a federally administered community action innovations program; 
and, importantly, modernizes accountability, which is an important part 
of the bill, and performance standards.
  The bottom line is that this legislation will better help low-income 
individuals and families achieve economic stability and access housing, 
childcare, utility assistance, employment, and other services.
  I, once again, urge my colleagues to support this important 
bipartisan bill to renew our Nation's commitment to reducing poverty 
through community action, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5129, 
the Community Services Block Grant Modernization Act of 2022. This 
legislation renews the nation's commitment to reducing poverty through 
an established network of more than 1,000 local Community Action 
Agencies. Having authored previous iterations of this legislation, and 
now being an original cosponsor with my good friend Congresswoman 
Bonamici, I could not be more excited to advance this bill today. At a 
time when it seems like Congress can't agree on anything, I am glad 
that we can show people that there are still issues that bring 
Democrats and Republicans together. And that's exactly what CSBG has 
been doing for more than 50 years--bringing Americans together.
  For years, these agencies have served as incredible resources to help 
low-income families escape poverty and better their surrounding 
communities. These agencies served on the front lines against COVID-19, 
helping millions of Americans get through the pandemic. Just this past 
week, I visited the Community Action Partnership of Ramsey and 
Washington Counties where I saw first-hand the amazing work these 
people do for my constituents.
  H.R. 5129 builds on this success by reinforcing existing efforts to 
improve the performance and management of Community Action at the 
federal, state, and local levels.
  I would like to thank my friends Congresswoman Bonamici and 
Congressman Glenn Thompson for advancing this essential legislation. I 
urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. SABLAN. Madam Speaker, H.R. 5129, the Community Services Block 
Grant Modernization Act, improves and expands access to the only 
federal program with the overarching goal of reducing poverty, 
regardless of cause or condition. Since Congress established the 
predecessor of the Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) as part of 
President Lyndon B. Johnson's ``War on Poverty,'' the program has 
helped people achieve economic stability, secure meaningful employment 
and education, gain and improve job-related skills, and obtain housing. 
Such support is particularly crucial for communities in the Northern 
Mariana Islands, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa--
where poverty rates are significantly higher than in the rest of 
America. In the Marianas, 52.3 percent of the population is considered 
low-income, according to census data.
  The Community Services Block Grant Modernization Act helps alleviate 
such poverty by increasing overall funding for the program, updating 
eligibility guidelines, and eliminating the arbitrary grant allocations 
to the insular areas. H.R. 5129 provides an increased annual funding 
level of $1 billion for the first five years. The bill also permanently 
raises income eligibility to 200 percent of the poverty line, as 
temporarily provided in the CARES Act, so more people can get the help 
they need.
  To better align funding allocations to the insular areas to meet its 
anti-poverty mission, the Community Services Block Grant Modernization 
Act mandates a data-based formula and transparency in how that formula 
is calculated. Under current law, the Secretary of Health and Human 
Services possesses total discretion to allocate CSBG funding based on 
what he or she ``believes'' the need is in each insular area. This 
changes under H.R. 5129. Language I included in the bill during the 
Education and Labor Committee's markup requires the Secretary to base 
its grant allocations on the most recent census poverty data available. 
That allocation formula must be published publicly and updated no less 
frequently than any time new applicable census data are available. 
Using a regularly updated, poverty-based formula will help ensure 
communities receive the support necessary to serve individuals and 
families in need.
  At a time when communities nationwide continue to be impacted by the 
coronavirus pandemic, the improvements to the CSBG program under H.R. 
5129 will increase help for the most vulnerable in our communities.

                              {time}  1000

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Each further amendment printed in part F of House Report 117-320 not 
earlier considered as part of amendments en bloc pursuant to section 11 
of House Resolution 1097, shall be considered only in the order printed 
in the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the 
report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time 
specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent 
and an opponent, may be withdrawn by the proponent at any time before 
the question is put thereon, shall not be subject to amendment, and 
shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question.
  It shall be in order at any time after debate for the chair of the 
Committee on Education and Labor or his designee to offer amendments en 
bloc consisting of further amendments printed in part F of House Report 
117-320, not earlier

[[Page H4943]]

disposed of. Amendments en bloc shall be considered as read, shall be 
debatable for 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair 
and ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and Labor or 
their respective designees, shall not be subject to amendment, and 
shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question.


       Amendments En Bloc No. 1 Offered by Ms. Bonamici of Oregon

  Ms. BONAMICI. Madam Speaker, pursuant to section 11 of House 
Resolution 1097, I rise to offer amendments en bloc No. 1.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendments en 
bloc.
  Amendments en bloc No. 1 consisting of amendment Nos. 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 
9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17, printed in part F of House Report 
117-320, offered by Ms. Bonamici of Oregon:


            Amendment No. 1 Offered by MS. ESCOBAR OF TEXAS

       Page 27, line 2, strike ``and'' at the end.
       Page 27, line 6, strike the period at the end, and insert 
     ``; and''.
       Page 27, after line 6, insert the following:
       ``(iii) if appropriate, entities and organizations that 
     support innovative community-based approaches and research 
     driven responses to poverty.''.


         Amendment No. 2 Offered by Ms. Adams of North Carolina

       Page 27, line 2, strike ``and'' at the end.
       Page 27, line 6, insert ``and'' at the end.
       Page 27, after line 6, insert the following:
       ``(iii) institutions of higher education, including 
     Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Tribal colleges 
     and universities, and minority-serving institutions;''.


           Amendment No. Offered by Mrs. Hayes of Connecticut

       Page 18, line 12, strike ``and'' at the end.
       Page 18, line 25, strike the period at the end and insert 
     ``; and''.
       Page 18, after line 25, insert the following:
       ``(11) an assurance that the State will provide on its 
     website--
       ``(A) a warning notice to caution individuals that services 
     under this subtitle are provided at no cost and that any 
     questions regarding services provided under this subtitle 
     should be directed to the State's community services block 
     grant coordinator;
       ``(B) a warning notice about verified scams or fraudulent 
     activities related to the programs administered under this 
     subtitle; and
       ``(C) information to direct individuals who believe they 
     have been solicited for such a scam, fraudulent activity, or 
     any form of payment to contact the Department of Health and 
     Human Services' (HHS) Fraud Hotline.''.


           Amendment No. 7 Offered by MR. HORSFORD OF NEVADA

       Beginning on page 41, strike line 19 and all that follows 
     through line 2 on page 42, and insert the following:
       ``(iii) activities that train community services network 
     organizations, and their staff and board members, to 
     effectively address the needs of low-income families and 
     communities through place-based strategies that address local 
     causes and conditions of poverty (including health 
     inequities) through coordinated investment and integrated 
     service delivery; and.''.


        Amendment No. 8 Offered by Ms. Houlahan of Pennsylvania

       Page 26, line 9, insert ``(including behavioral health 
     needs)'' after ``needs''.


          Amendment No. 9 offered by Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas

       Page 62, after line 18, insert the following:

     ``SEC. 686A. GAO STUDY.

       ``Not later than 180 days after the effective date of the 
     section, the Comptroller General of the United States shall 
     conduct a study, and submit to the Secretary of Health and 
     Human Service, and the committees of jurisdiction of the 
     Congress the results of, a study of State usage and 
     allocation of funds received under this subtitle over the 
     previous 10-year period--
       ``(1) to identify the uses, programs, and activities 
     carried out with such funds that had the greatest impact, 
     effectiveness, and results in achieving the purposes for 
     which such funds were provided;
       ``(2) to identify best practices of States in implementing 
     State plans and providing assistance to community action 
     agencies to carry out activities, so that such practices can 
     be used as models for States to follow to carry out this 
     subtitle in the future; and
       ``(3) to determine with respect to such funds--
       ``(A) the amount of such funds received by each State for a 
     particular fiscal year in such 10-year period to carry out 
     its approved State plan, that was not distributed to 
     community action agencies and other eligible entities, and 
     not obligated for subgrants under this subtitle, during such 
     fiscal year;
       ``(B) the particular disposition by the State of the funds 
     described in subparagraph (A) received by such State;
       ``(C) the amount of the funds described in subparagraph (A) 
     received by such State that were retained by such State for 
     allowed purposes (including payment of administrative costs 
     to carry out this subtitle); and
       ``(D) the amount of the funds described in subparagraph (A) 
     received by such State that were expended by the State for a 
     purpose not authorized under this subtitle and identification 
     of each such purpose.''.


           Amendment No. 11 Offered by Ms. Moore of Wisconsin

       Page 24, line 14, strike ``and'' at the end.
       Page 24, line 19, strike the period at the end and insert 
     ``; and''.
       Page 24, after line 19, insert the following:
       ``(ix) providing support to eligible entities to identify 
     and respond to food insecurity by assisting them in their 
     efforts--

       ``(I) to provide nutritious foods to low-income 
     individuals, families, and communities; and
       ``(II) to support practices that promote healthy living.''.


          Amendment No. 12 Offered by Mr. Payne of New Jersey

       Page 63, at the end of line 2, insert the following:
     ``Home repairs needed to ensure the immediate health and 
     safety of eligible low-income individuals, including energy-
     related or water-related repairs, shall not be considered to 
     be construction or permanent improvement for purposes of this 
     section.''.


          amendment no. 13 offered by mr. payne of new jersey

       Page 26, line 13, insert ``(which may include needs that 
     arise due to a national or public health emergency)'' after 
     ``needs'',


       amendment no. 14 offered by ms. pressley of massachusetts

       Page 26, line 25, insert ``including through prevention and 
     mitigation of trauma,'' before ``between''.


           amendment no. 15 offered by ms. tlaib of michigan

       Page 18, line 12, strike ``and'' at the end.
       Page 18, line 25, strike the period at the end and insert 
     ``; and''.
       Page 18, after line 25, insert the following:
       ``(11) a description of how the State, and eligible 
     entities in the State, will coordinate with other programs 
     related to meeting critical household needs that address the 
     purposes of this subtitle, including with resources that 
     reduce the burden of energy and water utility costs.''.


           amendment no. 16 offered by mr. torres of new york

       Page 43, line 4, insert ``, including analysis of best 
     practices in poverty reduction'' before the period at the 
     end.


          amendment no. 17 offered by ms. wild of pennsylvania

       Page 20, after line 17, insert the following:
       ``(f) Transparency.--Each eligible entity shall make 
     available to the public on the eligible entity's website, the 
     entity-wide strategic plan, community needs assessment, and 
     community action plan,''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1097, the 
gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici) and the gentlewoman from North 
Carolina (Ms. Foxx) each will control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Oregon.
  Ms. BONAMICI. Madam Speaker, these amendments en bloc containing 
additional Democratic amendments from my colleagues continue to improve 
the implementation of the community services block grant program and 
strengthens partnerships with communities served by this program.
  Ms. Escobar's amendment adds entities who support innovative 
community-based approaches and research-driven responses as partners 
for community action agencies in their work to broaden the resources 
directed to eliminating poverty.
  Ms. Adams' amendment clarifies that institutions of higher education, 
including HBCUs, TCUs, and MSIs, can be considered as partners for CSBG 
projects.
  Mrs. Hayes' amendment ensures that States provide notice on their 
website that CSBG services are offered at no cost and information about 
fraudulent activity related to CSBG.
  Mr. Horsford's amendment adds language regarding Federal activities 
on place-based poverty alleviating strategies, clarifying that they can 
address health inequities.
  Ms. Houlahan's amendment updates the use of funds to include 
behavioral health needs that an eligible entity may use CSBG funds for.
  Ms. Jackson Lee's amendment requires the Comptroller General to 
conduct a study to identify the uses, programs, and activities that 
have the greatest impact and uses of funds under the program.
  Ms. Moore's amendment authorizes States to use their statewide funds 
to ensure that eligible entities have the necessary supports to address 
food insecurity needs of low-income individuals, families, and 
communities.
  Mr. Payne's and Ms. Tlaib's amendments ensure that CSBG funds can be 
used for home repairs for health and safety, energy, and water for low-
income individuals.

[[Page H4944]]

  Mr. Payne's amendment clarifies that CSBG funds can be used to 
address emergency needs, including emergency needs due to a national or 
public health emergency.
  Ms. Pressley's amendment ensures that eligible entities take into 
account trauma prevention and mitigation when establishing partnerships 
to promote healthy communities.
  Ms. Tlaib's, Mr. Payne's, Ms. Newman's, Ms. Barragan's, and Mr. 
Torres of New York's amendments add a requirement for the State to 
describe how the State and eligible entities will coordinate programs 
related to utility and water assistance services.
  Mr. Torres of New York's amendment revises the reporting requirements 
of the Community Action Innovations Program to include an analysis of 
best practices for reducing poverty.
  And Ms. Wild's amendment requires that eligible entities post their 
strategic plan, community needs assessment, and community action plan 
on their website.
  These amendments en bloc contain commonsense proposals that 
strengthen the underlying bill. I thank my colleagues for their 
contributions. I strongly urge support of the amendments en bloc and 
the underlying bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Madam Speaker, while the amendments before us include some positive 
reforms to improve accountability and transparency in the community 
services block grant program, there are unfortunately several 
problematic amendments in the mix that outweigh the improvements and 
require me to oppose them when considered together.
  These amendments are duplicative, add additional requirements to the 
program, and lessen accountability.
  It is critical to streamline antipoverty programs to make them work 
for low-income Americans. But instead, these amendments layer on 
duplication and move us in the opposite direction.
  I cannot agree to add more inefficiency to an already ineffective 
program, and therefore, cannot support the Democrat amendments before 
us today.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. BONAMICI. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Nevada (Mr. Horsford).
  Mr. HORSFORD. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of my amendment, 
which will ensure we address the impacts health inequities have on 
creating and exacerbating poverty within our communities.
  As my constituents and far too many Americans know, unequal access to 
quality healthcare can be financially crushing.
  Whether an individual is too sick to work and cannot receive adequate 
care or the care they received was very expensive and inadequate, we 
know health inequity is a root cause of poverty in Nevada and across 
the country.
  We cannot combat poverty without recognizing the role that health 
inequities play to perpetuate the cycle of poverty.
  Through my work coleading the Ways and Means Committee's Racial 
Equity Initiative, I have seen firsthand just how valuable data can be 
when we are examining disparities.
  In our healthcare system, the data speaks for itself. In my State of 
Nevada, African Americans and Latinos are twice as likely as their 
White counterparts to develop asthma. This and other chronic illnesses 
exacerbate disparities due to their inherently pervasive nature.
  To combat this, I urge my colleagues to support my amendment and the 
CSBG Modernization Act in a bipartisan manner.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. BONAMICI. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Pennsylvania (Ms. Houlahan).
  Ms. HOULAHAN. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of my amendment 
that ensures that States and other eligible entities under the 
Community Services Block Grant Modernization Act of 2022 can utilize 
funds for behavioral health purposes.
  These past 2 years have had a devastating effect on the physical and 
mental health of people across the Nation, especially those who live in 
poverty or in under-resourced areas.
  In my district, we have seen hospitals shuttered, families suffer, 
and young people facing unprecedented mental health challenges.
  By adding explicit language on behavioral health to this bill, we 
underscore the heightened need for increased resources to reach those 
that are underserved and most at risk.
  Thankfully, recipients like my home State of Pennsylvania are already 
receiving funding through this grant program to alleviate the causes of 
poverty and provide opportunities for employment.
  But the community services block grant program must emphasize that in 
order for States to truly attack the root causes of poverty, they must 
address the rising rate of mental illness and substance abuse 
disorders.
  Just yesterday, the CDC announced that there were more than 100,000 
drug overdoses in 2021, a record high, and a 15 percent increase from 
2020. This data shows that something must change.
  We all know that for people to participate meaningfully in the 
workforce and to achieve self-sufficiency, they need the tools, first 
and foremost, to address their physical, mental, and behavioral health.
  As a prior businessowner, I understand the importance of this 
firsthand, because America thrives when our workers thrive.
  Community services block grants have been successful in supporting 
those who are most underserved across our communities for decades.
  Let's, please, build on this mission and ensure that the program 
meets the needs of our diverse 21st century communities and workers.
  I ask my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. BONAMICI. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Connecticut (Mrs. Hayes), a member of the Committee on Education 
and Labor.
  Mrs. HAYES. Madam Speaker, I rise to offer an amendment to protect 
communities from malicious scams surrounding the community services 
block grant program.
  The CSBG program is absolutely critical to the empowerment of 
vulnerable communities. Funding from the CSBG program has helped nine 
community action agencies in my State serve 107,000 families and 
260,000 individuals.
  It has helped over 81,000 households avoid crisis with energy 
assistance and nearly 17,000 people avoid hunger with emergency or 
supplemental food and enrolled 5,600 children in early childcare 
services.
  Additionally, these agencies have helped nearly 11,000 people file 
their income taxes, returning $8.5 million to my State's economy.
  CSBG programs empower our communities' most vulnerable, which is why 
they are always offered free of charge.
  However, scammers across the country falsely purport to offer CSBG 
services for a fee, preying on those in our community when they are 
most in need of help. We have seen a proliferation of fraud and scams 
throughout the COVID-19 pandemic when emergency Federal dollars were 
sent to States.
  These scams are illegal and morally reprehensible. It is our 
responsibility to ensure our communities are properly informed to 
combat predatory schemes. It is our responsibility to reinforce 
guardrails to protect the integrity of these programs and ensure they 
fulfill their promises to our communities.
  My amendment would require that States provide easily accessible 
warnings about verified scams as well as information on where to seek 
recourse should someone believe they are the victim of a CSBG-related 
scam.
  Making this information available will ensure that CSBG can continue 
to provide lifesaving services to communities without being subject to 
greed and mal-intent. This is a simple, commonsense amendment that the 
Congressional Budget Office has certified as budget neutral.
  I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this amendment and the 
underlying legislation.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. BONAMICI. Madam Speaker, may I inquire how much time I have 
remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Oregon has 2\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.

[[Page H4945]]

  

  Ms. BONAMICI. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I thank the manager of the 
legislation and chairman of the committee for this important 
legislation.
  The Community Services Block Grant Modernization Act is extremely 
important. As we all know, this bipartisan bill will bring about an 
enhanced ability to serve the community.
  The CSBG moneys are particularly important not only to rural areas 
but to urban areas. They are important as they relate to many issues, 
such as in my community dealing with overcoming disasters. Those 
dollars are utilized to ensure housing.
  I include in the Record an article entitled, ``Black communities are 
last in line for disaster planning in Texas'' and an article entitled, 
``5 years after Hurricane Harvey, many in Houston are still waiting for 
help.''

                [From the Washington Post, May 12, 2022]

   Black Communities Are Last in Line for Disaster Planning in Texas

       Houston.--Lawrence Hester worries every time it rains.
       During heavy storms, water overflows the dirt drainage 
     ditch fronting his yard and the bayou at the end of his 
     block--flooding the street, creeping up his front steps, 
     pooling beneath the house, and trapping his family inside.
       ``We are always underwater here,'' said Hester, 61.
       And yet, the state of Texas allocated none of the $1 
     billion in federal funds it received to protect communities 
     from future disasters to neighborhoods in Houston that flood 
     regularly, according to an investigation by the U.S. 
     Department of Housing and Urban Development.
       HUD has now found the exclusion of those majority Black and 
     Hispanic urban communities to be discriminatory. The state 
     ``shifted money away from the areas and people that needed it 
     the most,'' disproportionately benefiting White residents 
     living in smaller towns, the agency concluded.
       Houston has faced seven federally declared disasters in the 
     last seven years and suffered an estimated $2 billion in 
     damage from Hurricane Harvey in 2017. That storm devastated 
     Kashmere Gardens, where Hester has lived his entire life. The 
     floodwaters from Harvey deposited black mold throughout 
     Hester's home and left his daughter chronically short of 
     breath.
       The state, which is appealing HUD's findings, denied 
     discriminating, saying the Texas General Land Office 
     administered the federal grant program based on HUD approval.
       The situation in Texas illustrates the challenge facing the 
     Biden administration, which has pledged to focus on racial 
     equity but is struggling to protect low-income communities of 
     color from the growing threat of climate change. Even after 
     HUD's finding of discrimination, the agency said it does not 
     have the power at this time to suspend the rest of the $4.3 
     billion in disaster mitigation money awarded to the state 
     under criteria approved by the Trump administration.
       ``What is happening here with these federal dollars going 
     through the state and not one dime coming to the City of 
     Houston post-Hurricane Harvey is absolutely crazy, and it 
     cannot be justified,'' said Houston Mayor Sylvester Turner. 
     ``What do I say to the people in Kashmere Gardens when these 
     storms keep coming, and we are not putting in the 
     infrastructure that they desperately need to mitigate the 
     risk of future flooding?''
       Black and Hispanic communities in northeast Houston, 
     including Kashmere Gardens, are especially vulnerable to the 
     more frequent storms and catastrophic flooding expected due 
     to climate change, according to the Federal Emergency 
     Management Agency. Many of the residential streets lack curbs 
     and gutters--common storm drainage infrastructure in 
     predominantly White neighborhoods in Houston--and rely 
     instead on open ditches dating back to the 1930s.
       ``Sometimes we can't get out because the water is so 
     high,'' said Jackie Spradley, Hester's wife. ``You're 
     literally trapped until the water starts to subside.'' She 
     can't get to work. Their 12-year-old daughter can't get to 
     school.
       The whoosh of traffic and trains permeates the triangular 
     neighborhood of modest single-family homes penned between two 
     highways and two sets of railroad tracks. During large 
     storms, runoff from impervious highway surfaces flows onto 
     residential streets.
       Piles of trash--old tires, mattresses, furniture, home 
     insulation--accumulate for weeks in the drainage ditches 
     along many streets, blocking water from flowing through the 
     ditches to the bayou. Silt and other debris clog many of the 
     culverts beneath narrow driveways and footpaths spanning the 
     ditches. In the summers, standing water breeds mosquitoes.
       The city of Houston had hoped to use $95 million in federal 
     grants to upgrade Kashmere Gardens' storm drainage 
     infrastructure. The proposed improvements, including 
     converting some of the ditches to a curb and gutter system, 
     would have removed the flood risk to nearly 1,400 properties.
       But without the money, the city shelved those plans.
       Hester's daughter Ashlei was 7 years old in 2017 when 
     Harvey floodwaters breached their family room, lapping at the 
     legs of the card table on which the family played dominoes. 
     Her cough worsened, and doctors prescribed four different 
     medications for asthma. She was hospitalized in 2018 for 
     more than a week. But doctors still did not know what was 
     causing her illness.
       It wasn't until December 2019, more than two years after 
     Harvey, when Hester and his wife discovered the black mold 
     that was making their daughter so sick. A city inspector 
     recommended that the house be condemned.
       ``I was so ashamed,'' Hester said. ``We didn't have nowhere 
     else to go.''
       His mother had purchased the home in 1960, paying the 
     mortgage with wages from her job flipping burgers 16 hours a 
     day. Hester was born in the house months later.
       He had stayed in the house after Hurricane Alicia flooded 
     the home in 1983. And after Ike in 2008. Even after Harvey, 
     Hester stayed, hoping to someday pass the three-bedroom 
     ranch-style home onto his daughter.
       But Hester, who is on disability for herniated disks in his 
     back and neck from his years as a long-haul truck driver, and 
     his wife, who sells insurance, never had the money to 
     adequately repair the storm-ravaged roof and mold-covered 
     walls.
       Hester said the city informed him after Harvey that he was 
     ineligible for funding to fix the home because of unpaid 
     property taxes.
       ``It's not just about the storm drainage,'' Hester said. 
     ``It's about everything.''
       Hester said that the rainbow-hued oily waters he had 
     splashed in while playing in the drainage ditches as a child 
     had been polluted with cancer-causing creosote used to treat 
     wooden railroad ties and utility poles. A 2019 state health 
     department investigation confirmed elevated cancer rates 
     among residents in the southern end of Kashmere Gardens, 
     located near two Superfund sites. Residents fear that 
     flooding will carry toxic deposits into their yards.
       Hester's mother had died of cancer. So had his father. And 
     one of his brothers. ``Cancer is killing the whole 
     neighborhood,'' said Hester, who is too afraid to visit the 
     doctor about his own health problems.
       Federal disaster mitigation grants are supposed to improve 
     the inferior flood infrastructure in lower income 
     communities. But the HUD investigation found that competition 
     rules set by the Texas General Land Office unfairly favored 
     smaller towns with less urgent needs and where residents are 
     more likely to be White and less likely to be lower income.
       The state knowingly adopted scoring criteria that 
     prioritized lower-density areas and excluded communities that 
     HUD designated as the most impacted by disasters from half 
     the grants, HUD said.
       ``Because the criteria had these unjustified discriminatory 
     effects, their use failed to comply with HUD's regulations,'' 
     the agency found.
       No other state adopted Texas' method of distributing the 
     funds, according to HUD's Office of Fair Housing and Equal 
     Opportunity. The agency concluded that without Texas's 
     discriminatory criteria, nearly four times as many Black 
     residents and more than twice as many Hispanic residents 
     would have benefited from the grants.
       The General Land Office said in its April 1 appeal that the 
     state ``does not discriminate, and the projects it has funded 
     help minority beneficiaries across Texas.'' The state said 
     more than two-thirds of residents in communities that 
     received awards are Black, Hispanic or Asian. The state 
     pointed out that its plan was approved two years ago and 
     characterized HUD's new objections as ``politically 
     motivated.''
       In addition to Houston and surrounding Harris County, the 
     General Land Office denied grants to the predominantly Black 
     and Hispanic cities of Port Arthur, Beaumont and Corpus 
     Christi as well as Jefferson and Nueces counties--all of 
     which experienced significant flooding from Harvey, according 
     to the civil rights complaint. Texas Housers, a nonprofit 
     focused on housing in low-income communities, and Northeast 
     Action Collective, a grassroots advocacy group of Houston 
     residents, filed the complaint with HUD last year.
       Instead, funds were steered toward inland, Whiter 
     communities that were far less severely impacted by 
     hurricanes and used to fund routine infrastructure, the 
     complaint said. That includes $17.5 million for a new 
     community center in Caldwell County that is supposed to 
     double as an evacuation center; $10.8 million to install a 
     sewage system in the 379-person town of Iola; $6 million for 
     a new sheriff's department radio tower and radios for 
     Gonzales County; and $4.2 million for a 2,000-foot-long road 
     in Bastrop County to connect a Walmart parking lot and a Home 
     Depot, justified as an alternate path for emergency vehicles 
     in case the adjacent freeway is clogged with hurricane 
     evacuees from the Gulf Coast 161 miles away.
       ``These mitigation funds are a strategy to undo the 
     systemic racism of the past, but that's not what we're seeing 
     Texas interested in at all,'' said John Henneberger, co-
     director of Texas Housers. ``This is a test of how serious 
     HUD and the Biden administration are in enforcing civil 
     rights.''
       HUD's Office of Community Planning and Development, which 
     oversees disaster mitigation aid, wrote to the Texas General 
     Land Office in March expressing ``grave concerns'' over the 
     distribution of the first round of

[[Page H4946]]

     grants. ``The State has not identified a plan to protect 
     communities while guarding against competition criteria that 
     could disadvantage minority residents,'' HUD wrote. If a 
     voluntary resolution cannot be reached, HUD said it could 
     refer the matter to the Department of Justice for 
     enforcement.
       But advocates worry that could come too late for 
     communities like Kashmere Gardens.
       While HUD said it cannot stop the state from awarding the 
     rest of the grants ``due to prior decisions,'' it would begin 
     monitoring how the money is distributed and warned it could 
     claw back the funds if necessary.
       ``Texas has a history of sending money to those who are 
     politically connected,'' said Shannon Van And, a professor of 
     urban planning at Texas A.M. University whose research 
     focuses on hazard reduction and housing. She noted that 
     racial disparities occurred with the distribution of disaster 
     funds after Hurricane Ike in 2008.
       Civil rights advocates say HUD has the authority to suspend 
     Texas's ability to spend federal grant money; it has done so 
     under previous administrations. But Sara Pratt, former deputy 
     assistant secretary in HUD's fair housing office who is now 
     representing Texas Housers as an attorney, said there is 
     longstanding division among HUD staff over enforcing civil 
     rights violations when making funding decisions.
       ``There is deep disagreement internally,'' Pratt said. 
     ``The secretary's job is to resolve disputes like this.''
       HUD Secretary Marcia L. Fudge declined to comment because 
     the Texas investigation remains open, HUD spokesman Michael 
     Burns said.
       ``Her commitment to civil rights and fair housing is well 
     documented and unwavering, and she is committed to ensuring 
     that all HUD funds are used in compliance with all relevant 
     laws and program requirements,'' Burns said.
       In response to widespread criticism over how the first $1 
     billion in Harvey disaster grants was distributed, Texas now 
     plans to allocate $750 million to Harris County. Houston is 
     due to receive an additional $9 million out of $488 million 
     that the state plans to send to the Houston-Galveston region.
       City officials point out that the $9 million amounts to 
     less than one tenth of the cost of its proposed improvements 
     to Kashmere Gardens.
       In Kashmere Gardens on a recent morning after a 
     thunderstorm inundated streetside drainage ditches, 
     bulldozers and dump trucks worked to widen and deepen Hunting 
     Bayou to absorb runoff from future storms.
       The work is a small portion of a $2.5 billion flood 
     protection bond that Harris County passed in 2018. The bulk 
     of the bond money was directed to wealthier neighborhoods 
     because the county expected to receive federal disaster funds 
     for poorer ones, according to county commissioner Rodney 
     Ellis.
       But without money to upgrade the ditch system to drain 
     storm water from neighborhood streets, it's unclear if the 
     bayou expansion will be effective.
       ``This is the Texas two-step in Houston. You have to get 
     the water from the neighborhoods to the bayous. And then you 
     have to get the water from the bayous to the Gulf of 
     Mexico,'' said Ellis, who represents the area.
       Residents, too, remain skeptical.
       ``It's a wait and see situation,'' said Dorothy Wanza, 
     another Kashmere Gardens resident whose street turned into a 
     river during Harvey and flooded her home with more than a 
     foot of water. The experience left the 80-year-old so 
     traumatized that ``every time it rains, I get the hell out of 
     dodge.''
       She spent the previous night fully dressed, prepared to 
     evacuate to one of her children's homes. ``The ditches 
     overflow, and once they are full, the water comes back on 
     you,'' Wanza said.
       On the other side of the bayou, Hester said the city had 
     recently cleaned out part of a ditch lining his street for 
     the first time he could recall in more than a decade. Dirt 
     and bricks still block some of the culverts.
       ``Right up under there, look,'' he said, pointing beneath 
     the concrete walkway leading from the street to his front 
     yard. ``It's stopped up on both sides.''
       He nodded farther down the street to another culvert: 
     ``That whole drain hole was flooded.'' He and his next door 
     neighbor had removed as many bricks as they could to move the 
     water through. ``If we don't do things around here, ain't 
     nothing going to get done. I have to go around here and try 
     to help, and I'm in bad shape myself.''
       Hester limped around the perimeter of his home and pointed 
     two feet up the siding where Harvey floodwaters had reached--
     a reminder of the catastrophe he says he failed to protect 
     his daughter from.
       A nonprofit had removed the mold inside when it fixed up 
     the house in 2020, installing new cabinets, a new roof and 
     laminate flooring.
       But the entryway still slopes. The floor joists need to be 
     repaired. The porch is lopsided, its wood rotted.
       Hester is stooped from years of pain. Yet he remains intent 
     on doing what he can to make things right.
       ``It's not my life I'm worried about. It's my daughter's,'' 
     Hester said. ``I'm half dead.''
                                  ____


                      [From Grist, April 14, 2022]

 5 Years After Hurricane Harvey, Many in Houston Are Still Waiting for 
                                  Help

       In Billy Guevara's neighborhood on the northeast side of 
     Houston, people get nervous when it rains. Old ditches strain 
     under the deluge of a Gulf storm, and mud and water fill the 
     streets. Guevara, a writer who is blind, once had a seeing-
     eye dog that would navigate around the ankle-deep puddles and 
     lingering muck. ``It became unsafe because I ended up having 
     to walk almost in the middle of the street,'' he said. ``It 
     stays there for days.''
       Guevara is a member of the Northeast Action Collective, a 
     community group pushing the city and Harris County for 
     equitable investments in flood control. He says drainage in 
     his neighborhood of Lakewood is outdated: ``It cannot handle 
     the type of rain that we see now.'' When Hurricane Harvey hit 
     in 2017, homes across many of northeast Houston's Black and 
     Hispanic neighborhoods flooded, swamped under 30 inches of 
     rain in what was the country's costliest disaster that year. 
     Under the rush of water, one of the walls in Guevara's home 
     began to bulge out.
       Years after Harvey, little aid has made it to the people of 
     Houston. The federal government budgeted some $9.3 billion so 
     that communities could not only rebuild, but also better 
     prepare for the next storm. But city and regional governments 
     have delivered little of those funds, and a state agency's 
     ``competition'' has held back aid that the Department of 
     Housing and Urban Development designated for post-Harvey 
     mitigation, money which would have helped upgrade drainage 
     systems. As a result, low-income communities like Guevara's 
     have been left out of much-needed infrastructure 
     improvements.
       Without their fair share of aid, communities struggling to 
     rebuild will be just as vulnerable when the next storm comes, 
     advocates say. These obstacles also expose weaknesses in 
     HUD's recently created mitigation program, which aims to help 
     reduce risks from future climate disasters.
       Hurricane Harvey flooded nearly 100,000 homes in Houston, 
     inflicting $16 billion in residential damage. Guevara had 
     growing mold, damaged floors, and a leaking pipe. With a 
     small FEMA grant and the help of local nonprofits, he was 
     eventually able to repair his home.
       But today, thousands in Houston still wait for funds to 
     rebuild. Disaster recovery aid through HUD often comes with 
     significant delays since the program is ad hoc, requiring 
     Congress to approve spending for each disaster. In 2018, HUD 
     allocated $5 billion to Texas through its Community 
     Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery program, which is 
     designed to help with long-term rebuilding.
       HUD had sent the money to the Texas General Land Office, or 
     GLO, the state agency run by George P. Bush, grandson of 
     former President George H. W. Bush, which is responsible for 
     public lands, mineral rights, and the Alamo historical site, 
     as well as disaster recovery. In turn, the state agency gave 
     Houston's share to the city, but didn't entirely relinquish 
     control, continuing to oversee how funds were doled out. The 
     city and state agency squabbled over how to run things, and 
     when HUD began an audit of the program, the fight escalated, 
     eventually making its way to the Texas Supreme Court. In 
     October 2020, the feud ended with the state seizing control 
     of the program.
       All the while, many residents remained in dangerous living 
     conditions, stuck in homes with leaking roofs and mold-filled 
     walls, said Becky Selle, a codirector at the grassroots group 
     West Street Recovery. It's unclear whether those waiting will 
     ever get assistance. In January, when HUD published its 
     audit, only 297 of nearly 8,800 applicants had received 
     funds. (The state has until August 2025 to use the money.)
       The struggle to access federal aid extended far beyond 
     homeowner's assistance. Harvey was among the first disasters 
     for which HUD's Community Development Block Grant Disaster 
     Recovery program made money available for mitigation projects 
     like widening bayous, upgrading water and sewer systems, or 
     buying out flood-prone homes. This marked a major shift: 
     While disaster recovery funds had to be tied to damage from a 
     specific disaster, the $4.3 billion mitigation fund could be 
     used to improve conditions, making communities safer.
       Houston and Harris County accounted for more than half of 
     Texas' damage from Hurricane Harvey, but when the GLO 
     released its spending plan in December 2019, city officials 
     feared Houston wouldn't get its fair share.
       Because there weren't enough funds for every proposed 
     project, the state's land office set up a competition in 
     which jurisdictions would apply for a slice of the $1 billion 
     in the initial round. HUD identified 20 mainly coastal 
     counties, including Harris County, that were most distressed 
     by Hurricane Harvey and would be eligible for funds. The land 
     office then expanded the list, adding counties that fell 
     under the umbrella of the original FEMA disaster declaration 
     in 2017. That more than doubled the list with more rural, 
     inland counties like Milam, 200 miles from the coast.
       When results from the competition came out last May, 
     Houston didn't get a cent. The city's requests for $470 
     million worth of projects, like flood control in the 
     majority-Black neighborhoods Sunnyside and Kashmere Gardens, 
     were rejected. So was the $200 million watershed improvement 
     plan for the flood-prone Halls Bayou, which is surrounded by 
     some of Houston's poorest neighborhoods. ``For the State GLO 
     not to give one dime in the initial distribution to the city 
     and a very small portion to Harris County shows a callous 
     disregard to the people of

[[Page H4947]]

     Houston and Harris County,'' Houston Mayor Sylvester Turner 
     said in a state1nent at the time.
       Instead, funds largely went to smaller, whiter, inland 
     towns. They went to drainage upgrades in Rockdale, a two-hour 
     drive northwest of Houston, and sewage improvements in Nixon, 
     a small town outside San Antonio that emerged from Harvey 
     unscathed and sheltered evacuees fleeing the storm. ``The 
     more that we're giving this money to inland counties and 
     jurisdictions, we are actually taking away from where we 
     truly need the money and where the money was originally 
     intended to assist communities,'' said Julia Orduna, the 
     southeast Texas regional director at Texas Housers, a low-
     income housing group.
       After the snub, the city of Houston hoped for a second 
     chance when the Houston-Galveston Area Council, a regional 
     council spanning 13 counties, planned to deal out its own 
     pool of the funds. But in February, the council granted just 
     2 percent of its $488 million to the city, which represents 
     around 30 percent of the council's population.
       According to the council, Houston and Harris County didn't 
     need much more than that because the GLO planned to grant the 
     county a direct payment of $750 million--a promise only made 
     after the first competition received intense criticism. But 
     that wasn't a fair consideration, according to Mayor Turner, 
     since that grant had yet to be approved.
       Last June, the Northeast Action Collective and Texas 
     Housers filed a civil rights complaint with HUD, alleging 
     that the GLO discriminated against Black and Hispanic 
     residents. In a recent letter sharing the findings of its 
     investigation, the federal agency sided with the 
     organizations, saying the competition ``substantially and 
     predictably disadvantaged minority residents, with 
     particularly disparate outcomes for Black residents.''
       A major issue, according to HUD, was that the state agency 
     split the competition in two. Half the funds were reserved 
     for counties that the federal government had identified as 
     hardest hit by Harvey--where Black and Hispanic residents 
     were most likely to live--while the other half went to more 
     rural, inland counties included on the state's expanded list, 
     which tended to be whiter.
       At minimum, HUD required that half of the funds would go to 
     communities on its list of hardest-hit counties. While the 
     state agency met that requirement, dividing the competition 
     in two also meant awards to those counties would be capped at 
     50 percent. But those counties represented 90 percent of the 
     population in the entire competition, amounting to much less 
     money available for Black and Hispanic residents.
       After the winners were announced in May 2021, GLO 
     spokeswoman Brittany Eck backed the results in a statement to 
     the Houston Chronicle. ``It is important that Texas inland 
     counties are resilient as they provide vital assistance to 
     our coastal communities during events such as asset staging, 
     evacuations, sheltering, and emergency response/recovery,'' 
     she said.
       The competition favored smaller communities. A flood 
     control project in Houston's mostly Black and Hispanic 
     neighborhood of Kashmere Gardens, HUD's letter explained, 
     would have helped 8,845 residents. But Houston's total 
     population is 2.3 million, so the project scored less than 1 
     out of 10 points because it would help only a small 
     percentage of residents. On the other hand, the city of Iola 
     applied for a wastewater project that all 379 of its 
     residents would gain from. It scored 10 out of 10, and the 
     project was funded.
       In an email to Grist, Eck accused the federal agency of 
     ``blatant political theater.'' She said GLO has complied with 
     HUD's requirements, and now it's being faulted for not 
     ``going above and beyond'' to benefit even more minority 
     residents than it already has. Eck said the land office is 
     appealing HUD's findings.
       ``GLO did not engage in discrimination, and HUD's 
     allegations amount to nothing more than unlawful attempts to 
     `second-guess' GLO's open and transparent competition 
     process, which was approved by HUD,'' Eck said.
       When the state agency's spending plan was still a draft, 
     Madison Sloan, director of the disaster recovery and fair 
     housing project at Texas Appleseed, a public interest justice 
     center, sent a letter detailing concerns that its scoring 
     system would divert money from the hardest-hit areas. ``I 
     don't want to deny that communities all over the state need 
     mitigation,'' she said. ``But when you look at where the 
     damage was, where people are most vulnerable, it is the 
     coast. What this represents is a missed opportunity to do 
     some really largescale, meaningful mitigation on the coast 
     that's going to protect a lot of people.''
       These problems aren't limited to Houston. Along the coast, 
     other cities hit hard by Hurricane Harvey, like Beaumont, 
     Corpus Christi, and Port Arthur, lost out in the competition. 
     In Port Arthur, where the poverty rate is twice the national 
     average, floods propelled by nearly 50 inches of rain 
     devastated the housing stock. Decades of underinvestment have 
     eroded residents' ability to recover from disasters, said 
     Michelle Smith, marketing director at the Community In-Power 
     and Development Association, Inc., an environmental justice 
     group in the city. Some decided to leave Port Arthur entirely 
     because ``they had nothing to come back to,'' she said. So it 
     stung when the city's proposal for a $97 million drainage 
     project was rejected.
       Without these funds, communities that were poorly equipped 
     for Harvey are just as vulnerable to the next storm. ``This 
     is an ongoing thing,'' Smith said. ``With each hurricane, we 
     continue to suffer because we're not able to recover. The 
     little bit that we can salvage is then taken away again and 
     again and again.''
       Sloan thinks the whole situation exposes fissures in HUD's 
     mitigation program. It's largely up to states to decide how 
     to divvy up funds, but studies are needed in advance to 
     ensure fair distribution, she said. That doesn't just benefit 
     the vulnerable; it could make the coast, as a whole, more 
     resilient.
       ``Funding to areas where vulnerable people of color live is 
     going to benefit plenty of white people, plenty of higher-
     income people who also live in those areas,'' she said. ``In 
     this case, in general, equity means everyone wins.''
       After backlash followed the first competition, the state's 
     land office announced that it would give the remaining funds 
     to regional bodies like the Houston-Galveston Area Council to 
     distribute--the same entity that offered Houston a minuscule 
     amount of federal aid. ``The GLO's solution to not doing a 
     second competition was pushing the responsibility to local 
     jurisdictions,'' said Orduna, who felt the new plan does not 
     rectify HUD's allegations of discrimination.
       There will be other storms to come, and Congress will 
     eventually allocate more money to rebuild from them. When 
     that happens, Billy Guevara, of the Northeast Action 
     Collective, worries all the talk and reports will have been 
     just that. ``That's our biggest fear,'' he said. ``Being 
     overlooked again.''

  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, my amendment is extremely important. 
Very quickly, it deals with accountability and performance improvement. 
These are the objectives of my amendment.
  My amendment also deals with making sure, through a GAO study, that 
CSBG has performed well; which programmatic activities, services, and 
other uses of funds were the most effective and had the greatest 
positive impact; which administrative, organizational, structural, and 
operational strategies and tactics that were deployed were most 
successful; how much of the CSBG funds were allocated to States for 
distribution to and use by community action agencies; and whether these 
grants retained by each State exceeded the percentage of such funds 
that were allowed to be retained.
  In effect, the GAO would be conducting a performance audit of this 
program to position it for a fresh start by determining the extent to 
which these funds reached their intended beneficiaries. Many times, 
minorities, though it was directed for them, are disadvantaged because 
of the agency.
  Finally, the net result will be transparency and improvement so that 
others will be served and helped. I thank you for including it in the 
amendments en bloc.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5129, the ``Community 
Service Block Grant Modernization Act of 2022.'' I applaud Leadership 
for bringing H.R. 5129--which has strong bipartisan support--to the 
Floor for consideration and votes.
  For decades, the Community Service Block Grant (CSBG) has fueled a 
wide range of anti-poverty programs, activities, and services across 
the country. It has been profoundly beneficial, improving countless 
lives by helping Americans who are most in need of an assist, enabling 
them to rise up and access the path to a better quality-of-life.
  H.R. 5129 not only provides a long-overdue reauthorization of the 
program; it also improves the CSBG in many ways, including by adding 
systems that will enhance the program's transparency, accountability, 
and evaluations in the future.
  Accountability and performance improvement are also the objectives of 
the Jackson Lee amendment, through additional mechanisms. My amendment 
would direct the Comptroller General of the GAO to study how the CSBG 
has performed over the past ten years, focusing on:
  which programmatic activities, services, and other uses of funds were 
the most effective and had the greatest positive impact on individuals 
and communities that the CSBG was designed to serve;
  which administrative, organizational, structural, and operational 
strategies and tactics that were deployed by states were the most 
productive, efficient, and successful, such that they should be 
considered as ``best practices'' for replication by other states going 
forward;
  how much of CSBG funds that were allocated to states for distribution 
to, and use by, Community Action Agencies and other eligible entities 
were not fully disbursed by states to those intended recipients; and
  whether CSBG funds retained by each state exceeded the percentage of 
such funds that were allowed to be retained by the state for

[[Page H4948]]

administrative and other permissible purposes, the amount that was 
retained in excess of what was allowed, and to what other uses those 
funds were applied or to what other account were they transmitted.
  In effect, the GAO would be conducting a ``performance audit'' of the 
CSBG program to position it for a fresh start, citing its strengths and 
shortcomings, and making recommendations that will help states optimize 
their efforts in the years ahead.
  By determining the extent to which CSBG funds reached their intended 
beneficiaries and fulfilled their intended purpose, we will see which 
states have been conscientiously administering the program, which could 
help calibrate future strategies to structure and monitor the program.
  The net result is that the GAO study and report provided by the 
Jackson Lee amendment will provide transparency and accountability to 
the program's recent past performance. The findings will enable the 
program, and the states that administer it, to learn from the past, 
adjust their programs to maximize results, and revitalize their efforts 
for each state's next chapter of CSBG performance.
  Thank you, Madam Speaker, for bringing this very important bipartisan 
legislation to the Floor today.
  I urge all my colleagues to support the bill, including the Jackson 
Lee amendment and the entire en bloc amendment.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1015

  Ms. BONAMICI. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to 
close.
  Madam Speaker, once again, I reiterate that these amendments en bloc 
contain commonsense proposals that strengthen the underlying bill. I 
appreciate my colleagues for their contributions and their strong 
support of improving access to services, combating poverty, and 
uplifting low-income people in our communities.
  I strongly urge support of the amendments en bloc and the underlying 
bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to 
close.
  My friends at home tell me all the time that they believe common 
sense is in short supply in Washington. I completely agree with them. 
It is practically nonexistent on the other side.
  Madam Speaker, we can exercise common sense by focusing on reforming 
the Federal safety net so that programs pull people out of poverty and 
into self-sufficiency and not encouraging them to stay in dependency on 
the Federal Government. Adding more duplication and bureaucracy to the 
CSBG program will not accomplish that goal.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose these amendments and yield back the 
balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1097, the 
previous question is ordered on the amendments en bloc offered by the 
gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici).
  The question is on the amendments en bloc.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 3(s) of House Resolution 
8, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further proceedings on this question 
are postponed.


       Amendments En Bloc No. 2 Offered by Ms. Bonamici of Oregon

  Ms. BONAMICI. Madam Speaker, pursuant to section 11 of House 
Resolution 1097, I rise to offer amendments en bloc No. 2.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendments en 
bloc.
  Amendments en bloc No. 2 consisting of amendment Nos. 3, 5, and 10, 
printed in part F of House Report 117-320, offered by Ms. Bonamici of 
Oregon:


            amendment no. 3 offered by mr. good of virginia

       Page 28, after line 6, insert the following:
       ``(e) Prohibition.--Funds made available to carry out this 
     subtitle shall not be used to provide direct payment or 
     reimbursement for any health care services.''.


          amendment no. 5 offered by mr. grothman of wisconsin

       Page 27, line 18, strike ``200 percent of''.
       Beginning on page 27, strike line 24 and all that follows 
     through line 6 on page 28, and insert the following:
       ``(2) Whenever a State determines that it serves the 
     objectives of the block grant program established under this 
     subtitle, the State may revise the poverty line not to exceed 
     125 percent of the poverty line otherwise applicable under 
     this paragraph.''.


          amendment no. 10 offered by mrs. mcclain of michigan

       Page 64 line 17, strike ``or'' at the end.
       Page 64, line 21, strike the period at the end and insert 
     ``; or''.
       Page 64, after line 21, insert the following:
       (C) any voter registration activity.
       Page 65, line 5, strike ``(c)'' and insert ``(d)''.
       Page 65, after line 4, insert the following:
       ``(c) Prohibition on Lobbying.--No funds available to carry 
     out this subtitle shall be used, directly or indirectly, to 
     influence the issuance, amendment, or revocation of any 
     executive order or similar promulgation by any Federal, 
     State, or local agency, or to undertake to influence the 
     passage or defeat of any legislation by Congress, or by any 
     State or local legislative body, or State proposals by 
     initiative petition, except that the representatives of the 
     entity may testify or make other appropriate communication--
       ``(1) when formally requested to do so by a legislative 
     body, a committee, or a member of the body or committee; or
       ``(2) in connection with legislation or appropriations 
     directly affecting the activities of the entity.''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1097, the 
gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici) and the gentlewoman from North 
Carolina (Ms. Foxx) each will control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Oregon.
  Ms. BONAMICI. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, this en bloc includes several amendments that I 
believe would vastly improve the underlying legislation.
  First, one of the included amendments will address a critical 
concern. I cannot support any legislation that opens the door for 
taxpayer funding of abortion, and this bill opens that door. The 
legislation includes vague language allowing program funds to address 
health needs and improve health and well-being. While this might sound 
nice at first blush, it hides a huge problem. I am concerned that 
instead of helping people receive high-quality healthcare, it will lead 
to taxpayer dollars funding abortions.
  The majority of Americans oppose seeing their hard-earned dollars go 
to pay for abortions, and we must do all in our power to stop that from 
ever happening. This amendment will make sure that no taxpayer dollars 
are used to reimburse healthcare services. It will also ensure that 
taxpayer dollars are not used for experimental gender hormone 
medications or other harmful gender medical interventions.
  Additionally, this amendment takes the commonsense steps to prohibit 
taxpayer dollars from funding lobbying activities and voter 
registration activities. H.R. 5129 would allow program funds to be used 
for voter registration efforts. While getting more eligible individuals 
registered to vote is a worthy goal, we should not jeopardize the 
integrity of this program or let the next election distract from 
serving low-income Americans.
  Finally, this amendment ensures that limited Federal funds are spent 
on those Americans most in need by maintaining the poverty threshold 
that exists in current law. Increasing this threshold will just expand 
the pool of eligible participants and stretch resources thinner. We 
need to tailor the program to ensure that Federal dollars serve those 
most in need.
  Madam Speaker, I hope my colleagues will support this group of 
amendments, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. BONAMICI. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to these amendments en 
bloc. The amendments contained in this en bloc are either a distraction 
from the bipartisan work we are doing today or fundamentally undermine 
the improvements we are putting forth in this legislation. Notably, 
this en bloc includes yet another Republican attack on women's rights 
and liberty.
  Instead of focusing on what we have accomplished together to 
strengthen this program in a bipartisan way, some of my colleagues 
across the aisle are trying to further divide us. Madam Speaker, it has 
been 24 years since the last reauthorization of the community services 
block grant program in 1998.

[[Page H4949]]

Our communities need a comprehensive reauthorization, not a partisan 
controversy that will delay the urgent need to renew this program.
  From the beginning of the program, community action agencies have 
addressed the health needs of low-income individuals in their 
communities, particularly important to rural communities. The 1964 
Economic Opportunity Act, which first authorized the community action 
program, the predecessor to CSBG, specifies that such program shall be 
conducted in those fields with the purposes of this part, including 
employment, job training and counseling, and health, indicating that 
health has always been and continues to be a core part of addressing 
poverty conditions that is the central mission of these agencies.
  Additionally, this en bloc would seek to strip out language from H.R. 
5129 allowing CAAs, community action agencies, to serve individuals up 
to 200 percent of the Federal poverty line.
  Congress supported, in a bipartisan manner, allowing community action 
agencies to serve individuals up to 200 percent of the poverty line to 
provide flexibility during the COVID-19 pandemic. The CARES Act, for 
example, the FY 2022 Labor/HHS appropriations bill, and the recently 
passed omnibus all included an allowance for CAAs to serve individuals 
up to 200 percent of the poverty line.
  The CSBG statute, which we know now is more than 20 years out of 
date, sets the income eligibility for CSBG services at 100 percent of 
the official poverty line or 125 percent if the State chooses. 
Currently, the very low-income eligibility criteria--this is equivalent 
to about $27,180 for a single person in 2022--for CSBG creates a cliff. 
Individuals will be cut off from public assistance and services as soon 
as they make a dime over the income threshold.
  We must remember that community action agencies are unique, as they 
do not operate a single program. Rather, CAAs operate and often 
coordinate an array of Federal, State, and local programs, all with 
varying eligibility requirements. For example, more than half of 
community action agencies operate the Weatherization Assistance 
Program. That uses 200 percent of the poverty income guidance as the 
eligibility criteria.
  I will share a story of Daniel from North Dakota. When the pandemic 
struck, Daniel was working in a fast-food restaurant, and his hours 
were reduced. With his employment income, he is above the statutory 125 
percent, but below the 200 percent flexibility Congress has provided 
with bipartisan support. Unfortunately, Daniel's housing was unstable, 
and he was couch surfing. He received case management to assist with 
his housing search. Through CSBG funds provided under the CARES Act, he 
received assistance with a security deposit in February of 2021. With 
this assistance, Daniel has maintained stable housing for over a year.
  Madam Speaker, Daniel's story is just one example of why raising the 
Federal poverty level eligibility to 200 percent is so critical to this 
legislation. Unlike the underlying legislation, these amendments en 
bloc would weaken CSBG, or it offers solutions in search of problems.

  One of the needless proposals in this en bloc actually duplicates the 
current funding restriction in the bill and statute for voter 
registration activities which, of course, are nonpartisan activities.
  Madam Speaker, we are here today to support a bipartisan CSBG 
reauthorization and the important work of community action agencies in 
our communities. These amendments en bloc would move us backward. I 
strongly urge my colleagues to reject these amendments in this en bloc 
and support the underlying bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Good).
  Mr. GOOD of Virginia. Madam Speaker, the Supreme Court seems poised 
to finally, mercifully, reverse the only decision in the history of the 
Court that has cost more than 60 million precious innocent lives which, 
by the way, beyond the moral travesty, has contributed massively to our 
labor shortages and Social Security and Medicare being on the verge of 
bankruptcy.
  In typical fashion, Democrats are revealing who they are with their 
response, and their unlawful protests and intimidation tactics at the 
homes of the Justices, while the administration and their allies in 
this body cheer them on.
  Democrats can't win at the ballot box or through the legislative 
process, so they try to eliminate the electoral college, rig election 
laws, eliminate the filibuster, pack the Supreme Court, pack the 
Senate, give statehood to D.C. and Puerto Rico, and now threaten 
Justices at their homes.
  This is because Democrats are the radical extremists on abortion. 
They have become the party of death. Their position is abortion at any 
time, for any reason, up to and beyond the moment of birth, with 
taxpayers being forced to fund it.
  I didn't hear any Democrats criticize the former Governor of Virginia 
when he said a couple of years ago that a mother and her doctor can 
have a conversation after a baby is born and decide whether or not to 
kill it.
  I say, let's have this fight in this Congress.
  We had an election 6 months ago in purple Virginia when everyone knew 
that the Supreme Court would be reviewing Roe v. Wade, and the party of 
death got trounced in that election.
  Republicans must embrace this moment and stand for life, expose 
Democrats for the radical extremists they are, and work to end the 
brutal, horrific practice of abortion. To Democrats, I say bring it on. 
Let Democrats defend piercing a baby's skull and sucking out its 
brains, tearing an infant limb from limb, or burning it alive with a 
saline injection. Call it what it is and call them out for supporting 
abortion with no restrictions whatsoever.
  Just this week, Democrats pushed another failed abortion-on-demand 
vote in the Senate, a bill that passed this House with no Republican 
votes but, sadly, all but one Democrat supporting it, as they try to 
ensure that America remains among the most extreme nations in the world 
with the most radical laws on abortion.
  Now, this current piece of legislation will permit Federal dollars to 
be used to harm the unborn, as it includes a provision that allows 
taxpayer dollars to be used to ``address health needs and improve 
health and well-being'' and ``to identify and respond to physical and 
behavioral health challenges.''
  However, a recent Marist poll found that 54 percent of Americans 
oppose using taxpayer dollars to fund abortions.
  My amendment would protect taxpayers from being forced to pay for 
abortions, even if Hyde were repealed. If this bill is not intended to 
fund abortion, then accept and pass my amendment.
  Ms. BONAMICI. Madam Speaker, I have a lot to say in response to the 
gentleman, but I am going to take a deep breath and say, this is a bill 
about helping to lift low-income Americans out of poverty. It is a 
bipartisan bill we have been working on for many years. It is time to 
update the community services block grant program and help lift low-
income Americans in Oregon and across the country out of poverty.
  I oppose these amendments en bloc, and I encourage my colleagues to 
oppose them. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Michigan (Mrs. McClain.)
  Mrs. McCLAIN. Madam Speaker, I would agree with my colleague across 
the aisle, this bill should be about lifting families out of poverty 
and providing hope to underserved communities. Let's do that, and let's 
actually for once in agreement, let's put our money where our mouth is 
and let's actually make sure that the dollars are actually used for 
what the bill intends them to be used for.
  We should not be blurring lines between workforce issues and 
political campaigns. This isn't a political campaign, correct? 
Facilities used for community service block grants should not be open 
to political activities during operation hours. Sadly, this is exactly 
what my colleagues on the other side want, and they are notorious for 
talking about a bill and then packing it full of something that has 
nothing to do with the bill. So let's do what we say we are going to do 
and actually help the communities.

[[Page H4950]]

  


                              {time}  1030

  Where does this end? This is the foot in the door to allow real 
partisan action to be commingled with Federal programs. We have a clear 
example of this that is happening today.
  Need I remind everyone about ACORN? That should be example enough to 
illustrate why this is a terrible idea but, apparently, not for my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle.
  My amendment is simple. It would remove the troubling language in 
this bill that allows taxpayer-funded community action centers to be 
used to increase voting registration.
  Let's keep the bill to what you say it is going to be. It would also 
prohibit community service block grant funds from any lobbying 
activities. Again, let's actually use the funds for the people in the 
community, not the politics.
  We all want eligible Americans to register to vote and actually get 
to the polls on election day. But that is not the purpose of the 
community block grants. This bill should not blur the lines between 
educational and political activities.
  Ms. BONAMICI. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Grothman).
  Mr. GROTHMAN. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, there are certainly many concerns over this bill. The 
one that I would like to highlight today is that they are greatly 
increasing the expansion of eligibility for the bill.
  Now, that doesn't necessarily mean the bill is going to make things 
more expensive, but you know very well if we are going to bring a whole 
lot of new areas into the bill, if we don't increase the spending, the 
areas that are currently part of the community services block grant are 
going to go down.
  I don't believe the majority party is going to let anybody go down, 
which means this bill anticipates a significant increase in spending on 
this program. This is one of many programs that I would argue, under 
the Constitution, really even should not be a Federal concern. It 
should be a local concern.
  To double the eligibility to 200 percent and make that permanent is 
resulting at a time when our spending is just completely out of 
control, setting up a situation in which there will be dramatic 
spending on another government program.
  Ms. BONAMICI. Madam Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I continue 
to reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Madam Speaker, my colleagues have presented many good arguments 
against this bill in general and why we should be voting for these 
amendments that are in this en bloc. These amendments will provide 
needed improvements to the underlying legislation and make sure that 
program funds are spent on the program's original goal, serving low-
income Americans and helping them get out of poverty.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this en bloc 
amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. BONAMICI. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Madam Speaker, again, I reiterate my strong opposition to this en 
bloc amendment and support for the underlying bill.
  This bipartisan bill is about improving services for our communities 
through community action, and these efforts are long overdue.
  Unlike the underlying bill that enjoys broad bipartisan support and 
reflects the input of stakeholders who represent these agencies and 
their vital work in our communities, this en bloc amendment ignores 
what we have accomplished together to strengthen this program and seeks 
to further divide us.
  Rather than addressing the real needs of low-income individuals, this 
en bloc amendment attacks women's reproductive rights at a time when 
they are under attack nationally.
  The sponsors of this en bloc amendment have injected controversy into 
a policy on voter registration, which is nonpartisan. Head Start has 
had a nearly identical policy for the last 40 years with little 
evidence of a problem.
  Together, these amendments all failed in our bipartisan committee 
markup, and they should again.
  Madam Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues to reject this en bloc 
amendment and support the underlying bill. I yield back the balance of 
my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1097, the 
previous question is ordered on the amendments en bloc offered by the 
gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici).
  The question is on the amendments en bloc offered by the gentlewoman 
from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici).
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 3(s) of House Resolution 
8, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further proceedings on this question 
are postponed.


               Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Gottheimer

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 
4 printed in part F of House Report 117-320.
  Mr. GOTTHEIMER. Madam Speaker, pursuant to section 10 of House 
Resolution 1097, I rise to offer an amendment.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 24, line 14, strike ``and'' at the end.
       Page 24 line 19, strike the period at the end and insert 
     ``; and''.
       Page 24, after line 19, insert the following:
       ``(ix) providing support to eligible entities to address 
     the needs of veterans, particularly homeless veterans.''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1097, the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Gottheimer) and a Member opposed each 
will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. GOTTHEIMER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in support of my amendment to the bipartisan 
Community Services Block Grant Modernization Act.
  Before I begin, I thank all the veterans back in my home district in 
northern New Jersey and nationwide from the bottom of my heart for 
putting your lives on the line to defend our freedom, our families, and 
the greatest democracy the world has ever known.
  Please know this: After sacrificing so much, no veteran should ever 
struggle to get the care or recognition he or she has earned. We should 
always get their backs.
  My amendment to the legislation we are considering today will do just 
that. It will add critical support for our brave veterans, particularly 
homeless veterans, to the list of allowable purposes on which State 
governments, including my State of New Jersey, may deploy Federal 
community services block grant program investments.
  The bipartisan community services block grant program helps to reduce 
poverty, revitalize communities, and empower families and individuals 
to become fully self-sufficient. It helps individuals, like veterans, 
to get and keep a good job, a good education, housing, healthcare, and 
emergency assistance and, above all, to participate more actively in 
their communities.
  In New Jersey, the program annually serves more than 200,000 
individuals and 130,000 families through the work of 25 community 
action agencies. These agencies are typically private nonprofit 
organizations, public agencies, or local government entities, like 
Greater Bergen County Community Action, which provides education and 
training, financial counseling, and more; or Bergen County's 
government, where our county executive and commissioners have focused 
like a laser beam on successfully helping combat veteran homelessness.
  The bipartisan legislation on the floor today will make important 
updates to the community services block grant program. My amendment 
will add support for veterans and, in particular, as I said, homeless 
veterans to the list of investments States like New Jersey can make 
through the program.
  With this amendment, community action agencies will work alongside 
State and local agencies to raise

[[Page H4951]]

awareness among veterans of housing programs and help those who bravely 
served our country to secure the housing they need. Once stable housing 
is secured, community action agencies will work with veterans and other 
eligible individuals to ensure the full range of community resources, 
including workforce training, health resources, and opportunities for 
peer support, are available to those veterans who need it most.
  Supporting our Nation's veterans with the community services block 
grant program is the least we can do. After serving our country and 
putting their lives on the line to defend our freedom and democracy, 
our Nation's veterans should not struggle to get the resources they 
have earned. But far too often, our veterans face issues finding 
housing and employment. It is unacceptable.
  On any given night, the Federal Government estimates that more than 
40,000 veterans are homeless. On top of that, data shows that the 
unemployment rate of veterans ages 18 to 65 is higher than the 
unemployment rate of nonveterans.
  Today's amendment builds on the work I helped lead, working with both 
sides of the aisle in recent months and since I was elected, to support 
our servicemembers, veterans, and veteran families.
  The first piece of legislation I passed in Congress was to expand 
hiring of post-9/11 veterans. Just weeks ago, I was proud to join my 
colleagues in passing a 2.7 percent pay raise for members of the 
military to ensure we are getting the backs of those who bravely have 
ours.
  Late last year, the House passed the bipartisan Student Veterans 
Counseling Centers Eligibility Act, which will expand access to mental 
health services for veterans utilizing their GI benefits at colleges 
and universities through established vet centers.
  In March, we passed the bipartisan Guard and Reserve GI Bill Parity 
Act to help expand access to GI benefits for members of our military 
who serve in the National Guard and Reserves, as they don't receive the 
same access to vital GI benefits that they deserve as well.
  Also in March, working with the members of the bipartisan Problem 
Solvers Caucus, we passed the Honoring our PACT Act here in the House 
to help veterans exposed to burn pits, covering veterans dating back to 
1991 and Operation Desert Storm and through our more recent post-9/11 
conflicts.
  This included my key provisions to address the mental health impacts 
for toxic exposure for veterans and to ensure VA information on toxic 
exposure illnesses is published in multiple languages, like Korean and 
Spanish, to help even more of our veterans.
  Back home in New Jersey, I have been fighting for expanded access to 
healthcare services, and I helped establish the mental health services 
at the VA Community-Based Outpatient Clinic in Newton in Sussex County, 
New Jersey. I am working to cut through red tape with the VA Community 
Care Network to ensure eligible north Jersey veterans are able to 
receive referrals for community care at ImageCare Centers across the 
Fifth District. We have made critical progress on that front. Now, more 
veterans in my district have greater access to healthcare that they 
deserve.
  Let me just say, these are not Democratic or Republican issues. They 
are red, white, and blue issues. They are issues core to protecting our 
great democracy, the ones our veterans have always fought for.
  There is nothing more important in this job than our responsibility 
to have the backs of those who have served our great Nation, whether 
that is at the VA, a mental health issue, or helping veterans find 
housing or get jobs when they come back home.

  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to 
vote in favor of my amendment to add support for veterans to the list 
of eligible community services block grant investments.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I claim the time in opposition, but I am not 
opposed.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, we owe our military veterans a huge debt of 
gratitude, and we must make sure they are well supported as they 
transition back into the civilian workforce.
  This amendment encourages the CSBG program to meet the needs of low-
income veterans, especially homeless veterans. It is surprising to me 
that we need to put such an amendment in this bill because we would 
think that the CSBG program would already be doing it. But since this 
is a worthy goal and one that I support, I will support this amendment.
  In fact, Madam Speaker, I wear a pin every day with the United States 
flag, the North Carolina flag, and a banner under it that says: ``I 
support veterans.'' Therefore, I must support an amendment that would 
support veterans.
  While I have concerns with the underlying bill, I think this is a 
good amendment, and I appreciate the gentleman offering it.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOTTHEIMER. Madam Speaker, I thank the ranking member for her 
comments and for the support of veterans.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. 
Bonamici).
  Ms. BONAMICI. Madam Speaker, I thank Representative Gottheimer for 
his amendment and for his leadership in addressing the needs of our 
country's veterans.
  Madam Speaker, this amendment will help community action agencies 
meet the needs of veterans, particularly homeless veterans.
  Although many community action agencies already implement other 
Federal programs serving veterans, this amendment will emphasize that 
all eligible entities are able and equipped to serve veterans and their 
communities.
  Again, I thank my colleague for offering this amendment, and I thank 
the ranking member for supporting it as well.
  Mr. GOTTHEIMER. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Madam Speaker, we must do all we can to make sure we help low-income 
and homeless veterans. I think this amendment furthers that effort.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1097, the 
previous question is ordered on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Gottheimer).
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Gottheimer).
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. CLYDE. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays. The 
SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 3(s) of House Resolution 8, 
the yeas and nays are ordered.
  Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further proceedings on this question 
are postponed.

                          ____________________