[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.
____________________