```

[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.

                                


```