[House Report 106-503]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
106th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session 106-503
=======================================================================
LITERACY INVOLVES FAMILIES TOGETHER ACT
_______
February 29, 2000.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on
the State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Goodling, from the Committee on Education and the Workforce,
submitted the following
R E P O R T
together with
ADDITIONAL AND DISSENTING VIEWS
[To accompany H.R. 3222]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Education and the Workforce, to whom was
referred the bill (H.R. 3222) to amend the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965 to improve literacy through
family literacy projects, having considered the same, report
favorably thereon with amendments and recommend that the bill
as amended do pass.
The amendments are as follows:
Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert in lieu
thereof the following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Literacy Involves Families Together
Act''.
TITLE I--FAMILY LITERACY
SEC. 101. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
Section 1002(b) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965
(20 U.S.C. 6302(b)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``$118,000,000 for fiscal year 1995'' and
inserting ``$500,000,000 for fiscal year 2001''; and
(2) by striking ``four'' and inserting ``three''.
SEC. 102. IMPROVING BASIC PROGRAMS OPERATED BY LOCAL EDUCATIONAL
AGENCIES.
Section 1111(c) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965
(20 U.S.C. 6311(c)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (5), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) in paragraph (6), by striking the period at the end and
inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(7) the State educational agency will encourage local
educational agencies and individual schools participating in a
program assisted under this part to offer family literacy
services (using funds under this part), if the agency or school
determines that a substantial number of students served under
this part by the agency or school have parents who do not have
a high school diploma or its recognized equivalent or who have
low levels of literacy.''.
SEC. 103. EVEN START FAMILY LITERACY PROGRAMS.
(a) Statement of Purpose.--Section 1201 of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6361) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``high quality'' after
``build on''; and
(2) by amending paragraph (2) to read as follows:
``(2) promote the academic achievement of children and
adults;'';
(3) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (3) and
inserting ``; and''; and
(4) by adding at the end the following:
``(4) use instructional programs based on scientifically
based reading research (as defined in section 2252) and the
prevention of reading difficulties for children and, to the
extent such research is available, scientifically based reading
research (as so defined) for adults.''.
(b) Program Authorized.--
(1) Reservation for migrant programs, outlying areas, and
indian tribes.--Section 1202(a) of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6362(a)) is amended--
(A) in paragraph (1), in the matter preceding
subparagraph (A), by inserting ``(or, if such
appropriated amount exceeds $200,000,000, 6 percent of
such amount)'' after ``1002(b)'';
(B) in paragraph (2), by striking ``If the amount of
funds made available under this subsection exceeds
$4,600,000,'' and inserting ``After the date of the
enactment of the Literacy Involves Families Together
Act,''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(3) Coordination of programs for american indians.--The
Secretary shall ensure that programs under paragraph (1)(C) are
coordinated with family literacy programs operated by the
Bureau of Indian Affairs in order to avoid duplication and to
encourage the dissemination of information on high quality
family literacy programs serving American Indians.''.
(2) Reservation for federal activities.--Section 1202(b) of
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.
6362(b)) is amended to read as follows:
``(b) Reservation for Federal Activities.--
``(1) Evaluation, technical assistance, program improvement,
and replication activities.--From amounts appropriated under
section 1002(b), the Secretary may reserve not more than 3
percent of such amounts for purposes of--
``(A) carrying out the evaluation required by section
1209; and
``(B) providing, through grants or contracts with
eligible organizations, technical assistance, program
improvement, and replication activities.
``(2) Research.--In the case of fiscal years 2001 through
2004, if the amounts appropriated under section 1002(b) for any
of such years exceed such amounts appropriated for the
preceding fiscal year, the Secretary shall reserve from such
excess amount $2,000,000 or 50 percent, whichever is less, to
carry out section 1211(b).''.
(c) Reservation for Grants.--Section 1202(c)(1) of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6362(c)(1)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``From funds reserved under section
2260(b)(3), the Secretary shall award grants,'' and inserting
``For any fiscal year for which at least one State applies and
qualifies and for which the amount appropriated under section
1002(b) exceeds the amount appropriated under such section for
the preceding fiscal year, the Secretary shall reserve, from
the amount of such excess remaining after the application of
subsection (b)(2), the amount of such remainder or $1,000,000,
whichever is less, to award grants,''; and
(2) by adding at the end ``No State may receive more than one
grant under this subsection.''.
(d) Allocations.--Section 1202(d)(2) of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6362(d)(2)) is amended by striking
``that section'' and inserting ``that part''.
(e) Definitions.--Section 1202(e) of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6362(e)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)(B), by striking ``or'' after ``higher
education,'' and inserting ``a religious organization, or'';
and
(2) in paragraph (2), by striking ``nonprofit organization''
and inserting ``nonprofit organization, including a religious
organization,''.
(f) Subgrants for Local Programs.--Section 1203(b)(2) of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6363(b)(2))
is amended to read as follows:
``(2) Minimum subgrant amounts.--
``(A) In general.--Except as provided in
subparagraphs (B) and (C), no State shall award a
subgrant under paragraph (1) in an amount less than
$75,000.
``(B) Subgrantees in ninth and succeeding years.--No
State shall award a subgrant under paragraph (1) in an
amount less than $52,500 to an eligible entity for a
fiscal year to carry out an Even Start program that is
receiving assistance under this part or its predecessor
authority for the ninth (or any subsequent) fiscal
year.
``(C) Exception for single subgrant.--A State may
award one subgrant in each fiscal year of sufficient
size, scope, and quality to be effective in an amount
less than $75,000 if, after awarding subgrants under
paragraph (1) for such fiscal year in accordance with
subparagraphs (A) and (B), less than $75,000 is
available to the State to award such subgrants.''.
(g) Uses of Funds.--Section 1204 of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6364) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by striking ``family-centered
education programs'' and inserting ``family literacy
services''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(c) Use of Funds for Family Literacy Services.--
``(1) In general.--States may use a portion of funds received
under this part to assist eligible entities receiving a
subgrant under section 1203(b) in improving the quality of
family literacy services provided under Even Start programs
under this part, except that in no case may a State's use of
funds for this purpose for a fiscal year result in a decrease
from the level of activities and services provided to program
participants in the preceding year.
``(2) Priority.--In carrying out paragraph (1), a State shall
give priority to programs that were of low quality, as
evaluated based on the indicators of program quality developed
by the State under section 1210.
``(3) Technical assistance to help local programs raise
additional funds.--In carrying out paragraph (1), a State may
use the funds referred to in such paragraph to provide
technical assistance to help local programs of demonstrated
effectiveness to access and leverage additional funds for the
purpose of expanding services and reducing waiting lists.
``(4) Technical assistance and training.--Assistance under
paragraph (1) shall be in the form of technical assistance and
training, provided by a State through a grant, contract, or
cooperative agreement with an entity that has experience in
offering high quality training and technical assistance to
family literacy providers.''.
(h) Program Elements.--Section 1205 of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6365) is amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraphs (9) and (10) as paragraphs
(12) and (13), respectively;
(2) by redesignating paragraphs (5) through (8) as paragraphs
(6) through (9), respectively;
(3) by inserting after paragraph (4) the following:
``(5) with respect to the qualifications of staff the cost of
whose salaries are paid, in whole or in part, with Federal
funds provided under this part, ensure that--
``(A) not later than 4 years after the date of the
enactment of the Literacy Involves Families Together
Act--
``(i) a majority of academic instruction is
provided by individuals who--
``(I) have obtained an associate's,
bachelor's, or graduate degree in a
field related to early childhood
education, elementary school education,
or adult education; or
``(II) meet qualifications
established by the State for early
childhood education, elementary school
education, or adult education provided
as part of an Even Start program or
another family literacy program;
``(ii) the individual responsible for
administration of family literacy services
under this part has received training in the
operation of a family literacy program; and
``(iii) paraprofessionals who provide support
for academic instruction have a high school
diploma or its recognized equivalent; and
``(B) beginning on the date of the enactment of the
Literacy Involves Families Together Act, all new
personnel hired to provide academic instruction--
``(i) have obtained an associate's,
bachelor's, or graduate degree in a field
related to early childhood education,
elementary school education, or adult
education; or
``(ii) meet qualifications established by the
State for early childhood education, elementary
school education, or adult education provided
as part of an Even Start program or another
family literacy program;'';
(4) by inserting after paragraph (9) (as so redesignated by
paragraph (2)) the following:
``(10) use instructional programs based on scientifically
based reading research (as defined in section 2252) for
children and, to the extent such research is available, for
adults;
``(11) encourage participating families to attend regularly
and to remain in the program a sufficient time to meet their
program goals;''; and
(5) in paragraph (13) (as so redesignated), by striking
``program.'' and inserting ``program to be used for program
improvement.''.
(i) Eligible Participants.--Section 1206 of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6366) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(1)(B) by striking ``part;'' and
inserting ``part, or who are attending secondary school;''; and
(2) in subsection (b), by adding at the end the following:
``(3) Children 8 years of age or older.--If an Even Start
program assisted under this part collaborates with a program
under part A, and funds received under such part A program
contribute to paying the cost of providing programs under this
part to children 8 years of age or older, the Even Start
program, notwithstanding subsection (a)(2), may permit the
participation of children 8 years of age or older.''.
(j) Plan.--Section 1207(c) of the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6367(c)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)--
(A) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by
inserting ``and continuous improvement'' after ``plan
of operation'';
(B) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``goals;'' and
inserting ``objectives, strategies to meet such
objectives, and how they are consistent with the
program indicators established by the State;'';
(C) in subparagraph (E), by striking ``and'' at the
end;
(D) in subparagraph (F)--
(i) by striking ``Act, the Goals 2000:
Educate America Act,'' and inserting ``Act'';
and
(ii) by striking the period at the end and
inserting ``; and''; and
(E) by adding at the end the following:
``(G) a description of how the plan provides for
rigorous and objective evaluation of progress toward
the program objectives described in subparagraph (A)
and for continuing use of evaluation data for program
improvement.''; and
(2) in paragraph (2), in the matter preceding subparagraph
(A), by striking ``(1)(A)'' and inserting ``(1)''.
(k) Award of Subgrants.--Section 1208 of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6368) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) in paragraph (1)(F), by striking ``Federal'' and
inserting ``non-Federal''; and
(B) in paragraph (1)(H), by inserting ``family
literacy projects and other'' before ``local
educational agencies''; and
(C) in paragraph (3), in the matter preceding
subparagraph (A), by striking ``one or more of the
following individuals:'' and inserting ``one individual
with expertise in family literacy programs, and may
include other individuals, such as one or more of the
following:''; and
(2) in subsection (b)--
(A) by striking paragraph (3) and inserting the
following:
``(3) Continuing eligibility.--In awarding subgrant funds to
continue a program under this part after the first year, the
State educational agency shall review the progress of each
eligible entity in meeting the objectives of the program
referred to in section 1207(c)(1)(A) and shall evaluate the
program based on the indicators of program quality developed by
the State under section 1210.''; and
(B) by amending paragraph (5)(B) to read as follows:
``(B) The Federal share of any subgrant renewed under
subparagraph (A) shall be limited in accordance with section
1204(b).''.
(l) Research.--Section 1211 of the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6369b) is amended--
(1) in subsection (b), by striking ``subsection (a)'' and
inserting ``subsections (a) and (b)'';
(2) by redesignating subsection (b) as subsection (c); and
(3) by inserting after subsection (a) the following:
``(b) Scientifically Based Research on Family Literacy.--
``(1) In general.--From amounts reserved under section
1202(b)(2), the National Institute for Literacy shall carry out
research that--
``(A) is scientifically based reading research (as
defined in section 2252); and
``(B) determines--
``(i) the most effective ways of improving
the literacy skills of adults with reading
difficulties; and
``(ii) how family literacy services can best
provide parents with the knowledge and skills
they need to support their children's literacy
development.
``(2) Use of expert entity.--The National Institute for
Literacy shall carry out the research under paragraph (1)
through an entity, including a Federal agency, that has
expertise in carrying out longitudinal studies of the
development of literacy skills in children and has developed
effective interventions to help children with reading
difficulties.''.
(m) Treatment of Religious Organizations.--Part B of title I of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6361 et seq.)
is amended by adding at the end the following:
``SEC. 1213. RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS.
``(a) Religious Organizations Included as Partnership Participants.--
In carrying out this part, the Secretary, and any grantee or subgrantee
receiving assistance under this part, shall treat religious
organizations the same as other nongovernmental organizations, so long
as this part is implemented in a manner consistent with the
Establishment Clause of the first amendment to the Constitution. The
Secretary, and any grantee or subgrantee receiving assistance under
this part, shall not discriminate against an organization that
participates in a partnership that is an eligible entity that is
receiving assistance under this part or is applying to receive such
assistance, on the basis that the organization has a religious
character.
``(b) Religious Character and Independence.--
``(1) In general.--A religious organization that participates
in a partnership that is an eligible entity that is receiving
assistance under this part or is applying to receive such
assistance shall retain its religious character and control
over the definition, development, practice, and expression of
its religious beliefs.
``(2) Additional safeguards.--Neither the Federal Government
nor a State or local government shall require a religious
organization--
``(A) to alter its form of internal governance; or
``(B) to remove religious art, icons, scripture, or
other symbols;
in order to be eligible to participate in a partnership that is
an eligible entity that is receiving assistance under this part
or is applying to receive such assistance.
``(3) Employment practices.--A religious organization's
exemption provided under section 702 of the Civil Rights Act of
1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e-1) regarding employment practices shall
not be affected by its participation in, or receipt of funds
from, a program under this part.
``(c) Limitations on Use of Funds for Certain Purposes.--No funds
provided to a religious organization under this part or section 1002(b)
shall be expended for sectarian worship or instruction or
proselytization.
``(d) Prohibition on Serving as Fiscal Agent.--A religious
organization may not serve as a fiscal agent for a partnership that is
an eligible entity receiving a subgrant under this part.
``(e) Nondiscrimination Against Beneficiaries.--Except as otherwise
provided in law, a religious organization shall not discriminate
against an individual in regard to rendering services under this part
on the basis of religion, a religious belief, or refusal actively to
participate in a religious practice.
``(f) Federal Financial Assistance.--For purposes of any Federal,
State, or local law, receipt of financial assistance under this part or
section 1002(b) shall constitute receipt of Federal financial
assistance or aid.
``(g) Treatment of Program Participants.--An eligible entity may not
subject a participant, during an Even Start program assisted under this
part, to sectarian worship or instruction or proselytization.
``SEC. 1214. PROHIBITION ON VOUCHERS OR CERTIFICATES.
``Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, no services under
this part may be provided through voucher or certificate.''.
SEC. 104. EDUCATION OF MIGRATORY CHILDREN.
Section 1304(b) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965
(20 U.S.C. 6394(b)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (5), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) in paragraph (6), by striking the period at the end and
inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(7) a description of how the State will encourage programs
and projects assisted under this part to offer family literacy
services if the program or project serves a substantial number
of migratory children who have parents who do not have a high
school diploma or its recognized equivalent or who have low
levels of literacy.''.
SEC. 105. DEFINITIONS.
(a) In General.--Section 14101 of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 8801) is amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraphs (15) through (29) as
paragraphs (16) through (30), respectively; and
(2) by inserting after paragraph (14) the following:
``(15) Family literacy services.--The term `family literacy
services' means services provided to participants on a
voluntary basis that are of sufficient intensity in terms of
hours, and of sufficient duration, to make sustainable changes
in a family, and that integrate all of the following
activities:
``(A) Interactive literacy activities between parents
and their children.
``(B) Training for parents regarding how to be the
primary teacher for their children and full partners in
the education of their children.
``(C) Parent literacy training that leads to economic
self-sufficiency.
``(D) An age-appropriate education to prepare
children for success in school and life experiences.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Even start family literacy programs.--Section 1202(e) of
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.
6362(e)) is amended--
(A) by striking paragraph (3); and
(B) by redesignating paragraphs (4) and (5) as
paragraphs (3) and (4), respectively.
(2) Reading and literacy grants.--Section 2252 of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.
6661a) is amended--
(A) by striking paragraph (2); and
(B) by redesignating paragraphs (3) through (5) as
paragraphs (2) through (4), respectively.
SEC. 106. INDIAN EDUCATION.
(a) Early Childhood Development Program.--Section 1143 of the
Education Amendments of 1978 (25 U.S.C. 2023) is amended--
(1) in subsection (b)(1), in the matter preceding
subparagraph (A)--
(A) by striking ``(f)'' and inserting ``(g)''; and
(B) by striking ``(e))'' and inserting ``(f))'';
(2) in subsection (d)(1)--
(A) by redesignating subparagraphs (D) and (E) as
subparagraphs (E) and (F), respectively; and
(B) by inserting after subparagraph (C) the
following:
``(D) family literacy services,'';
(3) in subsection (e), by striking ``(f),'' and inserting
``(g),'';
(4) by redesignating subsections (e) and (f) as subsections
(f) and (g), respectively; and
(5) by inserting after subsection (d) the following:
``(e) Family literacy programs operated under this section, and other
family literacy programs operated by the Bureau of Indian Affairs,
shall be coordinated with family literacy programs for American Indian
children under part B of title I of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 in order to avoid duplication and to encourage
the dissemination of information on quality family literacy programs
serving American Indians.''.
(b) Definitions.--Section 1146 of the Education Amendments of 1978
(25 U.S.C. 2026) is amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraphs (7) through (14) as
paragraphs (8) through (15), respectively; and
(2) by inserting after paragraph (6) the following:
``(7) the term `family literacy services' has the meaning
given such term in section 14101 of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 8801);''.
TITLE II--INEXPENSIVE BOOK DISTRIBUTION PROGRAM
SEC. 201. INEXPENSIVE BOOK DISTRIBUTION PROGRAM FOR READING MOTIVATION.
(a) Authorization.--Section 10501(a) of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 8131(a)) is amended by striking
``books to students, that motivate children to read.'' and inserting
``books to young and school-aged children that motivate them to
read.''.
(b) Requirements of Contract.--Section 10501(b)(4) of the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 8131(b)(4)) is amended
by inserting ``training and'' before ``technical assistance''.
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 10501(e) of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 8131(e)) is
amended by striking ``$10,300,000 for fiscal year 1995'' and inserting
``$20,000,000 for fiscal year 2000''.
(d) Statement of Purpose.--Section 10501 of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 8131) is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsections (d) and (e) as subsections
(g) and (h), respectively;
(2) by redesignating subsections (a) through (c) as
subsections (b) through (d), respectively; and
(3) by inserting after the section heading the following:
``(a) Purpose.--The purpose of this program is to establish and
implement a model partnership between a governmental entity and a
private entity, to help prepare young children for reading, and
motivate older children to read, through the distribution of
inexpensive books. Local reading motivation programs assisted under
this section shall use such assistance to provide books, training for
volunteers, motivational activities, and other essential literacy
resources, and shall assign the highest priority to serving the
youngest and neediest children in the United States.''.
(e) New Provisions.--Section 10501 of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 8131) is amended by inserting before
subsection (g) (as so redesignated by subsection (d)) the following:
``(e) Special Rules for Certain Subcontractors.--
``(1) Funds from other federal sources.--Subcontractors
operating programs under this section in low-income communities
with a substantial number or percentage of children with
special needs, as described in subsection (c)(3), may use funds
from other Federal sources to pay the non-Federal share of the
cost of the program, if those funds do not comprise more than
50 percent of the non-Federal share of the funds used for the
cost of acquiring and distributing books.
``(2) Waiver authority.--Notwithstanding subsection (c), the
contractor may waive, in whole or in part, the requirement in
subsection (c)(1) for a subcontractor, if the subcontractor
demonstrates that it would otherwise not be able to participate
in the program, and enters into an agreement with the
contractor with respect to the amount of the non-Federal share
to which the waiver will apply. In a case in which such a
waiver is granted, the requirement in subsection (c)(2) shall
not apply.
``(f) Multi-Year Contracts.--The contractor may enter into a multi-
year subcontract under this section, if--
``(1) the contractor believes that such subcontract will
provide the subcontractor with additional leverage in seeking
local commitments; and
``(2) the subcontract does not undermine the finances of the
national program.''.
SEC. 202. EFFECTIVE DATE.
The amendments made by section 201 shall take effect on October 1,
2000.
Amend the title so as to read:
A bill to amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
of 1965 to improve literacy through family literacy projects
and to reauthorize the inexpensive book distribution program.
Committee Action
The Committee on Education and the Workforce held one
hearing in Washington, DC, on family literacy on May 12, 1999.
The Committee received testimony from Ms. Sharon Darling,
President, National Center for Family Literacy, Louisville,
Kentucky; Dr. Andrew Hartman, Director, National Institute for
Literacy, Washington, DC; Ms. Cheryl Keenan, Director, Bureau
of Adult Basic and Literacy Education, Pennsylvania Department
of Education, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania; Ms. Dayle Bailey,
Education/Parenting Educator, Richmond County Family Literacy
Project, Rockingham, North Carolina; Ms. Mary Brown, Program
Supervisor, Even Start Family Education Program, Oklahoma City
Public Schools, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma; and Sister Barbara Ann
English, Notre Dame Mission AmeriCorp, Volunteer Program,
Baltimore, Maryland.
Introduction of Literacy Involves Families Together Act
On November 4, 1999, Mr. William F. Goodling (R-PA) and 24
other bipartisan Members introduced H.R. 3222, the Literacy
Involves Families Together Act.
Legislative action
On February 16, 2000, the Committee on Education and the
Workforce assembled to consider H.R. 3222, the Literacy
Involves Families Together Act. The Committee, on open markup
session, ordered the bill, as amended, favorably reported to
the House of Representatives. The Committee adopted five
amendments, each amendment adopted by voice vote: an amendment
in the Nature of a Substitute, offered by Chairman Goodling, an
amendment offered by Mr. Souder and amended by an amendment
offered by Mr. Kildee regarding ``charitable choice'', and two
amendments offered by Mr. Scott clarifying the charitable
choice provisions.
Purpose
The purpose of the Literacy Involves Families Together Act
(LIFT) is to reauthorize and amend the Even Start Family
Literacy Program. The legislation provides quality improvements
to Even Start and other federal education programs that allow
the use of funds to provide family literacy services. In
addition, the bill would extend and modify the Inexpensive Book
Distribution Program (Reading is Fundamental--RIF).
Summary
The Literacy Involves Families Together Act extends and
enhances the Even Start Family Literacy Program and other
federal education programs providing family literacy services.
The bill takes strides to improve the quality of Even Start
Family Literacy programs. H.R. 3222 would require Even Start
projects to use instructional programs based on scientifically
based research on reading, establish qualifications for program
instructors, tie local program objectives to state indicators
of program quality, strengthen evaluation of local programs and
its use in program improvement, and authorize research to find
the most effective way of improving literacy among adults with
reading difficulties. Title II of H.R. 3222 provides for minor
changes to the Inexpensive Book Distribution Program, commonly
referred to as RIF (Reading is Fundamental), which are intended
to enhance the ability of programs to operate within low-income
areas.
Committee Views
TITLE I--LITERACY INVOLVES FAMILIES TOGETHER ACT BACKGROUND AND NEED
FOR LEGISLATION
The Even Start Family Literacy Program, Part B of Title I
of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, was originally
enacted into law in 1988. It provides educational and related
services jointly to parents lacking a high school diploma (or
equivalent) and their young children. Even Start services
include basic academic and parenting skills instruction for
adults and early childhood education for their children. It
also includes necessary supplementary services such as child
care or transportation. Rather than providing direct services,
the concept behind Even Start is to coordinate existing
community resources to provide family literacy services. For
example, Even Start programs could coordinate existing adult
education programs with Head Start or other existing preschool
programs in order to create a comprehensive family literacy
program. The need for such legislation was based upon evidence
that parental involvement is a key determinant in the academic
achievement of children. Research has pointed out the
significance of early learning that occurs in the home upon the
later development of literacy skills. Additional evidence
exists as to the high number of parents nationally who
themselves cannot read. A major focus of the Even Start Family
Literacy program is to provide skills to parents to empower
them to be their child's first and most important teacher.
The Even Start Family Literacy Program was modified in 1994
as part of the Improving America's Schools Act to: (1)
authorize services for parents within the compulsory school-age
range for their state; (2) require programs to provide services
to children over at least a 3-year age range; (3) authorize a
demonstration grant to operate an Even Start program in a
women's prison; (4) authorize the use of up to $1 million per
year to support statewide family literacy initiatives; and, (5)
authorize states to make start-up grants covering a 3-6 month
period for new programs.
The program was further modified as part of the Reading
Excellence Act in 1998. Changes contained in this legislation
include: (1) competitive, matching grants to states for
statewide family literacy initiatives; and, (2) requiring all
states receiving Even Start grants todevelop ``indicators of
program quality,'' to be used to monitor and improve Even Start
programs in the state and to determine whether to continue funding
local programs.
Since its original enactment in 1988, the program has grown
tremendously. Funding for Even Start increased from $14,820,000
in fiscal year 1989 to $150 million in fiscal year 2000.
Consistent with this increase, the number of program
participants has grown as well. In 1989-90, the program served
approximately 2,500 families. By 1995-96, the program was
serving approximately 31,500 families.
According to the most recent information available, Even
Start programs tend to serve adults with very low levels of
education. For example, 44 percent of parents have a 9th grade
or less level of education upon entering the program. Further,
the income of participating families is typically quite low.
Eighty-three percent of families have an income below $15,000
and 42 percent have an income below $6,000. Only 23 percent of
participating parents are employed.
Three kinds of results were measured for the most recent
Even Start evaluation: cognitive development of children, adult
education, and parenting skills. In each area, scores for
participants at the end of 1995-96 were compared to those at
the beginning of that year, with Even Start participants
showing significant improvement in each area. The cognitive
skills of children improved dramatically, based on school
readiness tests. Gains were also reported on the basic
education skills of adult participants. In addition, the HOME
Screening Questionnaire was employed to measure the effects of
Even Start participation. In this instance, gains were reported
on measures of parental support of the child's learning at
home.
Another recent study, which considered only participants in
high-quality, intensive Even Start programs, found very
positive results in educational achievement and a series of
non-academic factors (such as classroom behavior among children
or reliance on public assistance for adults) for participants.
This study (reported in 1996) was conducted by Dr. Andrew
Hayes, University of North Carolina (Wilmington) for the
National Center for Family Literacy.
Discussing this study in her testimony before the Committee
on Education and the Workforce on May 12, 1999, Sharon Darling,
President, National Center for Family Literacy, Louisville,
Kentucky, stated:
In 1997 there was a study of 534 children * * *
looking at them when they enrolled as 3- and 4-year old
children, and now they are in the K-5 system * * * What
we found was that they were ranked very, very high
above average on almost all skills contributing to
school success, and 90 percent of those children showed
satisfactory grades as they moved through the K-5
system. Their parents, also, 54 percent of them got a
GED; 45 percent of them who were on public assistance
were removed from public assistance * * * We also found
that things changed in the homes. Parents started
talking to their children about school, visiting their
children's school, and were highly involved in their
children's education.
The Committee believes that all Even Start programs can
achieve these successes if they are of high quality. The
Literacy Involves Families Together Act takes several important
steps to ensure that current and future family literacy
programs provide participants with the high quality services
necessary to break cycles of illiteracy and improve the quality
of their lives. For example, H.R. 3222 would require Even Start
projects to use instructional programs based on scientifically
based research on reading, establish qualifications for program
instructors and authorize research to find the most effective
way to improve literacy among adults with reading difficulties.
Improving the quality of Even Start programs
One of the major goals of the Literacy Involves Families
Together Act (LIFT) is to improve the quality of services
provided under the Even Start Family Literacy Program and other
federal programs providing family literacy services.
Family literacy programs serve some of our nation's
neediest families. The Committee believes the only way to break
cycles of illiteracy is to provide children and adults with
high quality, intensive services.
LIFT would require Even Start programs to provide
instruction to children based on scientifically based reading
research as defined in the Reading Excellence Act. It is the
view of the Committee that all literacy programs, particularly
those serving highly disadvantaged populations should base
instruction on scientifically based reading research. The
National Institute for Child Health and Human Development has
conducted extensive research in this area. The Committee
encourages Even Start programs to utilize the model program
developed using this research and other models based on
scientifically based reading research.
The Committee also requires projects to use such research
for instructional programs for adults to the extent such
instructional programs are available. While the National
Institute for Child Health and Human Development developed high
quality scientific research on the best method for teaching
children to read, there is no comparable body of research on
teaching reading to adults.
H.R. 3222 would authorize and provide funding for research
to find the most effective ways to improve literacy among
adults with reading difficulties. Statistics on adult
illiteracy in this country are staggering. According to the
National Adult Literacy Survey, 40 million adults, or 20
percent of the U.S. adult population, scored at the lowest of
five levels of literacy. In real terms, this means that 40
million adults struggle to maintain good jobs, have a difficult
time supporting their children's education, and have poor
participation rates in community activities. In order to have
high quality family literacy programs, we need to ensure the
instruction provided to both adult and child participants are
based on sound scientific research on reading. By authorizing
research on how adults learn to read, we are taking a positive
step in this direction. Other programs providing family
literacy services or adult education services are expected to
benefit from this provision as well.
Funding for this research would be provided to the National
Institute for Literacy. The Committee expects the Institute to
carry out the project through an entity, including a federal
agency, that has expertise in carrying out longitudinal studies
on the development of literacy skills in children. Such entity
should also have developed effective interventions to help
children with reading difficulties based on such studies.
While there is not a great deal of research available on
how adults learn to read, there are several institutions that
have a solid track record in carrying out research and
development on related adult education issues. For example, the
Institute for the Study of Adult Literacy (ISAL) at
Pennsylvania State University has been doing high quality work
for over fifteen years. ISAL has worked with many Even Start
grantees in Pennsylvania to design and carry out their program
evaluations. The Institute is providing statewide evaluations
of family literacy programs in Pennsylvania. In so doing, they
have a recognized expertise in developing program quality in
family literacy. Plans are underway to enhance professional
development through Pennsylvania State University's web based
world campus that recently launched a Master's Degree program
in adult education. In addition, they have a national
reputation in the area of workforce literacy, having worked
with states, employers, and organized labor to design and
implement effective services. As family literacy increasingly
focuses on helping parents succeed in the workplace, ISAL's
expertise can be used to improve program impact. Under the
direction of Dr. Eunice Askov, the University and ISAL
specifically, has become one of the leading postsecondary
institutions supporting research and development in adult and
family literacy.
In addition, the LIFT Act would help raise the quality of
family literacy programs by allowing states to use a portion of
their Even Start dollars to provide training and technical
assistance to Even Start providers. A priority would be placed
on the provision of technical assistance to low performing
programs. States would also be permitted to provide technical
assistance to programs to help them leverage additional funds
to expand services and reduce waiting lists. States would
provide such training through a grant, contract, or other
agreement with an organization experienced in providing quality
training and technical assistance to family literacy
instructors. States could not, however, reduce the level of
services to program participants in order to provide such
training and technical assistance. While the Committee believes
it is important that Even Start providers have the best
possible training, it does not believe this should be done by
reducing the number of individuals participating in Even Start
programs.
Additionally, the LIFT Act will require local programs to
establish program objectives that are consistent with
indicators of program quality established by the state. The
bill will also ensure that program evaluations are independent
and rigorous and used to improve program performance. Both of
these measures will enable Even Start to produce measurable
outcome data so program performance can be objectively tracked
and evaluated.
It is the view of the Committee that these key changes will
help ensure that Even Start programs will offer the highest
quality services to program participants.
Serving children over the age of eight
Currently the Even Start Family Literacy Program serves
children until they turn eight years of age. H.R. 3222 would
allow projects to serve older children as long as schools use
Title I funds to pay a portion of the cost of those services.
While the Committee believes that family literacy programs
benefit children at all ages, funding levels currently do not
even cover all eligible children under the age of eight. The
Committee believes this current expansion will enable programs
to serve older children, but not at the expense of younger
participants. In addition, the Committee encourages programs to
seek funds under other programs such as Title I and the Adult
Education and Family Literacy Act to serve older children and
their families.
Additional assistance for migrant and Native American families
Migrant and Native Americans are some of our nation's most
vulnerable citizens. Many of them do not have a high school
diploma or its equivalent and their children often drop out of
school at an early age. The bill would increase the number of
Even Start programs that specifically serve these populations.
Current law sets aside five percent of appropriated funds for
migrants, Native Americans and outlying areas. The LIFT bill
would increase the set aside amount to six percent once
appropriations for Even Start reach $200 million a year, thus
allowing for the expansion of the number of programs serving
these populations. In the meantime, the Committee would
encourage Even Start programs operating in local communities to
reach out and serve migrant and Native American families.
Coordination of family literacy programs serving Native Americans
The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), Department of Interior
has been operating a very successful program to provide family
literacy services for Native American families (FACE). This
program is not currently authorized. Language included in this
legislation makes it clear that family literacy is a use of
funds in BIA operated programs. The Committee encourages the
BIA to use this provision to expand the number of family
literacy programs in order to ensure positive outcomes for
children and their parents. In addition, there is a set aside
in the Even Start program for serving migrant and Native
American families. It is the view of the Committee that these
two programs should be working together to avoid program
duplication and to share information on successful strategies
for serving Native American families in family literacy
programs. H.R. 3222 directs Even Start and BIA programs to work
together in order to provide the best possible services to
participating families.
Qualifications for Even Start instructors
To address the importance of quality instruction in Even
Start, H.R. 3222 includes provisions to ensure these programs
focus on hiring and retaining qualified staff.
Under H.R. 3222 Even Start grantees will have four years to
have at least half of all instructional staff whose salaries
are paid, in whole or in part, with federal Even Start funds,
meet one of two criteria. Specifically, they must have either
obtained an associate's, bachelor's, or graduate degree in a
field related to early childhood education, elementary school
education, or adult education; or they must meet qualifications
established by the state. Beginning on the date of enactment,
all new instructional staff funded under this part must meet
one of these criteria.
Similarly, Even Start grantees must ensure that within four
years all paraprofessionals, whose salaries are paid with any
federal Even Start funds, have at least a high school diploma
or its recognized equivalent.
These provisions follow similar efforts by this Committee
to strengthen the quality of instructional staff under the Head
Start program and for K-12 education in general. This focus on
quality instruction has grown over the years as more has been
learned about the impact quality teachers have on academic
success.
For example, Dr. William Sanders, Director of the Value
Added Research and Assessment Center at the University of
Tennessee--Knoxville, recently completed an extensive
examination of factors that impact student success in schools.
His research found that in every case, the effect of the
teacher was far and away the most important determinant of
student achievement.
Although Even Start serves a much broader population than
elementary and secondary students, it would be wrong to ignore
these findings and assume they don't apply to family literacy
programs as well.
Based upon evidence showing that well-implemented Even
Start programs have very positive impacts, H.R. 3222 also
includes language to strengthen program administration.
Specifically, within four years, the primary individual
responsible for the administration of each local Even Start
program must have received training in the operation of a
family literacy program.
Encouraging migrant and Title I, Part A programs to operate family
literacy programs
Because Even Start is not currently able to serve all
eligible families in need of services, the Committee has
included language in H.R. 3222 to help encourage other federal
education programs to use funds for family literacy programs.
The bill requires states to encourage Title I, Part A and the
Migrant Education programs serving large numbers of children
whose parents do not have a high school diploma or its
equivalent to use funds to provide family literacy services.
Family literacy services are a use of funds in these and other
federal education programs.
Coordination grants
Current Even Start law provides grants to states to develop
statewide family literacy initiatives. The purpose of these
projects is to coordinate existing federal, state and local
programs to increase the number of family literacy programs
within a state. While a total of $20 million has been
appropriated for this purpose, not all states wishing to
receive such grants have done so. The Committee believes it is
important that all states seeking to receive a grant to
coordinate family literacy services should have an opportunity
to do so. H.R. 3222 would require the Secretary to use $1
million of appropriated funds for coordination grants in any
year states apply and qualify to receive grants under this
section of the law. In any year that a state does not apply and
qualify to receive a grant, the Secretary would not have to
reserve funds for this purpose. The Committee bill only permits
states to receive one grant for purposes of developing a
statewide family literacy initiative.
Participations by religious organizations
H.R. 3222 amends the definitions of eligible organization
and eligible entity to clarify that religious organizations are
eligible service providers under the Even Start Program.
According to the Department of Education, such organizations
are already providing services under this Act. However, the
Committee thought it was important to amend current definitions
to clarify that such providers may not be barred from providing
services in the future, because of their religious nature.
During Committee consideration of H.R. 3222, Rep. Mark
Souder (R-IN) offered an amendment instituting ``charitable
choice''--a concept designed to ensure that all levels of
government give consideration to religious organizations, on
the same basis as other nongovernmental organizations, in
carrying out the Even Start program, and that such
consideration be consistent with the Establishment Clause of
the Constitution.
It is important to note, however, that under Even Start the
grant recipient at the local level is a partnership, not an
individual religious organization or other nonprofit
organization. By law the partnership must consist of a local
educational agency and a nonprofit community-based
organization, a public agency other than a local educational
agency, an institution of higher education, or a public or
private nonprofit organization (such as a religious
organization) other than a local educational agency. The
language of charitable choice should be read in the context of
a religious organization as a partnership member.
In addition to providing that religious organizations be
considered on the same basis as other nongovernmental
organizations, the amendment states that religious
organizations may not be discriminated against on the basis of
their religious character. The amendment would: (1) clarify
that a religious organization that provides assistance retains
its religious character and control over the definition,
development, practice and expression of its religious beliefs;
(2) clarify that neither the federal, state or local
governments may require the religious organization to alter its
form of governance or remove religious art, icons, scripture or
other symbols in order to be eligible for assistance; (3)
clarify that religious organizations are exempt from employment
nondiscrimination requirements of Title VII of the Civil Rights
Act as is true under the current Title VII civil rights law;
(4) clarify that no government funds may be used for sectarian
worship, instruction or proselytization; (5) clarify that a
religious organization may not serve as the fiscal agent for
the partnership; and (6) protect beneficiaries of the Even
Start program from discrimination on the basis of religion, a
religious belief, or refusal actively to participate in a
religious practice.
The charitable choice language is substantially similar to
language that is already a part of current law in the Community
Services Block Grant (P.L. 105-285), the welfare reform law
(P.L. 104-193), the House-passed version of the Fathers Count
Act of 1999 (H.R. 3073), and the House-passed version of the
Juvenile Justice legislation (H.R. 1501). Each of these two
laws as well as the fatherhood bill passed the House with broad
bipartisan support. Additionally, with respect to the Juvenile
Justice bill, on June 17, 1999, the House passed a specific
charitable choice amendment offered by Rep. Souder by a vote of
346-83. Furthermore, in prior years we enacted child care
legislation whereby the federal government funds child care
services, in many cases, through private faith-based
organizations. Pell grants, too, are funded by the government
and may be used by students who attend private church-supported
colleges. In short, Congress is clearly on record as supporting
more choices across the board that involve religiously-
affiliated entities. The language of the Souder amendment
extends charitable choice to the family literacy arena.
The executive branch is also an advocate for charitable
choice. The Clinton Administration has been a strong advocate
for allowing religious organizations to compete with
traditional non-religious organizations in providing social and
other services to the needy. In fact, on May 24, 1999 during a
speech in Atlanta, Georgia, Vice President Gore said,
I have seen the transformative power of faith-based
approaches through the national coalition I have led to
help people move from welfare to work--the Coalition to
Sustain Success * * * I believe government should play
a greater role in sustaining this quiet
transformation--not by dictating solutions from above,
but by supporting the effective new policies that are
rising up from below. And I believe the lesson for our
nation is clear: in those specific instances where this
approach can help us meet crushing social challenges
that are otherwise impossible to meet--such as drug
addiction and gang violence--we should explore
carefully-tailored partnerships with our faith
community, so we can use the approaches that are
working best.
Similarly, President Clinton has stated ``Common sense says
that faith and faith-based organizations from all religious
backgrounds can play an important role in helping children to
reach their fullest potential * * *''
The Committee notes that under the Souder amendment no
religious organization is required to participate in Even
Start. Rather, under the amendment, the government may not
discriminate against religious organizations that seek to
participate in the local partnership and may not require those
religious organizations to ``secularize'' or eliminate their
religious character in order to participate.
A second-degree amendment to the Souder amendment was
offered by Rep. Dale Kildee (D-MI) and was accepted by a voice
vote. The amendment stated that no services under Even Start
may be provided by a voucher or certificate. This amendment
clarifies that both in current law and under the bill, there is
no authority for Even Start services to be offered through a
voucher or certificate program.
Another amendment that was adopted during mark-up
prohibited an eligible entity from subjecting a participant in
an Even Start program and during the conduct of such program to
sectarian worship or instruction or proselytization. This
amendment was offered by Rep. Bobby Scott (D-VA). The Souder
amendment already prohibited Even Start funds from being used
for worship, instruction or proselytization. The Scott
amendment goes one step further to include a prohibition in the
program regardless of the funding source. While the language
provides a safeguard, First Amendment jurisprudence in any
event would likely prohibit such activities as a part of an
Even Start program.
A second amendment of Rep. Scott was accepted which states
that receipt of financial assistance under Even Start
constitutes receipt of federal financial assistance. The
Committee views the amendment as nothing more than restating
current law and what is patently obvious. Regardless of whether
the entity is a school district or a nonprofit organization, if
you receive federal money under Even Start, it is considered
federal financial assistance. In no way, however, does the
Committee view the Scott language as otherwise extending any
new rights or extending civil rights protections beyond current
law.
Finally, some argue that continuing to include charitable
choice in federal programs will lead to endless litigation.
However, charitable choice has been in the welfare law for a
little over three years and has not produced endless litigation
over the separation of church and state. In fact, the Committee
is informed that no federal district court or appellate court
has published any court decision litigating this matter.
Focusing on areas in greatest need
The Even Start law focuses funding on local projects that
serve areas with a high percentage or large number of children
and families in need of services. Indicators of need include
high levels of poverty, illiteracy, unemployment, or Limited-
English proficiency. Having a high percentage of children who
live in a school attendance area eligible to receive services
under Title I would be another indicator of need.
The Committee believes there are other indicators of need
that states can use when reviewing applications for funding.
For example, there are areas where a large number of parents
are receiving government assistance. In many instances, their
primary barrier to employment or higher paying jobs is a poor
education. In addition, the Committee believes that states
should take into account whether or not applicants are serving
a large number of parents who are being physically abused by a
spouse or other person with whom they live. Many times
individuals stay with an abusive spouse because they have low
levels of literacy and little or non-existent job skills.
Providing assistance to such parents could help them to remove
themselves and their children from abusive circumstances.
The Committee does not intend to place a priority on
funding projects that serve these populations, rather to
clarify that they should be considered as indicators of need.
Defining family literacy services
Since the term ``family literacy services'' can be found in
a variety of elementary and secondary education programs, the
Committee has amended the definitions section of the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act to include a definition of family
literacy services. This is the same definition found in Head
Start and the Adult Education and Family Literacy Program. The
Committee expects that the inclusion of this definition will
help insure consistency in the provision of family literacy
services across programs.
title ii--inexpensive book distribution program
background and need for legislation
The Inexpensive Book Distribution Program is operated under
a single, noncompetitive award to Reading is Fundamental, Inc.
(RIF). It supports, through subcontracts, local private
nonprofit groups or organizations, or public agencies that
distribute inexpensive books to children with the objective of
motivating children to read. Federal funds pay for up to 75
percent of the cost of books, except that the federal share for
programs serving children of migrant and seasonal farmworkers
is 100 percent. Contractors are to give priority to programs
that serve a substantial number or percent of children with
special needs, such as children with disabilities, low-income
children, and children at risk of school failure.
Since this program provides books that are used to
encourage children to read, the Committee felt it was most
appropriate to include changes to this program as part of the
Literacy Involves Families Together Act. While the Inexpensive
Book Distribution Program remains a separate program, modest
changes to this program are made in Title II of this Act.
Inexpensive Book Distribution Program (Reading is Fundamental--RIF)
The Committee has made several minor changes to the
Inexpensive Book Distribution Program to improve its ability to
operate in low-income and rural communities where it is often
difficult to obtain local support.
The first change to the program would allow subcontractors
operating programs in low-income communities to use other
federal dollars in order to meet the non-federal share of the
cost of the program. However, federal dollars could not be used
for more than 50 percent of the non-federal share used to meet
the cost of acquiring and distributing books. The Committee
believes it is important that local communities demonstrate
their support of the Inexpensive Book Distribution Program by
paying a portion of the cost of the program. The Committee
acknowledges there may be instances where local communities
support the Inexpensive Book Distribution Program, but have
limited resources. In such instances this legislation would
permit Reading is Fundamental (the federal grantee) to waive,
in whole or in part, the cost sharing requirement for a local
program if the subcontractor demonstrates that it would not
otherwise be able to participate in the program.
In addition, the Committee understands that there are
instances where local private nonprofit groups or organizations
operating local programs have difficulty in obtaining local
financial support for the Inexpensive Book Distribution
Program. This generally happens because there is only a small
amount of funding available for a limited period of time. The
Committee bill allows Reading is Fundamental to enter into
multi-year subcontracts with small local subgrantees in order
to provide them with additional leverage in seeking local
commitments. This legislation would not permit such agreements
in instances where it would undermine the finances of the
national program. It is the hope of the Committee that this
provision will help ensure the operation of the Inexpensive
Book Distribution Program in small, rural communities or other
communities that have difficulty obtaining support for the
program.
Section-by-Section Analysis
Section 1 states the short title as the ``Literacy Involves
Families Together Act''.
title i--family literacy
Section 101 sets the authorization of appropriations.
Section 102 establishes means of improving basic programs
operated by local educational agencies.
Section 103(a) establishes and amends the purpose.
Section 103(b) authorizes and amends the reservation for
migrant programs, outlying areas, Indian tribes, and federal
activities; and adds a coordination requirement for Even Start
programs for American Indians and family literacy programs
operated by the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
``Section 1202(b) amends the reservation for federal
activities.''
Section 103(c) establishes and amends a reservation for
grants.
Section 103(d) amends allocations.
Section 103(e) amends definitions.
Section 103(f) establishes and amends subgrants for local
programs.
Section 103(g) establishes and amends the uses of funds.
``Section 1204(c) establishes and describes the use of
funds for family literacy services.''
Section 103(h) establishes and amends program elements.
Section 103(i) establishes and amends eligible
participants.
Section 103(j) establishes and amends the required plan of
operation.
Section 103(k) establishes and the awarding of subgrants.
Section 103(l) establishes and amends research for
components of successful family literacy services.
``Section 1211(b) establishes a system of scientifically
based research.''
Section 103(m) makes clear that religious organizations are
eligible to participate as a part of local partnerships via
``charitable choice;''.
``Section 1213(a) clarifies that religious organizations
are able to serve as partnership participants.''
``Section 1213(b) clarifies that religious organizations
may maintain their religious character and independence and may
maintain their internal governance and religious icons and
other symbols while participating in the partnership. This
section also makes clear that a religious organization's
exemption under section 702 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
regardingemployment practices shall not be affected by the
organization's participation in or receipt of funds from Even Start.''
``Section 1213(c) establishes that no funds under this
section shall be expended for sectarian worship, instruction,
or proselytization.''
``Section 1213(d) establishes a prohibition on a religious
organization serving as a fiscal agent for a partnership that
is an eligible entity receiving a subgrant under this part.''
``Section 1213(e) prohibits discrimination against Even
Start participants on the basis of religion, a religious
belief, or refusal actively to participate in a religious
practice.''
``Section 1213(f) clarifies that the receipt of financial
assistance under this part or section 1002(b) shall constitute
receipt of federal financial assistance or aid.''
``Section 1213(g) clarifies that an eligible entity may not
subject a participant, during the course of an Even Start
program, to sectarian worship or instruction or
proselytization.''
``Section 1214 establishes a prohibition on vouchers or
certificates.''
Section 104 establishes and amends a program for the
education of migratory children.
Section 105(a) establishes and amends definitions.
Section 105(b) establishes and amends conforming
amendments.
Section 106 establishes a program of Indian education.
Section 106(a) establishes and amends an early childhood
development program.
``Section 1143(e) requires coordination of family literacy
programs operated under Section 1143 of the Education
Amendments of 1978 and those operated by the Bureau of Indian
Affairs.''
Section 106(b) establishes and amends definitions.
Title II--Inexpensive Book Distribution Program
Section 201(a) establishes and amends the authorization.
Section 201(b) establishes and amends the requirements of
the contract.
Section 201(c) establishes and amends the authorization of
appropriations.
Section 201(d) establishes and amends the statement of
purpose.
``Section 10501 establishes the purpose.''
Section 201(e) establishes new provisions.''
``Section 10501(e) establishes a special rule for certain
subcontractors.''
``Section 10501(f) establishes multi-year contracts.''
Section 202 establishes the effective date as October 1,
2000.
Explanation of Amendments
The Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute is explained in
the body of this report.
Application of Law to the Legislative Branch
Section 102(b)(3) of Public Law 104-1 requires a
description of the application of this bill to the legislative
branch. This bill, H.R. 3222, the ``Literacy Involves Families
Together Act,'' reauthorizes and amends the Even Start Family
Literacy Program. The legislation provides quality improvements
to Even Start and other federal education programs that allow
the use of funds to provide family literacy services. In
addition, the bill would extend and modify the Inexpensive Book
Distribution Program (Reading is Fundamental--RIF). The bill
does not prevent legislative branch employees from receiving
the benefits of this legislation.
Unfunded Mandate Statement
Section 423 of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment
Control Act (as amended by Section 101(a)(2) of the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act, P.L. 104-4) requires a statement of
whether the provisions of the reported bill include unfunded
mandates. H.R. 3222 reauthorizes and amends the Even Start
Family Literacy Program. The legislation provides quality
improvements to Even Start and other federal education programs
that allow the use of funds to provide family literacy
services. In addition, the bill would extend and modify the
Inexpensive Book Distribution Program (Reading is Fundamental--
RIF). As such, the bill does not contain any unfunded mandates.
Rollcall Votes
Clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives requires the Committee Report to include for
each record vote on a motion to report the measure or matter
and on any amendments offered to the measure or matter the
total number of votes for and against and the names of the
Members voting for and against.
Statement of Oversight Findings and Recommendations of the Committee
In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII and clause
(2)(b)(1) of rule X of the Rules of the House of
Representatives, the Committee's oversight findings and
recommendations are reflected in the body of this report.
New Budget Authority and Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate
With respect to the requirements of clause 3(c)(2) of rule
XIII of the House of Representatives and section 308(a) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and with respect to
requirements of 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the House of
Representatives and section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act
of 1974, the Committee has received the following cost estimate
for H.R. 3222 from the Director of the Congressional Budget
Office:
U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, February 28, 2000.
Hon. William F. Goodling,
Chairman, Committee on Education and the Workforce, House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 3222, the Literacy
Involves Families Together Act.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contacts are Audra
Millen (for federal costs), and Susan Sieg (for the state and
local impact).
Sincerely,
Barry B. Anderson
(For Dan L. Crippen, Director).
Enclosure.
congressional budget office cost estimate
H.R. 3222--Literacy Involves Families Together Act
Summary: H.R. 3222 would reauthorize and revise two
programs under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
(ESEA): the Even Start Literacy Program under part B of title I
of ESEA and the Inexpensive Book Distribution Program under
part B of title X of that act. Under current law, the
authorization for both programs expires in 2000. H.R. 3222
would extend the authorization through 2004. Under the General
Education Provisions Act (GEPA), programs funded at the
Department of Education receive an automatic one-year
authorization extension. Therefore, the bill would effectively
reauthorize the programs through 2005. The bill would require
programs funded under Even Start to incorporate scientifically
based research and would set aside funds to support such
research. It also would expand the flexibility of the program
to allow participation by older children and religious
organizations. The bill would significantly increase authorized
funding to support these changes and would increase the
program's scope. The Inexpensive Book Distribution Program
would be revised to allow part of the matching requirement to
come from other federal sources.
CBO estimates that implementing the bill would require
appropriations of $2.7 billion over the 2001-2005 period,
assuming adjustments for inflation. CBO estimates that
appropriating the authorized levels would result in additional
outlays of $2.0 billion over the 2001-2005 period. Enacting
H.R. 3222 would not affect direct spending or receipts;
therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures would not apply.
H.R. 3222 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA).
Any costs to state or local governments resulting from
enactment of this bill would be incurred voluntarily.
Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated
budgetary impact of H.R. 3222 is shown in Table 1. The costs of
this legislation fall within budget function 500 (education,
training, employment, and social services). (An alternative
funding path, excluding annual inflation adjustments, is shown
in Table 2.)
TABLE 1.--ESTIMATED BUDGETARY EFFECTS OF H.R. 3222, WITH ADJUSTMENTS FOR INFLATION
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
-----------------------------------------------
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION
Spending Under Current Law:
Budget Authority \1\........................................ 170 0 0 0 0 0
Estimated Outlays........................................... 147 156 45 16 0 0
Proposed Changes:
Title I--Even Start Family Literacy:
Estimated Authorization Level........................... 0 500 508 517 526 534
Estimated Outlays....................................... 0 15 365 456 514 523
Title II--Inexpensive Book Distribution:
Estimated Authorization Level........................... 0 20 21 21 21 22
Estimated Outlays....................................... 0 3 14 20 21 21
Total Proposed Changes:
Estimated Authorization Level........................... 0 520 529 538 547 556
Estimated Outlays....................................... 0 18 380 476 535 544
Total Spending Under H.R. 3222:
Estimated Authorization Level \1\........................... 170 520 529 538 547 556
Estimated Outlays........................................... 147 175 424 492 535 544
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The 2000 level is the amount appropriated for that year for the Even Start Literacy and Inexpensive Book
Distribution Programs.
Note.--Components may not sum to totals because of rounding.
TABLE 2.--ESTIMATED BUDGETARY EFFECTS OF H.R. 3222, WITHOUT ADJUSTMENTS FOR INFLATION
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
-----------------------------------------------
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION
Spending Under Current Law:
Budget Authority \1\........................................ 170 0 0 0 0 0
Estimated Outlays........................................... 147 156 45 16 0 0
Proposed Changes:
Title I--Even Start Family Literacy:
Estimated Authorization Level........................... 0 500 500 500 500 500
Estimated Outlays....................................... 0 15 365 450 500 500
Title II--Inexpensive Book Distribution:
Estimated Authorization Level........................... 0 20 20 20 20 20
Estimated Outlays....................................... 0 3 14 19 20 20
Total Proposed Changes:
Estimated Authorization Level........................... 0 520 520 520 520 520
Estimated Outlays....................................... 0 18 379 469 520 520
Total Spending Under H.R. 3222:
Estimated Authorization Level \1\........................... 170 520 520 520 520 520
Estimated Outlays........................................... 147 174 424 485 520 520
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The 2000 level is the amount appropriated for that year for the Even Start Literacy and Inexpensive Book
Distribution Programs.
Note.--Components may not sum to totals because of rounding.
Basis of estimate: The current authorization of the Even
Start Family Literacy and the Inexpensive Book Distribution
programs expires in 2000 under GEPA. The bill would reauthorize
funding starting in 2000 for the Inexpensive Book Program and
in 2001 for Even Start; however, programmatic changes would not
be implemented until 2001 for either program and both would be
authorized through 2004. As both programs qualify for an
automatic one-year extension of authorization under GEPA, CBO
estimates costs through 2005.
As shown in Table 1, CB0 estimates total authorizations of
$520 million for 2001 increasing to $556 million in 2005, for a
total of $2.7 billion over the 2001-2005 period. Assuming
appropriation of the authorized amounts, H.R. 3222 would
increase outlays relative to current law by $18 million in 2001
and by $2.0 billion over the 2001-2005 period. Without
inflationary adjustments, CBO estimates five-year funding to
total $2.6 billion, with corresponding outlays of $1.9 billion
(see Table 2).
Title I--Family literacy
The Even Start Family Literacy Program under part B of
title I of ESEA funds programs that provide educational
services for families with children who are 8 years old or
younger. Grants are made to states based on their relative
share of basic payments under part A of title I of ESEA. Part A
of title I is the largest federal education program and makes
grants to Local Education Agencies (LEAs) based on their
relative population of low-income students. States then award
subgrants on a competitive basis to partnerships comprising
LEAs, community organizations, or other educational agencies.
The partnerships must assume an increasing percentage of
project costs each year with the maximum matching requirement
set at 50 percent after four years. Current law also authorizes
statement programs but these are funded through the Reading
Excellence Program.
Of the total appropriation, 3 percent is set aside for
evaluation and 5 percent is reserved for specific programs
serving migrant and Indian children and a program located at a
women's prison. States are allowed to retain 5 percent for
administration.
H.R. 3222 would significantly increase funding for the Even
Start program. It would authorize $500 million for 2001,
compared to the 2000 funding amount of $150 million. It would
require that $2 million be set aside for a research project
through the National Institute for Literacy if funding levels
increase from the previous year. Once this project is funded,
it would also set aside maximum of $1 million for states to
implement statewide programs. In addition, the bill would
require that programs funded under Even Start incorporate
scientifically based research in this design, allow certain
programs to include children over the age of 8, allow religious
organizations to participate in project partnerships, and
require coordination with literacy programs funded under other
provisions.
Title II--Inexpensive Book Distribution Program
Funds for the Inexpensive Book Distribution Program
authorized under part B of title X of ESEA are awarded through
an annual contract to Reading is Fundamental, Inc. (RIF). RIF
uses this money to provide books and other reading assistance
materials to nonproject organizations that serve primarily low-
income children and families. Federal funding may cover 75
percent of the total cost of books with the remainder being
assumed by private sources.
H.R. 3222 would authorize $20 million for 2000 which is
equal to the amount already appropriated. It would introduce
minor changes to the program, which would not take effect until
2001, such as allowing part of the matching requirement to be
covered by other federal sources and altering the definition of
books which may be purchased with funds. CBO estimates that
these changes will not affect program costs and therefore
estimates funding in 2001 as the 2000 amount adjusted for
inflation.
Pay-as-you-go consideration: None.
Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: H.R. 3222
contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as
defined in UMRA. Any costs to state or local governments
resulting from enactment of this bill would be incurred
voluntarily.
Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Audra Millen; Impact
on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Susan Sieg.
Estimate approved by: Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant
Director for Budget Analysis.
Statement of Oversight Findings of the Committee on Government Reform
With respect to the requirement of clause 3(c)(4) of rule
XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the
Committee has received no report of oversight findings and
recommendations from the Committee on Government Reform on the
subject of H.R. 3222.
Constitutional Authority Statement
Pursuant to clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the Committee believes that the
amendments made by this bill to the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act and related Acts are within Congress's authority
under Article I, section 8, clause 1 of the Constitution.
Committee Estimate
Clause 3(d)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives requires an estimate and a comparison by the
Committee of the costs that would be incurred in carrying out
H.R. 3222. However, clause 3(d)(3)(B) of that rule provides
that this requirement does not apply when the Committee has
included in its report a timely submitted cost estimate of the
bill prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget
Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act.
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported
In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new
matter is printed in italic, existing law in which no change is
proposed is shown in roman):
ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION ACT OF 1965
TITLE I--HELPING DISADVANTAGED CHILDREN MEET HIGH STANDARDS
* * * * * * *
SEC. 1002. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
(a) * * *
(b) Even Start.--For the purpose of carrying out part B,
there are authorized to be appropriated [$118,000,000 for
fiscal year 1995] $500,000,000 for fiscal year 2001 and such
sums as may be necessary for each of the [four] three
succeeding fiscal years.
* * * * * * *
PART A--IMPROVING BASIC PROGRAMS OPERATED BY LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCIES
Subpart 1--Basic Program Requirements
SEC. 1111. STATE PLANS.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) Other Provisions To Support Teaching and Learning.--Each
State plan shall contain assurances that--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(5) the Committee of Practitioners established under
section 1603(b) will be substantially involved in the
development of the plan and will continue to be
involved in monitoring the plan's implementation by the
State; [and]
(6) the State will coordinate activities funded under
this part with school-to-work, vocational education,
cooperative education and mentoring programs, and
apprenticeship programs involving business, labor, and
industry, as appropriate[.]; and
(7) the State educational agency will encourage local
educational agencies and individual schools
participating in a program assisted under this part to
offer family literacy services (using funds under this
part), if the agency or school determines that a
substantial number of students served under this part
by the agency or school have parents who do not have a
high school diploma or its recognized equivalent or who
have low levels of literacy.
* * * * * * *
PART B--EVEN START FAMILY LITERACY PROGRAMS
SEC. 1201. STATEMENT OF PURPOSE.
It is the purpose of this part to help break the cycle of
poverty and illiteracy by improving the educational
opportunities of the Nation's low-income families by
integrating early childhood education, adult literacy or adult
basic education, and parenting education into a unified family
literacy program, to be referred to as ``Even Start''. The
program shall--
(1) be implemented through cooperative projects that
build on high quality existing community resources to
create a new range of services;
[(2) promote achievement of the National Education
Goals; and]
(2) promote the academic achievement of children and
adults;
(3) assist children and adults from low-income
families to achieve to challenging State content
standards and challenging State student performance
standards[.]; and
(4) use instructional programs based on
scientifically based reading research (as defined in
section 2252) and the prevention of reading
difficulties for children and, to the extent such
research is available, scientifically based reading
research (as so defined) for adults.
SEC. 1202. PROGRAM AUTHORIZED.
(a) Reservation for Migrant Programs, Outlying Areas, and
Indian Tribes.--
(1) In general.--For each fiscal year, the Secretary
shall reserve 5 percent of the amount appropriated
under section 1002(b) (or, if such appropriated amount
exceeds $200,000,000, 6 percent of such amount) for
programs, under such terms and conditions as the
Secretary shall establish, that are consistent with the
purpose of this part, and according to their relative
needs, for--
(A) children of migratory workers;
(B) the outlying areas; and
(C) Indian tribes and tribal organizations.
(2) Special rule.--[If the amount of funds made
available under this subsection exceeds $4,600,000,]
After the date of the enactment of the Literacy
Involves Families Together Act, the Secretary shall
award a grant, on a competitive basis, of sufficient
size and for a period of sufficient duration to
demonstrate the effectiveness of a family literacy
program in a prison that houses women and their
preschool age children and that has the capability of
developing a program of high quality.
(3) Coordination of programs for american indians.--
The Secretary shall ensure that programs under
paragraph (1)(C) are coordinated with family literacy
programs operated by the Bureau of Indian Affairs in
order to avoid duplication and to encourage the
dissemination of information on high quality family
literacy programs serving American Indians.
[(b) Reservation for Federal Activities.--From amounts
appropriated under section 1002(b), the Secretary may reserve
not more than three percent of such amounts or the amount
reserved to carry out the activities described in paragraphs
(1) and (2) of subsection (a) for the fiscal year 1994,
whichever is greater, for purposes of--
[(1) carrying out the evaluation required by section
1209; and
[(2) providing, through grants or contracts with
eligible organizations, technical assistance, program
improvement, and replication activities.]
(b) Reservation for Federal Activities.--
(1) Evaluation, technical assistance, program
improvement, and replication activities.--From amounts
appropriated under section 1002(b), the Secretary may
reserve not more than 3 percent of such amounts for
purposes of--
(A) carrying out the evaluation required by
section 1209; and
(B) providing, through grants or contracts
with eligible organizations, technical
assistance, program improvement, and
replication activities.
(2) Research.--In the case of fiscal years 2001
through 2004, if the amounts appropriated under section
1002(b) for any of such years exceed such amounts
appropriated for the preceding fiscal year, the
Secretary shall reserve from such excess amount
$2,000,000 or 50 percent, whichever is less, to carry
out section 1211(b).
(c) Reservation for Grants.--
(1) Grants authorized.--[From funds reserved under
section 2260(b)(3), the Secretary shall award grants,]
For any fiscal year for which at least one State
applies and qualifies and for which the amount
appropriated under section 1002(b) exceeds the amount
appropriated under such section for the preceding
fiscal year, the Secretary shall reserve, from the
amount of such excess remaining after the application
of subsection (b)(2), the amount of such remainder or
$1,000,000, whichever is less, to award grants, on a
competitive basis, to States to enable such States to
plan and implement statewide family literacy
initiatives to coordinate and, where appropriate,
integrate existing Federal, State, and local literacy
resources consistent with the purposes of this part.
Such coordination and integration shall include funds
available under the Adult Education and Family Literacy
Act, the Head Start Act, this part, part A of this
title, and part A of title IV of the Social Security
Act. No State may receive more than one grant under
this subsection.
* * * * * * *
(d) State Allocation.--
(1) * * *
(2) Allocations.--Except as provided in paragraph
(3), from the total amount available for allocation to
States in any fiscal year, each State shall be eligible
to receive a grant under paragraph (1) in an amount
that bears the same ratio to such total amount as the
amount allocated under part A to that State bears to
the total amount allocated under [that section] that
part to all the States.
(e) Definitions.--For the purpose of this part--
(1) the term ``eligible entity'' means a partnership
composed of both--
(A) a local educational agency; and
(B) a nonprofit community-based organization,
a public agency other than a local educational
agency, an institution of higher education,
[or] a religious organization, or a public or
private nonprofit organization other than a
local educational agency, of demonstrated
quality;
(2) the term ``eligible organization'' means any
public or private [nonprofit organization] nonprofit
organization, including a religious organization, with
a record of providing effective services to family
literacy providers, such as the National Center for
Family Literacy, Parents as Teachers, Inc., the Home
Instruction Program for Preschool Youngsters, and the
Home and School Institute, Inc.;
[(3) the term ``family literacy services'' means
services provided to participants on a voluntary basis
that are of sufficient intensity in terms of hours, and
of sufficient duration, to make sustainable changes in
a family, and that integrate all of the following
activities:
[(A) Interactive literacy activities between
parents and their children.
[(B) Training for parents regarding how to be
the primary teacher for their children and full
partners in the education of their children.
[(C) Parent literacy training that leads to
economic self-sufficiency.
[(D) An age-appropriate education to prepare
children for success in school and life
experiences.]
[(4)] (3) the terms ``Indian tribe'' and ``tribal
organization'' have the meanings given such terms in
section 4 of the Indian Self-Determination and
Education Assistance Act; and
[(5)] (4) the term ``State'' includes each of the 50
States, the District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth
of Puerto Rico.
SEC. 1203. STATE PROGRAMS.
(a) * * *
(b) Subgrants for Local Programs.--
(1) * * *
[(2) Minimum.--No State shall award a subgrant under
paragraph (1) in an amount less than $75,000, except
that a State may award one subgrant in each fiscal year
of sufficient size, scope, and quality to be effective
in an amount less than $75,000 if, after awarding
subgrants under paragraph (1) for such fiscal year in
amounts of $75,000 or greater, less than $75,000 is
available to the State to award such subgrants.]
(2) Minimum subgrant amounts.--
(A) In general.--Except as provided in
subparagraphs (B) and (C), no State shall award
a subgrant under paragraph (1) in an amount
less than $75,000.
(B) Subgrantees in ninth and succeeding
years.--No State shall award a subgrant under
paragraph (1) in an amount less than $52,500 to
an eligible entity for a fiscal year to carry
out an Even Start program that is receiving
assistance under this part or its predecessor
authority for the ninth (or any subsequent)
fiscal year.
(C) Exception for single subgrant.--A State
may award one subgrant in each fiscal year of
sufficient size, scope, and quality to be
effective in an amount less than $75,000 if,
after awarding subgrants under paragraph (1)
for such fiscal year in accordance with
subparagraphs (A) and (B), less than $75,000 is
available to the State to award such subgrants.
SEC. 1204. USES OF FUNDS.
(a) In General.--In carrying out an Even Start program under
this part, a recipient of funds under this part shall use such
funds to pay the Federal share of the cost of providing
intensive [family-centered education programs] family literacy
services that involve parents and children, from birth through
age seven, in a cooperative effort to help parents become full
partners in the education of their children and to assist
children in reaching their full potential as learners.
* * * * * * *
(c) Use of Funds for Family Literacy Services.--
(1) In general.--States may use a portion of funds
received under this part to assist eligible entities
receiving a subgrant under section 1203(b) in improving
the quality of family literacy services provided under
Even Start programs under this part, except that in no
case may a State's use of funds for this purpose for a
fiscal year result in a decrease from the level of
activities and services provided to program
participants in the preceding year.
(2) Priority.--In carrying out paragraph (1), a State
shall give priority to programs that were of low
quality, as evaluated based on the indicators of
program quality developed by the State under section
1210.
(3) Technical assistance to help local programs raise
additional funds.--In carrying out paragraph (1), a
State may use the funds referred to in such paragraph
to provide technical assistance to help local programs
of demonstrated effectiveness to access and leverage
additional funds for the purpose of expanding services
and reducing waiting lists.
(4) Technical assistance and training.--Assistance
under paragraph (1) shall be in the form of technical
assistance and training, provided by a State through a
grant, contract, or cooperative agreement with an
entity that has experience in offering high quality
training and technical assistance to family literacy
providers.
SEC. 1205. PROGRAM ELEMENTS.
Each program assisted under this part shall--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(5) with respect to the qualifications of staff the
cost of whose salaries are paid, in whole or in part,
with Federal funds provided under this part, ensure
that--
(A) not later than 4 years after the date of
the enactment of the Literacy Involves Families
Together Act--
(i) a majority of academic
instruction is provided by individuals
who--
(I) have obtained an
associate's, bachelor's, or
graduate degree in a field
related to early childhood
education, elementary school
education, or adult education;
or
(II) meet qualifications
established by the State for
early childhood education,
elementary school education, or
adult education provided as
part of an Even Start program
or another family literacy
program;
(ii) the individual responsible for
administration of family literacy
services under this part has received
training in the operation of a family
literacy program; and
(iii) paraprofessionals who provide
support for academic instruction have a
high school diploma or its recognized
equivalent; and
(B) beginning on the date of the enactment of
the Literacy Involves Families Together Act,
all new personnel hired to provide academic
instruction--
(i) have obtained an associate's,
bachelor's, or graduate degree in a
field related to early childhood
education, elementary school education,
or adult education; or
(ii) meet qualifications established
by the State for early childhood
education, elementary school education,
or adult education provided as part of
an Even Start program or another family
literacy program;
[(5)] (6) include special training of staff,
including child care staff, to develop the skills
necessary to work with parents and young children in
the full range of instructional services offered
through this part;
[(6)] (7) provide and monitor integrated
instructional services to participating parents and
children through home-based programs;
[(7)] (8) operate on a year-round basis, including
the provision of some program services, instructional
or enrichment, during the summer months;
[(8)] (9) be coordinated with--
(A) programs assisted under other parts of
this title and this Act;
(B) any relevant programs under the Adult
Education and Family Literacy Act, the
Individuals with DisabilitiesEducation Act, and
the Job Training Partnership Act and title I of the Workforce
Investment Act of 1998; and
(C) the Head Start program, volunteer
literacy programs, and other relevant programs;
(10) use instructional programs based on
scientifically based reading research (as defined in
section 2252) for children and, to the extent such
research is available, for adults;
(11) encourage participating families to attend
regularly and to remain in the program a sufficient
time to meet their program goals;
[(9)] (12) ensure that the programs will serve those
families most in need of the activities and services
provided by this part; and
[(10)] (13) provide for an independent evaluation of
the [program.] program to be used for program
improvement.
SEC. 1206. ELIGIBLE PARTICIPANTS.
(a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (b),
eligible participants in an Even Start program are--
(1) a parent or parents--
(A) * * *
(B) who are within the State's compulsory
school attendance age range, so long as a local
educational agency provides (or ensures the
availability of) the basic education component
required under this [part;] part, or who are
attending secondary school; and
(2) the child or children, from birth through age
seven, of any individual described in paragraph (1).
(b) Eligibility for Certain Other Participants.--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(3) Children 8 years of age or older.--If an Even
Start program assisted under this part collaborates
with a program under part A, and funds received under
such part A program contribute to paying the cost of
providing programs under this part to children 8 years
of age or older, the Even Start program,
notwithstanding subsection (a)(2), may permit the
participation of children 8 years of age or older.
SEC. 1207. APPLICATIONS.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) Plan.--
(1) In general.--Such application shall also include
a plan of operation and continuous improvement for the
program which shall include--
(A) a description of the program [goals;]
objectives, strategies to meet such objectives,
and how they are consistent with the program
indicators established by the State;
* * * * * * *
(E) a statement of the methods that will be
used--
(i) * * *
* * * * * * *
(iii) to encourage participants to
remain in the program for a time
sufficient to meet the program's
purpose; [and]
(F) a description of how the plan is
integrated with other programs under this [Act,
the Goals 2000: Educate America Act,] Act or
other Acts, as appropriate, consistent with
section 14306[.]; and
(G) a description of how the plan provides
for rigorous and objective evaluation of
progress toward the program objectives
described in subparagraph (A) and for
continuing use of evaluation data for program
improvement.
(2) Duration of the plan.--Each plan submitted under
paragraph [(1)(A)] (1) shall--
(A) * * *
* * * * * * *
SEC. 1208. AWARD OF SUBGRANTS.
(a) Selection Process.--
(1) In general.--The State educational agency shall
establish a review panel in accordance with paragraph
(3) that will approve applications that--
(A) * * *
* * * * * * *
(F) demonstrate the applicant's ability to
provide the [Federal] non-Federal share
required by section 1204(b);
(G) are representative of urban and rural
regions of the State; and
(H) show the greatest promise for providing
models that may be adopted by other family
literacy projects and other local educational
agencies.
(3) Review panel.--A review panel shall consist of at
least three members, including one early childhood
professional, one adult education professional, and
[one or more of the following individuals:] one
individual with expertise in family literacy programs,
and may include other individuals, such as one or more
of the following:
(A) * * *
* * * * * * *
(b) Duration.--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
[(3) Continuing eligibility.--In awarding subgrant
funds to continue a program under this part after the
first year, the State educational agency shall review
the progress of each eligible entity in meeting the
goals of the program referred to in section
1207(c)(1)(A) and shall evaluate the program based on
the indicators of program quality developed by the
State under section 1210.]
(3) Continuing eligibility.--In awarding subgrant
funds to continue a program under this part after the
first year, the State educational agency shall review
the progress of each eligible entity in meeting the
objectives of the program referred to in section
1207(c)(1)(A) and shall evaluate the program based on
the indicators of program quality developed by the
State under section 1210.
* * * * * * *
(5) Grant renewal.--(A) An eligible entity that has
previously received a subgrant under this part may
reapply under this part for additional subgrants.
[(B) The Federal share of any subgrant renewed under
subparagraph (A) shall not exceed 50 percent in any
fiscal year.]
(B) The Federal share of any subgrant renewed under
subparagraph (A) shall be limited in accordance with
section 1204(b).
* * * * * * *
SEC. 1211. RESEARCH.
(a) * * *
(b) Scientifically Based Research on Family Literacy.--
(1) In general.--From amounts reserved under section
1202(b)(2), the National Institute for Literacy shall
carry out research that--
(A) is scientifically based reading research
(as defined in section 2252); and
(B) determines--
(i) the most effective ways of
improving the literacy skills of adults
with reading difficulties; and
(ii) how family literacy services can
best provide parents with the knowledge
and skills they need to support their
children's literacy development.
(2) Use of expert entity.--The National Institute for
Literacy shall carry out the research under paragraph
(1) through an entity, including a Federal agency, that
has expertise in carrying out longitudinal studies of
the development of literacy skills in children and has
developed effective interventions to help children with
reading difficulties.
[(b)] (c) Dissemination.--The National Institute for Literacy
shall disseminate, pursuant to section 2258, the results of the
research described in [subsection (a)] subsections (a) and (b)
to States and recipients of subgrants under this part.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 1213. RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS.
(a) Religious Organizations Included as Partnership
Participants.--In carrying out this part, the Secretary, and
any grantee or subgrantee receiving assistance under this part,
shall treat religious organizations the same as other
nongovernmental organizations, so long as this part is
implemented in a manner consistent with the Establishment
Clause of the first amendment to the Constitution. The
Secretary, and any grantee or subgrantee receiving assistance
under this part, shall not discriminate against an organization
that participates in a partnership that is an eligible entity
that is receiving assistance under this part or is applying to
receivesuch assistance, on the basis that the organization has
a religious character.
(b) Religious Character and Independence.--
(1) In general.--A religious organization that
participates in a partnership that is an eligible
entity that is receiving assistance under this part or
is applying to receive such assistance shall retain its
religious character and control over the definition,
development, practice, and expression of its religious
beliefs.
(2) Additional safeguards.--Neither the Federal
Government nor a State or local government shall
require a religious organization--
(A) to alter its form of internal governance;
or
(B) to remove religious art, icons,
scripture, or other symbols;
in order to be eligible to participate in a partnership
that is an eligible entity that is receiving assistance
under this part or is applying to receive such
assistance.
(3) Employment practices.--A religious organization's
exemption provided under section 702 of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e-1) regarding
employment practices shall not be affected by its
participation in, or receipt of funds from, a program
under this part.
(c) Limitations on Use of Funds for Certain Purposes.--No
funds provided to a religious organization under this part or
section 1002(b) shall be expended for sectarian worship or
instruction or proselytization.
(d) Prohibition on Serving as Fiscal Agent.--A religious
organization may not serve as a fiscal agent for a partnership
that is an eligible entity receiving a subgrant under this
part.
(e) Nondiscrimination Against Beneficiaries.--Except as
otherwise provided in law, a religious organization shall not
discriminate against an individual in regard to rendering
services under this part on the basis of religion, a religious
belief, or refusal actively to participate in a religious
practice.
(f) Federal Financial Assistance.--For purposes of any
Federal, State, or local law, receipt of financial assistance
under this part or section 1002(b) shall constitute receipt of
Federal financial assistance or aid.
(g) Treatment of Program Participants.--An eligible entity
may not subject a participant, during an Even Start program
assisted under this part, to sectarian worship or instruction
or proselytization.
SEC. 1214. PROHIBITION ON VOUCHERS OR CERTIFICATES.
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, no services
under this part may be provided through voucher or certificate.
PART C--EDUCATION OF MIGRATORY CHILDREN
* * * * * * *
SEC. 1304. STATE APPLICATIONS; SERVICES.
(a) Application Required.--Any State desiring to receive a
grant under this part for any fiscal year shall submit an
application to the Secretary at such time and in such manner as
the Secretary may require.
(b) Program Information.--Each such application shall
include--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(5) a description of how the State will determine the
amount of any subgrants the State will award to local
operating agencies, taking into account the
requirements of paragraph (1); [and]
(6) such budgetary and other information as the
Secretary may require[.]; and
(7) a description of how the State will encourage
programs and projects assisted under this part to offer
family literacy services if the program or project
serves a substantial number of migratory children who
have parents who do not have a high school diploma or
its recognized equivalent or who have low levels of
literacy.
* * * * * * *
TITLE II--DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
* * * * * * *
SEC. 2252. DEFINITIONS.
For purposes of this part:
(1) * * *
[(2) Family literacy services.--The term ``family
literacy services'' means services provided to
participants on a voluntary basis that are of
sufficient intensity in terms of hours, and of
sufficient duration, to make sustainable changes in a
family, and that integrate all of the following
activities:
[(A) Interactive literacy activities between
parents and their children.
[(B) Training for parents regarding how to be
the primary teacher for their children and full
partners in the education of their children.
[(C) Parent literacy training that leads to
economic self-sufficiency.
[(D) An age-appropriate education to prepare
children for success in school and life
experiences.]
[(3)] (2) Instructional staff.--The term
``instructional staff''--
(A) means individuals who have responsibility
for teaching children to read; and
(B) includes principals, teachers,
supervisors of instruction, librarians, library
school media specialists,teachers of academic
subjects other than reading, and other individuals who have
responsibility for assisting children to learn to read.
[(4)] (3) Reading.--The term ``reading'' means a
complex system of deriving meaning from print that
requires all of the following:
(A) * * *
* * * * * * *
[(5)] (4) Scientifically based reading research.--The
term ``scientifically based reading research''--
(A) * * *
* * * * * * *
TITLE X--PROGRAMS OF NATIONAL SIGNIFICANCE
* * * * * * *
PART E--INEXPENSIVE BOOK DISTRIBUTION PROGRAM
SEC. 10501. INEXPENSIVE BOOK DISTRIBUTION PROGRAM FOR READING
MOTIVATION.
(a) Purpose.--The purpose of this program is to establish and
implement a model partnership between a governmental entity and
a private entity, to help prepare young children for reading,
and motivate older children to read, through the distribution
of inexpensive books. Local reading motivation programs
assisted under this section shall use such assistance to
provide books, training for volunteers, motivational
activities, and other essential literacy resources, and shall
assign the highest priority to serving the youngest and
neediest children in the United States.
[(a)] (b) Authorization.--The Secretary is authorized to
enter into a contract with Reading is Fundamental (RIF)
(hereafter in this section referred to as ``the contractor'')
to support and promote programs, which include the distribution
of inexpensive [books to students, that motivate children to
read.] books to young and school-aged children that motivate
them to read.
[(b)] (c) Requirements of Contract.--Any contract entered
into under subsection (a) shall--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(4) provide that the contractor will provide such
training and technical assistance to subcontractors as
may be necessary to carry out the purpose of this
section;
* * * * * * *
[(c)] (d) Restriction on Payments.--The Secretary shall make
no payment of the Federal share of the cost of acquiring and
distributing books under any contract under this section unless
the Secretary determines that the contractor or subcontractor,
as the case may be, has made arrangements with book publishers
or distributors to obtain books at discounts at least as
favorable as discounts that are customarily given by such
publisher or distributor for book purchases made under similar
circumstances in the absence of Federal assistance.
(e) Special Rules for Certain Subcontractors.--
(1) Funds from other federal sources.--Subcontractors
operating programs under this section in low-income
communities with a substantial number or percentage of
children with special needs, as described in subsection
(c)(3), may use funds from other Federal sources to pay
the non-Federal share of the cost of the program, if
those funds do not comprise more than 50 percent of the
non-Federal share of the funds used for the cost of
acquiring and distributing books.
(2) Waiver authority.--Notwithstanding subsection
(c), the contractor may waive, in whole or in part, the
requirement in subsection (c)(1) for a subcontractor,
if the subcontractor demonstrates that it would
otherwise not be able to participate in the program,
and enters into an agreement with the contractor with
respect to the amount of the non-Federal share to which
the waiver will apply. In a case in which such a waiver
is granted, the requirement in subsection (c)(2) shall
not apply.
(f) Multi-Year Contracts.--The contractor may enter into a
multi-year subcontract under this section, if--
(1) the contractor believes that such subcontract
will provide the subcontractor with additional leverage
in seeking local commitments; and
(2) the subcontract does not undermine the finances
of the national program.
[(d)] (g) Definition of ``Federal Share''.--For the purpose
of this section, the term ``Federal share'' means, with respect
to the cost to a subcontractor of purchasing books to be paid
under this section, 75 percent of such costs to the
subcontractor, except that the Federal share for programs
serving children of migrant or seasonal farmworkers shall be
100 percent of such costs to the subcontractor.
[(e)] (h) Authorization of Appropriations.--For the purpose
of carrying out this section, there are authorized to be
appropriated [$10,300,000 for fiscal year 1995] $20,000,000 for
fiscal year 2000 and such sums as may be necessary for each of
the four succeeding fiscal years.
* * * * * * *
TITLE XIV--GENERAL PROVISIONS
PART A--DEFINITIONS
SEC. 14101. DEFINITIONS.
Except as otherwise provided, for the purposes of this Act,
the following terms have the following meanings:
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(15) Family literacy services.--The term ``family
literacy services'' means services provided to
participants on a voluntary basis that are of
sufficient intensity in terms of hours, and of
sufficient duration, to make sustainable changes in a
family, and that integrate all of the following
activities:
(A) Interactive literacy activities between
parents and their children.
(B) Training for parents regarding how to be
the primary teacher for their children and full
partners in the education of their children.
(C) Parent literacy training that leads to
economic self-sufficiency.
(D) An age-appropriate education to prepare
children for success in school and life
experiences.
[(15)] (16) Free public education.--The term ``free
public education'' means education that is provided--
(A) at public expense, under public
supervision and direction, and without tuition
charge; and
(B) as elementary or secondary school
education as determined under applicable State
law, except that such term does not include any
education provided beyond grade 12.
[(16)] (17) Gifted and talented.--The term ``gifted
and talented'', when used with respect to students,
children or youth, means students, children or youth
who give evidence of high performance capability in
areas such as intellectual, creative, artistic, or
leadership capacity, or in specific academic fields,
and who require services or activities not ordinarily
provided by the school in order to fully develop such
capabilities.
[(17)] (18) Institution of higher education.--The
term ``institution of higher education'' has the
meaning given that term in section 101 of the Higher
Education Act of 1965.
[(18)] (19) Local educational agency.--(A) * * *
* * * * * * *
[(19)] (20) Mentoring.--The term ``mentoring'' means
a program in which an adult works with a child or youth
on a 1-to-1 basis, establishing a supportive
relationship, providing academic assistance, and
introducing the child or youth to new experiences that
enhance the child or youth's ability to excel in school
and become a responsible citizen.
[(20)] (21) Other staff.--The term ``other staff''
means pupil services personnel, librarians, career
guidance and counseling personnel, education aides, and
other instructional and administrative personnel.
[(21)] (22) Outlying area.--The term ``outlying
area'' means the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa,
the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and
for the purpose of section 1121 and any other
discretionary grant program under this Act, the
Republic of the Marshall Islands, the Federated States
of Micronesia, and the Republic of Palau.
[(22)] (23) Parent.--The term ``parent'' includes a
legal guardian or other person standing in loco
parentis.
[(23)] (24) Public telecommunication entity.--The
term ``public telecommunication entity'' has the same
meaninggiven to such term in section 397(12) of the
Communications Act of 1934.
[(24)] (25) Pupil services personnel; pupil
services.--(A) The term ``pupil services personnel''
means school counselors, school social workers, school
psychologists, and other qualified professional
personnel involved in providing assessment, diagnosis,
counseling, educational, therapeutic, and other
necessary services (including related services as such
term is defined in section 602(a)(17) of the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act) as part of
a comprehensive program to meet student needs.
(B) The term ``pupil services'' means the services
provided by pupil services personnel.
[(25)] (26) Secondary school.--The term ``secondary
school'' means a nonprofit institutional day or
residential school, including a public secondary
charter school, that provides secondary education, as
determined under State law, except that such term does
not include any education beyond grade 12.
[(26)] (27) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means
the Secretary of Education.
[(27)] (28) State.--The term ``State'' means each of
the 50 States, the District of Columbia, the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and each of the outlying
areas.
[(28)] (29) State educational agency.--The term
``State educational agency'' means the agency primarily
responsible for the State supervision of public
elementary and secondary schools.
[(29)] (30) Technology.--The term ``technology''
means the latest state-of-the-art technology products
and services, such as closed circuit television
systems, educational television or radio programs and
services, cable television, satellite, copper fiber
optic transmission, computer hardware and software,
video and audio laser and CD-ROM disks, video and audio
tapes, including interactive forms of such products and
services, or other technologies.
* * * * * * *
----------
EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1978
* * * * * * *
TITLE XI--INDIAN EDUCATION
* * * * * * *
PART B--BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS PROGRAMS
* * * * * * *
SEC. 1143. EARLY CHILDHOOD DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM.
(a) * * *
(b)(1) The total amount of the grants provided under
subsection (a) with respect to each tribe, tribal organization,
or consortium of tribes or tribal organizations for each fiscal
year shall be equal to the amount which bears the same
relationship to the total amount appropriated under the
authority of subsection [(f)] (g) for such fiscal year (less
amounts provided under subsection [(e))] (f)) as--
(A) * * *
* * * * * * *
(d) The early childhood development programs that are funded
by grants provided under subsection (a)--
(1) shall coordinate existing programs and may
provide services that meet identified needs of parents
and children under 6 years of age which are not being
met by existing programs, including--
(A) * * *
* * * * * * *
(D) family literacy services,
[(D)] (E) educational testing, and
[(E)] (F) other educational services,
* * * * * * *
(e) Family literacy programs operated under this section, and
other family literacy programs operated by the Bureau of Indian
Affairs, shall be coordinated with family literacy programs for
American Indian children under part B of title I of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 in order to
avoid duplication and to encourage the dissemination of
information on quality family literacy programs serving
American Indians.
[(e)] (f) The Secretary shall, out of funds appropriated
under the authority of subsection [(f),] (g), include in the
grants provided under subsection (a) amounts for administrative
costs incurred by the tribe or tribal organization in
establishing and maintaining the early childhood development
program.
[(f)] (g) For the purpose of carrying out the provisions of
this section, there are authorized to be appropriated
$10,000,000 for fiscal year 1995 and such sums as may be
necessary for each of the fiscal years 1996, 1997, 1998, and
1999.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 1146. DEFINITIONS.
For the purpose of this part, unless otherwise specified--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(7) the term ``family literacy services'' has the
meaning given such term in section 14101 of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20
U.S.C. 8801);
[(7)] (8) the term ``financial plan'' means a plan of
services to be provided by each Bureau school;
[(8)] (9) the term ``Indian organization'' means any
group, association, partnership, corporation, or other
legal entity owned or controlled by a federally
recognized Indian tribe or tribes, or a majority of
whose members are members of federally recognized
Indian tribes;
[(9)] (10) the term ``local educational agency''
means a board of education or other legally constituted
local school authority having administrative control
and direction of free public education in a county,
township, independent, or other school district located
within a State, and includes any State agency which
directly operates and maintains facilities for
providing free public education;
[(10)] (11) the term ``local school board'', when
used with respect to a Bureau school, means a body
chosen in accordance with the laws of the tribe to be
served or, in the absence of such laws, elected by the
parents of the Indian children attending the school,
except that in schools serving a substantial number of
students from different tribes, the members shall be
appointed by the governing bodies of the tribes
affected, and the number of such members shall be
determined by the Secretary in consultation with the
affected tribes;
[(11)] (12) the term ``Office'' means the Office of
Indian Education Programs within the Bureau;
[(12)] (13) the term ``Secretary'' means the
Secretary of the Interior;
[(13)] (14) the term ``supervisor'' means the
individual in the position of ultimate authority at a
Bureau school; and
[(14)] (15) the term ``tribe'' means any Indian
tribe, band, nation, or other organized group or
community, including any Alaska Native village or
regional or village corporation as defined in or
established pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims
Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) which is
recognized as eligible for the special programs and
services provided by the United States to Indians
because of their status as Indians.
* * * * * * *
ADDITIONAL VIEWS
I continue to have grave concerns about the constitutional
and policy implications of the ``charitable choice'' provision
added to H.R. 3222, the ``Literacy Involves Families together
Act'', by an amendment offered by Representative Mark Souder.
The amendment offered by Rep. Souder and adopted by the
Committee seeks to provide that religious organizations may
retain their exemption from the prohibition against religious
discrimination in title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act,
regardless of the receipt of federal funds, and therefore are
permitted to discriminate with those funds on the basis of
religion.
The idea that religious bigotry may take place with federal
funds is not speculative. During several debates on this issue
and reaffirmed during the consideration in committee, it has
been established that a religious organization using federal
funds under charitable choice could fire or refuse to hire a
perfectly qualified employee because of that person's religion.
(``* * * [A] Jewish organization can fire a Protestant if they
choose,'' 145 CONG. REG. H4687 (daily ed. June 22, 1999)).
Unfortunately, the Committee failed to adopt my amendment which
would have ensured that the exemption under Title VII should
not apply to any employment position funded by an Even Start
grant.
The current exemption provided under Title VII is a common
sense provision which allows religious organizations to
discriminate based on religion when, for example, a Catholic
church hires a priest. They can, of course, require that
require that the job applicant be Catholic. This exemption was
intended to apply to the use of private funds for the religious
organization and it was never expected to be applied to the use
of federal funds. It is an incorrect assertion that the
extension of the Title VII exemption is consistent with current
law. I specifically disagree with the Committee that ``[t]he
amendment would: * * * (3) clarify that religious organizations
are exempt from employment nondiscrimination requirements of
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act as is true under the current
Title VII civil rights law.'' In fact, the Supreme Court has
never addressed the issue with respect to the Title VII
exemptions for religious organizations in which public funds
were involved. Past court cases have only dealt with the Title
VII exemption for religious organizations in which private
funds were at stake. Furthermore, the only court to consider
this issue, a Federal District Court in Mississippi, held (in
an unpublished case) that the funds ``constituted direct
financial support in the form of a substantial subsidy, and
therefore, to allow the Salvation Army to discriminate on the
basis of religion, * * * would violate the Establishment Clause
of the First Amendment.'' Dodge v. Salvation Army, 1989 WL
53857 (S.D. Miss.)
There are broader implications for extending the Title VII
exemption than merely the hiring or firing of an individual on
the sole basis of that person's religion. An excerpt from a
Congressional Research Service memorandum best illuminates the
potential consequences of including such a provision: ``If a
religious provider's faith mandates or ordains observance of
precepts based on race or gender or sexual orientation or
marital status or behavior, the * * * provision allows the
provider to discriminate against employees and potential
employees on that basis.'' While the Supreme Court would, I
hope, find racial discrimination constitutionally suspect even
if it were to be motivated by a religious belief, it should,
nonetheless, cause concern that there are questions about the
interplay between charitable choice and other nondiscrimination
provisions.
It is a result of these very questions that made it
necessary to offer an amendment to make it clear that any
receipt of Even Start grant funds constituted receipt of
federal financial assistance. For the purposes of establishing
legislative history, my intent with this amendment is that
religious organizations operating with federal funds must abide
by anti-discrimination laws. I agree with the Committee that
this amendment does not extend ``civil rights protections
beyond current law'' but I would note that these laws can be
enforced if a religious organization is found to have violated
any anti-discrimination laws. One of the traditional
enforcement mechanisms includes the withholding of federal
funds from entities found in violation of federal law. This
option would be available to any agency in its oversight over
religious organizations' participation in the Even Start
program.
The second of my amendments that was adopted with
modifications improves the likelihood that religious
organizations operating with Even Start funds would do so
without being in violation of the Constitution. Without my
amendment, the charitable choice provision prohibited only the
public funds from being used for ``sectarian worship,
instruction, or proselytization''. This would not, of course,
cover the privately paid employee or volunteer from engaging in
such activity. The concern here is that you have vulnerable
families with very young children who are seeking to improve
their lives by attending a federally funded literacyprogram. In
essence, they are a captive audience. For purposes of establishing
legislative history, the amendment I offered which was accepted
provided that a grant recipient could not subject a participant in an
Even Start program to sectarian worship or instruction or
proselytization, through any means regardless of whether it is paid for
with federal funds, provided through a volunteer, or in any other way.
Again, my amendment improves the charitable choice provision and
increases the possibility that it could be implemented consistent with
the Constitution.
It is important to note that charitable choice has not been
enacted without its controversies or without questions about
its constitutionality. When signing charitable choice into law
as part of S. 2206, the Community Services Block Grant
reauthorization, President Clinton included the following
statement:
The Department of Justice advises, however, that the
provision that allows religiously affiliated
organizations to be providers under CSBG would be
unconstitutional if and to the extent it were construed
to permit governmental funding of ``pervasively
sectarian'' organizations, as that term has been
defined by the courts. Accordingly, I construe the Act
as forbidding the funding of pervasively sectarian
organizations and as permitting Federal, State, and
local governments involved in disbursing CSBG funds to
take into account the structure and operations of a
religious organization in determining whether such an
organization is pervasively sectarian.
In various cases, the Supreme Court lists several criteria
to be used to determine if an institution is ``pervasively
sectarian'': (1) location near a house of worship; (2) an
abundance of religious symbols on the premises; (3) religious
discrimination in the institution's hiring practices; (4) the
presence of religious activities; and (5) the purposeful
articulation of a religious mission.
Yet, the legislative history of charitable choice is very
clear--its purpose is to provide government funding to
``pervasively sectarian'' religious organizations. During the
debate on an amendment offered by Rep. Chet Edwards to H.R.
3073, ``The Fathers Count Act of 1999'', proponents of
charitable choice argued that to not allow funding of
pervasively sectarian organizations would ``gut'' the bill.
Unfortunately, Rep. Edwards' amendment to prohibit federal
funding of ``pervasively sectarian'' organizations was defeated
on a vote of 184 to 238.
In a Congressional Research Service report entitled
``Charitable Choice: Background and Selected Legal Issues''
(RL30388), it contemplates the difficulty of implementing all
of the seemingly contradictory elements of charitable choice in
a manner consistent with the Constitution.
As noted above, one of the issues that has been
raised about charitable choice measures is whether it
is possible to implement all of their provisions or
whether some necessarily have to be ignored, i.e.,
whether the various provisions of charitable choice are
internally contradictory. But that issue of the
administrative feasibility of implementing charitable
choice is, in fact, a question of its
constitutionality. All of the charitable choice
provisions enacted or approved to date require that
they be implemented ``consisted with the Establishment
Clause of the United States Constitution.'' But they
also allow the religious organizations that receive
grants or administer contracts under the pertinent
programs to hire only adherents of their own faith, to
display religious symbols and scripture on the premises
where services are provided, to practice and express
their religious beliefs ``independent'' of any
government restrictions, and apparently, to invite the
participants in the publicly funded programs to take
part in religious activities funded with the
organizations' own funds. Such organizations also need
not, although they may, be incorporated separately from
a sponsoring religious entity. Administratively, the
question is whether the programs can be implemented in
full compliance with all of these provisions. But more
fundamentally, the question is whether it is
``consistent with the Establishment Clause'' for the
government to fund religious organizations with these
characteristics. * * * That means for purposes of
direct public aid a religious organization's secular
functions and activities must be able to be separated
from its religious functions and activities. If they
are separable, government can directly subsidize those
functions. However, if the entity is so permeated by a
religious purpose and character that its secular
functions and religious functions are ``inextricably
intertwined,'' i.e., if the entity is ``pervasively
sectarian,'' the Court has held the establishment
clause generally to forbid direct assistance.
The premise of charitable choice seems to suggest that
religious organizations participating in Even Start may operate
without regard to providing a religiously neutral atmosphere.
Their constitutional requirement to provide services in a
neutral environment which is not ``pervasively sectarian'' is
not lessened by the provisions in charitable choice. It is
unfortunate that the language in charitable choice,
specifically subsection (b), may lead some religious
organizations to operate in a manner that violates the
Constitution and subject them to unwanted lawsuits.
Charitable choice presents a myriad of constitutional and
policy implications. Unfortunately, we have failed to fully
investigate these issues because it is not a serious attempt by
its proponents to set appropriate, responsible policy for
religious organizations' participation in federally funded
grant programs. Rather, it is nothing but political window
dressing for those who have continually sought in this Congress
and the previous one to intrude upon the religious liberties
and protections afforded by the First Amendment of our
Constitution.
A copy of the Congressional Research Service Memorandum
entitled ``Questions Concerning Possible Charitable Choice
Amendment to the Even Start Program,'' is submitted for the
record as part of my additional views.
Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott.
------
Congressional Research Service,
Library of Congress,
Washington, DC, February 15, 2000.
Memorandum
To: Honorable Robert C. Scott. Attention: Theresa Thompson.
From: David M. Ackerman, Legislative Attorney, American Law Division.
Subject: Questions Concerning Possible Charitable Choice Amendment to
the Even Start Program.
This is in response to your request for a brief analysis of
the possible legal implications of the employment
discrimination provision of a charitable choice amendment that
may be proposed to the Even Start program and for information
on the constitutional standards governing direct public
assistance to religious organizations. This memorandum responds
to these inquiries in order.
Employment discrimination
The text of the charitable choice amendment has not been
made available to us. But previous charitable choice proposals
have included one or both of the following provisions regarding
employment discrimination:
(1) Title vii exemption.--The exemption of a
religious organization provided under section 702(a) of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e-1)
regarding employment practices shall not be affected by
the religious organization's provision of services
under, or receipt of funds from, [name of program].
(2) Tenets and teachings.--A religious organization
that provides services under [name of program] may
require that its employees providing services under
such program adherer to the religious tenets and
teachings of such organization, and such organization
may require that those employees adhere to rules
forbidding the use of drugs or alcohol.
Time limitations prevent a thorough analysis of these
provisions, but several observations might be made.
First, with the exception of the part concerning the use of
drugs and alcohol in the second provision, it appears doubtful
that there is any significant difference in the scope of the
two provisions. Both provisions appear to allow religious
organizations receiving funds under the pertinent program to
discriminate on religious grounds in their employment
practices. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 generally
prohibits public and private employers from discriminating in
their employment practices on the basis of race, color,
religion, sex, or national origin. But Sec. 702(a) of that
statute exempts religious organizations from the ban on
religious discrimination, as follows:
Section 702(a): This subchapter shall not apply to *
* * a religious corporation, association, educational
institution, or society with respect to the employment
of individuals of a particular religion to perform work
connected with the carrying on by such corporation,
association, educational institution, or society of its
activities.
That exemption, it might be noted, applies not only to the
religious activities of a religious organization but also to
its secular activities.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter Day Saints v. Amos, 483 U.S. 327 (1987).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Title VII, of course, applies without regard to whether an
organization receives public funds. The provision in the first
charitable choice amendment noted above, thus, would extend the
Title VII exemption for religious organizations to situations
in which the organizations receive public funds under the
pertinent program and allow them to discriminate on religious
grounds in their employment practices to the same extent as is
currently allowed by Title VII.
The language in the second provision allowing a religious
organization that receives funds under the pertinent program to
require its employees ``to adhere to the religious tenets and
teachings of such organization'' appears congruent with the
Title VII exemptions. Under both provisions a religious
organization can restrict its hiring not only to members of its
own faith but to those who abide by its precepts and otherwise
give preference to such persons in their other employment
practices.
Second, the scope of each exemption appears to be quite
broad. The Title VII exemption, for instance, has been held to
protect employment discrimination by religious organizations in
a variety of circumstances:
the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day
Saints when it fired several employees because they
failed to qualify for a ``temple recommend,'' i.e., a
certificate that they were Mormons who abided by the
Church's standards in such matters as regular church
attendance, tithing, and abstinence from coffee, tea,
alcohol, and tobacco (Corporation of the Presiding
Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day
Saints v. Amos, 483 U.S. 327 (1987));
a Christian school that fired a teacher for
having an affair with the father of three children at
the school and breaking up his marriage (Gosche v.
Calvert High School, 997 F.Supp. 867 (N.D. Ohio 1998),
aff'd mem, 181 F.3d 101 (6th Cir. 1999));
a Baptist university that barred a professor
from teaching at its divinity school because his
theological views differed from those of the dean
(Killinger v. Samford University, 113 F.3d 196 (11th
Cir. 1997));
a number of Christian schools that fired
female teachers for having extramarital sex or
committing adultery (Boyd v. Harding Academy of
Memphis, Inc., 88 F.3d 410 (6th Cir. 1996) and Dolter
v. Wahlert High School, 483 F.Supp. 266 (N.D. Iowa
1980);
a Christian college that refused to hire a
Jewish professor (Siegel v. Truett-McConnell College,
Inc., 13 F.Supp.2d 1335 (N.D. Ga. 1994), aff'd mem., 73
F.3d 1108 (11th Cir. 1995));
a Catholic school for firing a teacher who
remarried without seeking an annulment of her first
marriage in accord with Catholic doctrine (Little v.
Wuerl, 929 F.2d 944 (3d Cir. 1991));
a Catholic university that refused to hire a
female professor because her views on abortion were not
in accord with Catholic teaching (Maguire v. Marquette
University, 814 F.2d 1213 (7th Cir. 1987));
a Baptist nursing school that fired a
student services specialist after she was ordained a
minister in a gay and lesbian church that advocated
views on homosexuality ``which were inconsistent with
the [school's] perception of its purpose and mission''
(Hall v. Baptist Memorial Health Care Corporation, 27
F.Supp.2d 1029, 1038-39 (W.D. Tenn. 1998));
a Presbyterian college for dismissing a
Catholic professor (Wirth v. College of the Ozarks, 26
F.Supp.2d 1185 (W.D. Mo. 1998));
a Christian retirement home that fired a
Muslim receptionist after she insisted on wearing a
head covering as required by her faith (EEOC v.
Presbyterian Ministries, Inc., 788 F.Supp. 1154 (W.D.
Wash. 1992));
the Christian Science Monitor when it
refused to hire a non-Christian Scientist (Feldstein v.
Christian Science Monitor, 555 F.Supp. 974 (D. Mass.
1983)); and
a Catholic school when it fired a teacher
for marrying a divorced man (Bishop Leonard Regional
Catholic School v. Unemployment Compensation Board of
Review, 140 Pa.Cmwlth. 428, 593 A.2d 28 (1991)).
Third, the language in the second provision allowing
religious providers to ``require that * * * employees adhere to
rules forbidding the use of drugs or alcohol'' potentially has
an application broader than the discrimination permitted by the
Title VII provision. Rules forbidding the use of drugs and
alcohol are an integral part of some religious faiths and in
those cases would be legitimate grounds for discrimination
under both the tenets and teachings language and the exemption
based on Title VII. But not all faiths forbid the use of drugs
or alcohol, and in some religions such use is even part of the
rituals of the faith. For those faiths the discrimination
authorized by the foregoing language would not duplicate either
the tenets and teachings language or the exemption based on
Title VII. Such organizations could discriminate not only on
the basis of the religious character of their employees or
applicants for employment but also on the basis of their use of
drugs or alcohol. To that extent, then, the second employment
discrimination provision is slightly broader than the first.
Finally, under both provisions there may be some question
about their interplay with other nondiscrimination provisions.
Title VII, for instance, allows religious organizations to
discriminate on religious grounds but not on grounds of race,
color, sex, or national origin. What happens, then, when
religious doctrine mandates discrimination that may also
implicate the other prohibited bases for discrimination? A
number of cases for example haveinvolved the legality of
Christian schools firing unmarried female teachers after they became
pregnant. At least two courts have said that the Title VII exemption
would allow the schools to dismiss a female teacher for adultery under
these circumstances but that a dismissal simply for pregnancy would
raise a possibility of prohibited sex discrimination.\2\ Similarly,
Title VII's ban on sex discrimination was held to apply to a Christian
school's policy of extending health insurance benefits to men and
single persons that were not available to married women in its employ,
notwithstanding the school's contention that its religious beliefs
regarded husbands as the head of the household in any marriage and as
the primary provider for that household.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See Vigars v. Valley Christian Center of Dublin, California,
805 F.Supp. 802 (N.D. Cal. 1992) and Ganzy v. Allen Christian School,
995 F.Supp. 340 (E.D. N.Y. 1998).
\3\ EEOC v. Fremont Christian School, 781 F.2d 1362 (9th Cir.
1986).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although there does not appear to be any dispositive case
law, some question may also exist if an organization whose
religious tenets mandate racial separation or differential
treatment on the basis of race discriminates on racial grounds
in its employment practices. One case involving a charge of
racial discrimination by a religious institution violative of
Title VII, at least, held that ``if a religious institution * *
* presents convincing evidence that the challenged employment
practice resulted from discrimination on the basis of religion,
Sec. 702 deprives the EEOC of jurisdiction to investigate
further to determine whether the religious discrimination was a
pretext for some other form of discrimination.'' \4\ In the
context of a program that receives public funds, of course,
racial discrimination is constitutionally dubious even if it is
motivated by religious belief.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ EEOC v. Mississippi College, 626 F.2d 477 (1980), cert. denied,
453 U.S. 912 (1981).
\5\ Cf. Bob Jones University v. United States, 461 U.S. 574 (1983)
(holding in part that the federal government has an interest in
eliminating racial segregation sufficiently compelling to override the
university's claim that its policies of racial discrimination are
protected by the free exercise of religion clause).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Similar questions would seem to be raised by either of the
employment discrimination provisions.
Constitutional standards governing public aid to religious
organizations
With respect to public aid provided directly to a religious
organization in the form of a grant or contract, a basic tenet
of the Supreme Court's interpretation of the establishment of
religion clause of the First Amendment \6\ is that the clause
``absolutely prohibit[s] government-financed or government-
sponsored indoctrination into the beliefs of a particular
religious faith.'' \7\ Thus, the Court has held that such
public assistance must be limited to aid that is ``secular,
neutral, and nonideological * * *'' \8\ That is, under the
establishment clause government can provide direct support to
secular programs and services sponsored or provided by
religious entities but it cannot directly subsidize such
organizations' religious activities or proselytizing.\9\ Direct
assistance must be limited to secular use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ The clause provides in pertinent part that ``Congress shall
make no law respecting an establishment of religion * * *''
\7\ Grand Rapids School District v. Ball, 473 U.S. 373, 385 (1985).
\8\ Committee for Public Education v. Nyquist, 413 U.S. 756, 780
(1973).
\9\ In most of the cases involving aid to religious institutions,
the Court has used what is known as the Lemon test to determine whether
a particular aid program violates the establishment clause: ``First,
the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its
principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor
inhibits religion * * *; finally, the statute must not foster ``an
excessive entanglement with religion.'' Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S.
602, 612-13 (1971).
The secular purpose prong of this test has rarely posed an obstacle
to public aid programs benefiting sectarian entities, but the primary
effect and entanglement prongs have operated, in Chief Justice
Rehnquist's term, as a ``Catch-22'' for such programs. That is, under
the primary effect test a direct aid program benefiting religious
organizations but not limited to secular use has generally been held
unconstitutional because the aid can be used for the organizations'
religious activities and proselytizing. But if a program is limited to
secular use, it has often still foundered on the entanglement test
because the government's monitoring of the secular use restriction has
intruded it too much into the affairs of the religious organizations.
See Lemon v. Kurtzman, supra. The Court has for some time been sharply
divided on the utility and applicability of the tripartite test and
particularly of the entanglement prong. Nonetheless, the Court still
uses the Lemon test, although it is no longer the exclusive test for
establishment clause cases. Moreover, in Agostini v. Felton, 521 U.S.
203 (1997) the Court eliminated excessive entanglement as a separate
element of the tripartite Lemon test and held it to be part of the
inquiry into primary effect. As reformulated, the entanglement inquiry
now asks whether government monitoring of a program would have the
effect of inhibiting religion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thus, religious organizations are not automatically
disqualified from participating in publicly funded programs,
and numerous religious organizations do so. But they must carry
out the programs in a secular manner. That means that for
purposes of direct public aid a religious organization's
secular functions and activities must be able to be separated
from its religious functions and activities. If they are
separable, government can directly subsidize those functions.
However, if the entity is so permeated by a religious purpose
and character that its secular functions and religious
functions are ``inextricably intertwined,'' i.e., if the entity
is ``pervasively sectarian,'' the Court has held the
establishment clause generally to forbid direct public
assistance.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Committee for Public Education v. Nyquist, supra; Lemon v.
Kurtzman, supra; Bowen v. Kendrick, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Court has not articulated precise rules for determining
what makes a religious organization ``pervasively sectarian.''
It has looked at such factors as the proximity of the
organization in question to a sponsoring church; the presence
of religious symbols and paintings on the premises; formal
church or denominational control over the organization; whether
a religious criterion is applied in the hiring of employees or
in the selection of trustees or, in the case of a school, to
the admission of students; statements in the organization's
charter or other publications that its purpose is the
propagation and promotion of religious faith; whether the
organization engages in religious services or other religious
activities; its devotion, in the case of schools, to academic
freedom; etc.\11\ But the Court has also made clear that ``it
is not enough to show that the recipient of a * * * grant is
affiliated with a religious institution or that it is
`religiously inspired.' '' \12\ Indeed, none of these factors,
by itself, has been held sufficient to make an institution
pervasively sectarian and therefore ineligible for direct
aid.\13\ Such a finding has always rested on a combination of
factors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See e.g., Bradfield v. Roberts, 175 U.S. 291 (1989); Lemon v.
Kurtzman, supra; Tilton v. Richardson, 403 U.S. 672 (1971); Committee
for Public Education v. Nyquist, supra; Meek v. Pittenger, 421 U.S. 349
(1975); Roemer v. Maryland Board of Public Works, 426 U.S. 736 (1976);
and Bowen v. Kendrick, 487 U.S. 589 (1988).
\12\ Bowen v. Kendrick, supra, at 621.
\13\ For helpful lower federal court discussions of the criteria
bearing on whether an institution is pervasively sectarian or not, see
Minnesota Federation of Teachers v. Nelson, 740 F.Supp. 694 (D. Minn.
1990) and Columbia Union College v. Clark, 159 F.3d 151 (4th Cir.
1998), cert. denied, 119 S.Ct. 2357 (1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a practical matter the Court has generally found
religious elementary and secondary schools to be pervasively
sectarian. In contrast, it has generally held religiously
affiliated hospitals, social welfare agencies, and colleges not
to be pervasively sectarian. But in its most recent decision
involving public aid to religious social welfare agencies, the
Court held open the possibility that some agencies might be
pervasively sectarian.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thus, the secular use limitation on direct public aid under
the establishment clause has two dimensions. The aid cannot be
used for religious purposes, nor can it flow to institutions
that are pervasively sectarian. As the Court summarized in Hunt
v. McNair \15\:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ 413 U.S. 734, 743 (1973).
Aid normally may be thought to have a primary effect
of advancing religion when it flows to an institution
in which religion is so pervasive that a substantial
portion of its functions are subsumed in the religious
mission or when it funds a specifically religious
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
activity in an otherwise substantially secular setting.
I hope the foregoing is responsive to your request. If we
may be of additional assistance, please call on us.
DISSENTING VIEWS
Congress should reject the Literacy Involves Families
Together (LIFT) Act (H.R. 3222), which aims to increase
``family literacy'' by directing money from the American
taxpayer to Washington and funneling a small percentage of it
back to the states and localities to spend on education
programs that meet the specifications of D.C.-based
bureaucrats. While all support the goal of promoting adult
literacy, especially among parents with young children,
Congress should not endorse or support the unconstitutional and
ineffective means included in this bill. If Congress were
serious about meaningful education reform, we would not even be
debating bills like H.R. 3222. Rather, we would be discussing
the best way to return control over the education dollar to the
people so they can develop the education programs that best
suit their needs.
Several members of my colleagues on the Committee have
expressed opposition to the LIFT Act's dramatic increase in
authorized expenditures for the Even Start family literacy
programs. Of course, I share their opposition to the increased
expenditure, however, any opposition to this bill is based not
as much on the authorized amount but on the bill's underlying
premise: that the American people either cannot or will not
provide educational services to those who need them unless they
are forced to do so by the federal government.
In contrast to the drafters of the LIFT bill, I do not
trust the Congress to develop an education program that can
match the needs of every community in the United States.
Instead, I trust the American people to provide the type of
education system that best suits their needs, and the needs of
their fellow citizens, provided Congress gives them back
control over the education dollar.
The drafters of the United States Constitution understood
that the federal government was incapable of effectively
providing services such as education. This is why they
carefully limited the federal government's powers to a few
narrowly defined areas. This understanding of the proper role
of the federal government was reinforced by the tenth amendment
which forbids the Federal Government from controlling
education, instead leaving authority over education in the
hands of states, local communities and parents.
Reinforcing that the scariest words in the English language
are ``I'm from the federal government and I am here to help
you,'' the American education system has deteriorated in the
years since Congress disregarded the constitutional limitations
on centralizing education in order to ``improve the schools.''
One could argue that if the federally-controlled schools did a
better job of educating children to read, perhaps there would
not be a great demand for ``adult literacy programs!''
Of course, family literacy programs do serve a vital
purpose in society, but I would suggest that not only would
family literacy programs exist, they would better serve those
families in need of assistance if they were not controlled by
the federal government. Because of the generosity of the
American people, the issue is not whether family literacy
programs will be funded but who should control the education
dollars; the American people or the federal government?
Rather than give more control over education to the people,
H.R. 322 actually further centralizes education by attaching
new requirements to those communities receiving taxpayer
dollars for adult literacy programs. For example, under this
bill, federally-funded Even Start programs must use instruction
methods based on ``scientific research.'' While none question
the value of research into various educational methologies, it
is doubtful that the best way to teach reading can be totally
determined through laboratory experiments. Learning to read is
a complex process, involving many variable, not the least of
which are the skills and abilities of the individual.
Many effective techniques may not be readily supported by
``scientific research.'' Therefore, this program may end up
preventing the use of many effective means of reading
instruction. The requirement that recipients of federal funds
use only those reading techniques based on ``scientific
research,'' (which in practice means those methods approved by
the federally-funded ``experts'') ensures that a limited number
of reading methodologies will, in essence, be ``stamped with
federal approval.''
In addition to violating the United States Constitution,
the LIFT bill raises some serious questions regarding the
relationship between the state and the family. Promoting family
literacy is a noble goal but programs such as these may promote
undue governmental interference in family life. Many people
around the country have expressed concern that ``parenting
improvement'' programs have become excuses for the government
bureaucrats to intimidate parents into ceding effective control
over child-rearing to the government. While none of these
complaints are directly related to the Even Start program Even
Start does rest on the premise that it is legitimate for the
federal government to interfere with the parent-child
relationship to ``improve'' parenting. Once one accepts that
premise, it is a short jump to interfering in all aspects of
family life in order to promote the federal government's vision
of ``quality parenting.''
In order give control over education back to the American
people, I have introduced several pieces of legislation that
improve education by giving the American people control over
their education dollar. For instance, my Family Education
Freedom Act (H.R. 935), provides parents with a $3,000 per
child tax credit for K-12 education expenses incurred in
sending their children to public, private, or home school. I
have also introduced the Education Improvement Tax Cut Act
(H.R. 936), which provides a tax donation of up to $3,000 for
cash or in-kind donations to public or private schools as well
as for donations to elementary and secondary scholarships, I am
also cosponsoring legislation (H.R. 969) to increase the tax
donations for charitable contributions, as well as several
bills to provide tax credits for adult job training and
education.
Unleashing the charitable impulses of the American people
is the most effective means of ensuring that all Americans have
access to the quality education programs they need, and to make
sure that those programs are tailored to meet the particular
needs of the local communities and the individuals they serve.
In conclusion, I call on my colleagues to reject the LIFT
Act and instead embrace a program of education and charitable
tax credits that will give the American people the ability to
provide for the education needs of their children and families
in the way that best suits the unique circumstances of their
own communities.
Ron Paul.