29–006

108TH CONGRESS REPORT " HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ! 1st Session 108–310

IMPROVING THE COMMUNITY SERVICES BLOCK GRANT 

ACT OF 2003

OCTOBER 10, 2003.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State 

of the Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. BOEHNER, from the Committee on Education and the 

Workforce, submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

MINORITY VIEWS 

[To accompany H.R. 3030] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

The Committee on Education and the Workforce, to whom was 

referred the bill (H.R. 3030) to amend the Community Service 

Block Grant Act to provide for quality improvements, having considered the same, report favorably thereon with an amendment and 

recommend that the bill as amended do pass. 

The amendment is as follows: 

Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Improving the Community Services Block Grant Act 

of 2003’’. 

SEC. 2. COMMUNITY SERVICES BLOCK GRANT ACT AMENDMENTS. 

(a) PURPOSES AND GOALS.—Section 672 of the Community Services Block Grant 

Act (42 U.S.C. 9901 note) is amended to read as follows: 

‘‘SEC. 672 PURPOSES AND GOALS. 

‘‘The purpose of this subtitle is to reduce poverty—

‘‘(1) by strengthening and coordinating local efforts to expand opportunities 

for individuals and families to become economically self-sufficient and to improve and revitalize low-income communities in urban and rural areas, by providing resources to States for support of local eligible entities, including community action agencies and other community-based organizations—

‘‘(A) to plan, coordinate, and mobilize a broad range of Federal, State, 

local, and private assistance or investment in such a manner as to use 

2

these resources effectively to reduce poverty and in initiatives that are responsive to specific local needs and conditions; 

‘‘(B) to coordinate a range of services that meet the needs of low-income 

families and individuals, that support strong and healthy families, and that 

assist them in developing the skills needed to become self sustaining while 

ensuring that these services are provided effectively and efficiently; and 

‘‘(C) to design and implement comprehensive approaches to assist eligible 

individuals in gaining employment and achieving economic self-sufficiency; 

‘‘(2) by improving and revitalizing the low-income communities in urban and 

rural areas by providing resources to States for support of local eligible entities 

and their partners—

‘‘(A) to broaden the resource base of initiatives and projects directed to 

the elimination of poverty and the redevelopment of the low-income community, including partnerships with nongovernmental and governmental institutions to develop the community assets and services that reduce poverty, 

such as—

‘‘(i) other private, religious, charitable, and community-based organizations; 

‘‘(ii) individual citizens, and business, labor, and professional groups, 

that are able to influence the quantity and quality of opportunities and 

services for the poor; and 

‘‘(iii) local government leadership; and 

‘‘(B) to coordinate community-wide resources and services that will have 

a significant, measurable impact on the causes of poverty in the community 

and that will help families and individuals to achieve economic self-sufficiency and to test innovative, community-based approaches to attacking the 

causes and effects of poverty and of community breakdown, including— 

‘‘(i) innovative initiatives to prevent and reverse loss of investment, 

jobs, public services, and infrastructure in low- and moderate-income 

communities; and 

‘‘(ii) innovative partnerships to leverage the assets and services that 

reduce poverty, as provided in subparagraph (A); and 

‘‘(3) by ensuring maximum participation of residents of low-income communities and of members of the groups served by grants made under this subtitle 

in guiding the eligible entities and in their programs funded under this subtitle, 

to ameliorate the particular problems and needs of low-income residents and to 

develop the permanent social and economic assets of the low-income community 

in order to reduce the incidence of poverty.’’. 

(b) DEFINITIONS.—Section 673(1)(A) of the Community Services Block Grant Act 

(42 U.S.C. 9902(1)(A)) is amended—

(1) in clause (i) by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end, 

(2) in clause (ii) by striking the period at the end and inserting ‘‘; and’’, and 

(3) by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(iii) that successfully develops and meets the locally determined 

goals described in section 678E(b)(1), as determined by the State, and 

meets State goals, standards, and performance requirements as provided for in section 678B(a).’’. 

(c) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—Section 674 of the Community Services 

Block Grant Act (42 U.S.C. 9903) is amended—

(1) in subsection (a) by striking ‘‘1999 through 2003’’ and inserting ‘‘2004 

through 2009’’, and 

(2) in subsection (b)(2)—

(A) by striking ‘‘678F’’ and inserting ‘‘678E to assist States, eligible entities, and their partners in projects supported by this subtitle’’, and 

(B) in subparagraph (B) by striking ‘‘monitoring (to correct programmatic 

deficiencies of eligible entities)’’ and inserting ‘‘monitoring (including technical assistance and training to correct programmatic deficiencies of eligible 

entities)’’. 

(d) USES OF FUNDS.—Section 675C of the Community Services Block Grant Act 

(42 U.S.C. 9907) is amended—

(1) in subsection (a)(3)(A) by striking ‘‘Beginning on October 1, 2000, a’’ and 

inserting ‘‘A’’, and 

(2) in subsection (b)(1)(F) by striking ‘‘neighborhood-based’’ and inserting 

‘‘community-based’’. 

(e) APPLICATION AND PLAN.—Section 676 of the Community Services Block Grant 

Act (42 U.S.C. 9908) is amended—

(1) in subsection (b)—

(A) by striking ‘‘Beginning with fiscal year 2000, to’’ and inserting ‘‘To’’, 

(B) in paragraph (1)—

3

(i) in subparagraph (B)—

(I) by striking ‘‘youth development programs that support’’ and 

inserting ‘‘youth development programs, which may include mentoring programs, that support’’, and 

(II) by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end, 

(ii) in subparagraph (C) by adding ‘‘and’’ at the end, and 

(iii) by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(D) initiatives to improve economic conditions and mobilize new resources in rural areas to eliminate obstacles to the self-sufficiency of families and individuals in rural communities;’’, 

(C) in paragraph (2) by striking ‘‘community and neighborhood-based’’ 

and inserting ‘‘community-based’’, 

(D) in paragraph (3)—

(1) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A) by striking ‘‘information provided by eligible entities in the State, containing’’ and inserting 

‘‘an assurance that the State will provide information, including’’, and 

(ii) in subparagraph (D) by striking ‘‘community and neighborhoodbased’’ and inserting ‘‘community-based’’, 

(E) in paragraph (9) by striking ‘‘and community organizations’’ and inserting ‘‘and community-based organizations’’, 

(F) in paragraph (10) by striking ‘‘community organization’’ and inserting 

‘‘community-based organization’’, 

(G) in paragraph (12) by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end, 

(H) by redesignating paragraph (13) as paragraph (15), and 

(I) by inserting after paragraph (12) the following: 

‘‘(13) an assurance that the State will take swift action to improve performance or, when appropriate, to terminate the funding under this subtitle of lowperforming eligible entities that do not meet the applicable locally determined 

goals described in section 678E(b)(1) or do not meet the State goals, standards, 

and requirements as provided for in section 678B(a); 

‘‘(14) an assurance that the State will provide a justification to the Secretary 

if it continues to fund persistently low-performing eligible entities; and’’, 

(2) in subsection (c)(2) by striking ‘‘plan, or’’ and all that follows through the 

period at the end, and inserting ‘‘plan, to meet a State requirement, as described in section 678C(a), or to meet the locally determined goals as described 

in section 678E(b)(1).’’, and 

(3) by striking subsection (f). 

(f) TRAINING, TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE, AND OTHER ACTIVITIES.—Section 

678A(a)(1)(A) of the Community Services Block Grant Act (42 U.S.C. 9913(a)(1)(A)) 

is amended—

(1) by inserting ‘‘dissemination regarding best practices,’’ after ‘‘technical assistance,’’, and 

(2) by inserting ‘‘(including to assist in the development of reporting systems 

and electronic data systems)’’ after ‘‘collection activities’’. 

(g) MONITORING OF ELIGIBLE ENTITIES.—Section 678B of the Community Services 

Block Grant Act (42 U.S.C. 9914) is amended—

(1) in subsection (a)—

(A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1) by inserting ‘‘and the locally 

determined performance goals described in section 678E(b)(1)’’ after ‘‘a 

State’’, and 

(B) in paragraph (3)—

(i) by inserting ‘‘appropriate’’ before ‘‘goals’’, and 

(ii) by striking ‘‘established by the State’’, and 

(2) in the last sentence of subsection (c) by striking ‘‘Chairperson of the Committee on Education’’ and all that follows through ‘‘Human Resources of the 

Senate’’ and inserting ‘‘appropriate congressional committees’’. 

(h) CORRECTIVE ACTION; TERMINATION AND REDUCTION OF FUNDING.—Section 

678C(a) of the Community Services Block Grant Act (42 U.S.C. 9915(a)) is amended 

in the matter preceding paragraph (1) by striking ‘‘established by the State’’. 

(i) ACCOUNTABILITY AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.—Section 678E of the Community Services Block Grant Act (42 U.S.C. 9917) is amended—

(1) in subsection (a)—

(A) in paragraph (1)(A) by striking ‘‘By October 1, 2001, each’’ and inserting ‘‘Each’’, and 

(B) in paragraph (2)—

(i) in the 1st sentence by inserting ‘‘including any activities under 

section 678C’’ before the period at the end, 

(ii) by striking the 2d sentence, 

(iii) in the 3d sentence by striking ‘‘also’’, and 

4

(iv) in the 3d sentence by inserting ‘‘information on the timeliness of 

the distribution of block grant funds to eligible entities as provided in 

section 675C(a),’’ after ‘‘including’’, 

(2) in subsection (b)—

(A) in paragraph (2) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A) by striking 

‘‘beginning after September 30, 1999’’, 

(B) in paragraph (3) by striking ‘‘Committee on Education’’ and all that 

follows through ‘‘Human Resources of the Senate’’ and inserting ‘‘appropriate congressional committees’’, 

(C) by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(5) COORDINATION OF REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.—To the maximum extent 

possible, the Secretary shall coordinate reporting requirements for all programs 

of the Department of Health and Human Services managed by eligible entities 

so as to consolidate and reduce the number of reports required about individuals, families, and uses of grant funds.’’, and 

(D) by redesignating such subsection as subsection (c), and 

(3) by inserting after subsection (a) the following: 

‘‘(b) LOCAL ACCOUNTABILITY AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.— ‘‘(1) LOCALLY DETERMINED GOALS.—In order to be designated as an eligible entity and to receive a grant under this subtitle, an eligible entity shall establish 

locally determined goals for reducing poverty in the community, including goals 

for—

‘‘(A) leveraging and mobilizing community resources; 

‘‘(B) fostering coordination of Federal, State, local, private, and other assistance; and 

‘‘(C) promoting community involvement. 

‘‘(2) DEMONSTRATION THAT GOALS WERE MET.—In order for an eligible entity 

to receive a second or subsequent grant made under this subtitle after the effective date of this paragraph, such entity shall demonstrate to the State that it 

has met the goals described in paragraph (1).’’. 

(j) TREATMENT OF BENEFICIARIES.—Section 679 of the Community Services Block 

Grant Act (42 U.S.C. 9920) is amended by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(f) TREATMENT OF BENEFICIARIES.—In providing assistance under a program described in subsection (a), a religious organization shall not discriminate against a 

beneficiary, or a potential beneficiary, of such assistance on the basis of religion or 

of a religious belief.’’. 

(k) DISCRETIONARY AUTHORITY OF SECRETARY.—Section 680 of the Community 

Services Block Grant Act (42 U.S.C. 9921) is amended—

(1) in subsection (a)—

(A) in paragraph (2)—

(i) in subparagraph (A) by inserting ‘‘(including financial assistance 

for construction or substantial rehabilitation of buildings and facilities, 

and for loans or investments in private business enterprises owned by 

community development corporations)’’ after ‘‘assistance’’, 

(ii) by redesignating subparagraphs (B), (C), (D), and (E) as subparagraphs (D), (E), (F), and (G), respectively, and 

(iii) by inserting after subparagraph (A) the following: 

‘‘(B) FEDERAL INTEREST.—The Secretary shall establish procedures that 

permit funds provided under a grant made under this paragraph, or intangible assets acquired with such funds, to become the sole property of the 

grantee before the expiration of the 12-year period beginning after the fiscal 

year for which such grant is made if such grantee agrees to use such funds 

or such property for purposes and uses consistent with the purposes and 

uses for which such grant is made. 

‘‘(C) REPLACEMENT ACTIVITIES.—The Secretary shall establish procedures 

to allow a grant made under this paragraph to be used by a grantee to 

carry out activities substantially similar to the activities for which such 

grant is made if, due to no fault of such grantee, such grantee cannot carry 

out the activities for which such grant is made. Such procedures shall require that the substantially similar activities serve the same impact area 

and have the same goals, objectives, and outcomes as the activities for 

which such grant is made.’’, 

(B) in paragraph (3)(B) by inserting ‘‘water and wastewater’’ after ‘‘community’’, and 

(C) in paragraph (4) by striking ‘‘neighborhood-based’’ and inserting ‘‘community-based’’, and 

(2) in subsection (c) by striking ‘‘Chairperson of the Committee on Education’’ 

and all that follows through ‘‘Human Resources of the Senate’’ and inserting 

‘‘appropriate congressional committees’’. 

5

(l) COMMUNITY FOOD AND NUTRITION PROGRAMS.—Section 681 of the Community 

Services Block Grant Act (42 U.S.C. 9922) is amended—

(1) in subsection (c) in the matter preceding paragraph (1) by striking ‘‘Committee on Education’’ and all that follows through ‘‘Human Resources of the 

Senate’’ and inserting ‘‘appropriate congressional committees’’, and 

(2) in subsection (d) by striking ‘‘1999 through 2003’’ and inserting ‘‘2004 

through 2009’’. 

(m) NATIONAL OR REGIONAL PROGRAMS DESIGNED TO PROVIDE INSTRUCTIONAL

ACTIVITIES FOR LOW-INCOME YOUTH..—Section 682 of the Community Services Block 

Grant Act (42 U.S.C. 9923) is amended—

(1) in subsection (b)(5)—

(A) by inserting ‘‘(which may be accomplished through mentoring)’’ after 

‘‘youth’’, and 

(B) by inserting ‘‘to improve academic achievement’’ after ‘‘study practices’’, and 

(2) in subsection (g) by striking ‘‘1999 through 2003’’ and inserting ‘‘2004 

through 2009’’. 

SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE. 

This Act and the amendments made by this Act shall take effect on the 1st day 

of the 1st fiscal year beginning after the date of the enactment of this Act.

PURPOSE

The purpose of H.R. 3030, Improving the Community Services 

Block Grant Act of 2003, is to reauthorize the Community Services 

Block Grant (CSBG) through fiscal year 2009. H.R. 3030 builds 

upon improvements made to the program during the last reauthorization to promote increased quality and accountability for CSBG 

programs. The current block grant to states is working well to 

allow states to address the needs of low-income communities, families and individuals. H.R. 3030 aims to make minor improvements 

to current law to ensure that quality programs continue to serve 

those with the greatest need. 

COMMITTEE ACTION

HEARINGS

The Subcommittee on Education Reform held a hearing in Washington, D.C. to hear and review comments on the reauthorization 

of the Community Services Block Grant Act (CSBG) and the LowIncome Home Energy Assistance program (LIHEAP). The hearing 

was held on July 8, 2003 entitled ‘‘LIHEAP & CSBG: Providing Assistance to Low Income Families.’’ The purpose of this hearing was 

to review how LIHEAP and CSBG have been implemented and administered since the last reauthorization in 1998, and to examine 

what had and had not worked in the provision of services for lowincome individuals, families and communities. The Subcommittee 

heard testimony from Ms. Leslie Lee, LIHEAP Director, Department of Health and Social Services, New Castle, Delaware; Dr. 

Carolyn C. Drake, Director, Southern States Energy Board, Washington, D.C.; Dr. Mary Nelson, President and CEO, Bethel New 

Life, Inc., Chicago, Illinois; Mr. Michael Tubbs, Executive Director, 

Community Action Association of Alabama, Birmingham, Alabama; 

and Mr. David Bradley, Executive Director, National Community 

Action Foundation, Washington, D.C. 

LEGISLATIVE ACTION

On September 5, 2003, Representative Tom Osborne (R–NE), 

along with Chairman Boehner (R–OH), Subcommittee Chairman 

6

Castle (R–DE), Mr. Upton (R–MI), and Mr. Wilson (R–SC), introduced H.R. 3030, Improving the Community Services Block Grant 

Act of 2003. H.R. 3030 reauthorizes and makes amendments to the 

Community Services Block Grant Act. 

The Committee on Education and the Workforce considered H.R. 

3030 in legislative session on October 1, 2003 during which two 

amendments were considered and adopted by voice vote. The Committee on Education and the Workforce, with the majority of the 

Committee present, favorably reported H.R. 3030, as amended, to 

the House of Representatives by a vote of 28–20 on October 1, 

2003. The following is a description of the amendments adopted to 

H.R. 3030 during full Committee consideration: 

• Representative Osborne (R–NE) offered an amendment in the 

Nature of a Substitute to make clarifying and technical changes to 

the bill; reinstate the current definition of an eligible entity, but require grantees to successfully develop and meet locally determined 

goals and state goals, standards, and performance requirements in 

order to continue receiving funds as part of the definition; include 

an assurance that states will take swift action to improve performance or defund low performing eligible entities; require states to 

provide a justification to the Secretary of HHS as to why they continue to fund persistently low-performing eligible entities; enhance 

technical training and assistance to states for the development of 

reporting systems, electronic data systems, and for carrying out 

corrective action activities and monitoring of eligible entities; modify the current purposes and goals of the program to ensure the 

focus of the program is to reduce poverty and expand opportunities 

for individuals and families to become economically self-sufficient; 

and enhance and streamline reporting requirements. 

• Chairman Boehner (R–OH) offered an amendment to codify 

previous regulatory practice ensuring that program beneficiaries 

and potential program beneficiaries are not discriminated against 

on the basis of religion. 

SUMMARY

The Improving the Community Services Block Grant Act of 2003 

extends the authorization for, and makes improvements to the 

Community Services Block Grant Act. 

Section 1—Short title 

Section 1 of H.R. 3030 gives the short title of the bill. 

Section 2—Amendments to the Community Services Block Grant Act 

Section 2 of H.R. 3030 makes amendments and improvements to 

the Community Services Block Grant Act. 

The bill modifies the purposes and goals of the act to ensure that 

the focus of the program is to reduce poverty and expand opportunities for individuals and families to become economically self-sufficient. 

The bill revises the definition of an eligible entity to require that 

eligible entities successfully develop and meet locally determined 

goals and meet the state’s goals, standards and performance requirements in order to continue to receive funding and remain as 

an eligible entity. 

7

The bill retains authorization levels at such sums for CSBG 

grants and discretionary programs and $15 million for the National 

Youth Sports Program, and extends the authorizations through fiscal year 2009. 

The bill clarifies that the Secretary must use a portion of their 

administrative dollars for providing training and technical assistance to states to assist them in correcting programmatic deficiencies of eligible entities, and for corrective action and monitoring. 

The bill requires that funds granted by the state to an eligible 

entity that have not been expended by the end of the fiscal year 

to which the funds were granted remain with such entity for carryover into the next fiscal year. 

The bill enhances opportunities for providing youth mentoring 

activities to encourage education and academic achievement and 

youth crime prevention.

The bill includes a provision to require states to use their grants 

to encourage initiatives to improve economic conditions and mobilize new resources in rural areas to eliminate obstacles to the selfsufficiency of families and individuals in rural communities. 

The bill requires states to include in their state plans an assurance that the state will take swift action to improve performance, 

or when appropriate, terminate the funding of low performing eligible entities that do not meet the locally determined goals, or meet 

the state goals, standards and performance requirements. States 

must also provide an assurance that they will provide a justification to the Secretary if they continue to fund persistently low-performing eligible entities. 

The bill requires the Secretary to provide dissemination of best 

practices to the states and to provide states with assistance in developing reporting systems and electronic data systems as part of 

the Secretary’s technical assistance and training requirements. 

The bill requires states to include measured performance of 

locals with regard to locally determined goals and information on 

the timeliness of the distribution of block grant funds to eligible entities and on the availability of such funds as timely advance payments for activities approved in local plans. 

The bill requires eligible entities to develop locally determined 

goals including, leveraging and mobilizing community resources, 

fostering coordination of federal, state, local, private and other assistance, and promoting community involvement. Eligible entities 

are further required to demonstrate to the state that they have met 

such goals as a condition of continuing to be eligible and receive 

funding. 

The bill requires the Secretary to coordinate reporting requirements within CSBG with all programs of the Department of Health 

and Human Services managed by eligible entities to consolidate 

and reduce the number of reports required about individuals, families and uses of grant funds. 

The bill adds language to codify previous regulatory practice ensuring that program beneficiaries and potential program beneficiaries are not discriminated against on the basis of religion. 

The bill amends community economic development (CED) provisions to clarify allowable economic development activities. 

8

The bill also amends community economic development provisions to require the Secretary to establish procedures for permitting funds or intangible assets acquired by CED grants to become 

the sole property of the CDC after 12 years if the CDC agrees to 

use such funds or such property for purposes and uses consistent 

with the purposes and uses of the original grant. 

The bill further amends the CED provisions to require the Secretary to establish procedures to allow a CDC to carry out activities 

that are substantially similar to the original activities for which a 

grant is made, if due to no fault of the CDC, the CDC cannot carry 

out the original activities. The procedures must require that the 

substantially similar activities serve the same impact area and 

have the same goals and objectives as the activities of the original 

grant. 

Section 3—Effective date 

Section 3 of H.R. 3030 sets an effective date for enactment of the 

bill. 

COMMITTEE VIEWS

Overview 

The Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) provides funding 

to a state-administered local network composed of nearly 1,110 

local ‘‘eligible entities’’—mostly local nonprofit community action 

agencies (CAAs)—that create, coordinate and deliver a broad array 

of programs and services to low-income Americans in 96 percent of 

all counties across the country. These programs serve over 13 million low-income individuals and over 3.6 million low-income families each year. Statistics show that poverty touches a large portion 

of Americans over their lifetime for various reasons. Over the 

years, CSBG has provided states and local communities with a 

flexible stream of funding for activities that have a ‘‘measurable 

and potentially major impact on the causes of poverty.’’ CSBG 

funding may be used for a wide-range of anti-poverty activities to 

help families and individuals achieve self-sufficiency, such as finding and retaining employment, obtaining adequate housing, and 

providing emergency food services. 

When reviewing the Community Services Block Grant Act for reauthorization, the Committee found that the CSBG remains an effective and essential element in the nation’s effort to fight poverty 

and increase self-sufficiency among low-income individuals and 

families. The CSBG program stands out as a unique example of effective partnerships between federal, state, and local governments, 

as well as the private and public sectors of our nation’s communities. 

As Mr. Michael Tubbs, Executive Director of the Community Action Association of Alabama stated during his testimony to the 

Subcommittee on Education Reform on July 8, 2003: ‘‘There is no 

‘quick fix’ to poverty. Using the CSBG, the employees of our agencies are able to create partnerships that link public and private 

funding, seek out new partners, recruit hundreds of volunteers and 

manage the investment of tax dollars effectively and efficiently.’ ’’ 

The CSBG program is also a true block grant to the states, allowing them to establish and operate anti-poverty programs that 

9

meet the unique needs of their low-income communities, families, 

and individuals. H.R. 3030 preserves the CSBG as a true state 

block grant program. The bill also builds upon improvements made 

to the program during the last reauthorization to promote increased quality and accountability, expand opportunities in rural 

areas, and enhance youth mentoring activities. The bill also maintains authorization levels for CSBG grants and discretionary programs at such sums, and the National Youth Sports Program at 

$15 million, and extends them through FY 2009. 

Purposes and goals 

The Committee wanted to reiterate and ensure the purposes and 

goals of the Community Services Block Grant Act. To that end H.R. 

3030 adds a new statement of purpose to the act that stresses not 

only poverty reduction, but the importance of individual self-sufficiency, including the importance of transitioning off of federal programs such as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, and the 

leveraging of federal dollars to yield increased community resources. The bill maintains the focus on the importance of broadening the resource base for programs directed to eliminating poverty, including a more active role for private, religious, charitable 

and community-based organizations in the provision of services. 

Designation of eligible entities 

The community action network has generally done an effective 

job of addressing the needs of high-poverty communities throughout the nation. Recognizing the important and historical work of 

community action agencies, the Committee has maintained language in the bill grandfathering current eligible entities for the 

purpose of continuing to administer programs under CSBG. The 

Committee would like to note that the Improving the Community 

Services Block Grant Act of 2003 adds an additional requirement 

that an eligible entity must develop annual program goals and 

demonstrate that these goals are met as a condition of continuing 

to receive funding. Continuation of funding, which is now automatic, will be contingent upon grantees achieving grantee-determined goals for quality improvement, as well as meeting the state 

goals, standards and performance requirements as in current law. 

The Committee wants to stress that eligible entities should not 

automatically qualify and continue to receive funding simply because they have always done so. The Committee firmly believes 

that entities receiving federal funding should be held accountable 

for operating and providing high quality programs and services, especially when such programs and services are intended to assist 

those most in need. The Committee included this new provision to 

ensure that CSBG eligible entities and the programs under them 

strive for and are held accountable for continuous quality improvement. 

Increased quality and accountability 

Central to reauthorization of the Community Services Block 

Grant Act were increased quality and accountability for CSBG programs. The Committee wanted to strike an important balance between maintaining state control over a traditional state block grant 

program, while increasing accountability to ensure that federal dolVerDate jul 14 2003 07:10 Oct 11, 2003 Jkt 029006 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR310.XXX HR310
10

lars are being well spent. The Improving Community Services 

Block Grant Act of 2003 does just that. In addition to requiring all 

eligible entities to meet all locally and state determined goals and 

objectives, the bill also requires the state to provide a justification 

to the Secretary of Health and Human Services as to why it continues to fund persistently low-performing eligible entities. It is the 

Committee’s hope that no state will choose to continue funding 

those eligible entities that continue to be of low quality and underperform, but in the event that a state does make this decision the 

legislation provides additional ‘‘sunshine’’ on current CSBG activities in order to drive improvement in local programs. 

Training, technical assistance and corrective action 

As part of the many proposals and comments the Subcommittee 

and Committee received from the CSBG community were requests 

to provide more resources for training and technical assistance to 

assist states in carrying out corrective action and monitoring of eligible entities as well as for developing reporting systems and electronic data systems for reporting and data collection activities. 

Since current law seems to be working well, the Committee made 

minor changes to the act to continue to encourage efforts by the 

states to ensure that the needs of eligible entities and programs related to improving program quality are addressed. To that end the 

bill includes language in the appropriate places to clarify that 

funds must be used for training and technical assistance for carrying out corrective action and monitoring of eligible entities. The 

bill also adds language to current law to specify that funding can 

be used for such activities as developing reporting systems and 

electronic data systems. In addition, the bill includes an assurance 

that states will take swift action to improve performance, or when 

appropriate, defund low performing grantees that do not meet locally determined goals or state goals, standards and performance 

requirements in an effort to give states more authority for taking 

corrective action to make improvements, reducing the funding of, 

or terminating low-performing eligible entities. The Committee 

would like to emphasize that states should be taking immediate action to make improvements upon finding cause for the need of corrective action of an eligible entity, even if the end result is a reduction in funding or termination of such eligible entity. 

Coordination of reporting requirements 

In an effort to decrease the administrative burden on states and 

local eligible entities while still allowing for full oversight of all 

program requirements, the Committee included a provision in the 

bill that requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to 

coordinate, to the maximum extent possible, reporting requirements for a variety of federal programs, including the Community 

Services Block Grant, Head Start, Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, the Child Care and Development Block Grant, 

and other services under the direction of the Secretary. It is the 

Committee’s hope that by easing some administrative burdens on 

states and local eligible entities they will better be able to focus 

their efforts on providing high quality programs and serving the 

needs of their constituencies. 

11

Expand rural opportunities 

The Improving the Community Services Block Grant Act of 2003 

expands opportunities for states to use CSBG funding for initiatives to improve economic conditions and mobilize new resources in 

rural areas to eliminate obstacles to the self-sufficiency of families 

and individuals in rural communities. The Committee recognizes 

that poverty knows no boundaries and rural areas also have needs 

for CSBG programs and services. By expanding these opportunities 

to rural communities the Committee wants to emphasize that rural 

areas are in need of CSBG programs and services as much as 

urban areas and want to ensure that states have the appropriate 

resources to guarantee that rural areas are properly served. 

Enhance youth mentoring opportunities 

The Improving Community Services Block Grant Act of 2003 also 

enhances opportunities for youth mentoring. Language is included 

to specific provisions in the bill to clarify that in carrying out youth 

development initiatives such initiatives may include youth mentoring activities. Youth development programs are designed to address the needs of youth in low-income communities and to support 

such activities as encouraging education, drug and alcohol abuse 

prevention and youth crime prevention. The Committee wanted to 

enhance mentoring opportunities because research proves that 

mentoring works. Evaluation research completed by Public/Private 

Ventures scientifically demonstrated what most of us know through 

experiences—that mentoring dramatically improves the lives of 

children. Youth with mentors are 46 percent less likely to begin 

using illegal drugs, 52 percent less likely to skip school, and 33 percent less likely to get into fights. Students with mentors reported 

greater confidence in their performance at school and better relationships with their families. The Committee firmly believes what 

the research shows and wants to continue to support and encourage youth mentoring opportunities where appropriate. 

Role of faith-based providers 

Faith-based organizations participating in the CSBG program 

are allowed under current provisions in the CSBG program to 

maintain their religious character. In fact, the CSBG program specifically preserves the rights of faith-based organizations under 

Section 702(a) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as 

amended in 1972 (42 U.S.C. §2000e–1(a)) to maintain their religious character. When a faith-based group seeks to staff its program in accordance with its faith, it is not engaging in discrimination which is appropriately forbidden by law; but instead is exercising its right to maintain its religious character as protected 

under this law and under civil rights laws. Faith-based organizations cannot be expected to sustain their religious mission without 

the ability to employ individuals who share the tenets and practices of their faith because it is that faith that motivates them to 

serve their neighbors in need. Without protecting this right to continue to staff on a religious basis, faith-based organizations may 

withdraw from providing services rather than compromising their 

religious character—to the loss of desperate people in need currently being served by this program. 

12

The last reauthorization of CSBG, signed into law by then President Bill Clinton, specifically stated that religious organizations 

that receive federal funds in the form of grants or contracts do not 

lose their Title VII right to maintain their religious identity. President Clinton also signed into law three other acts—the Substance 

Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration Act, the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunities Reconciliation Act 

and the Community Renewal Tax Relief Act—which had similar 

provisions protecting the rights of faith-based organizations. 

The Committee has included a provision to codify previous regulatory practice ensuring that program beneficiaries and potential 

program beneficiaries are not discriminated against on the basis of 

religion. The language included in the bill mirrors the language 

adopted in the final regulations on September 22, 2003. As reported in the Federal Register, the Department of Health and 

Human Services noted that ‘‘[i]t was not the intent of Congress to 

permit religious discrimination in the treatment of beneficiaries 

and the CSBG Act charitable choice provisions adequately protect 

beneficiaries from discrimination.’’ The Committee concludes, as 

did the Department of Health and Human Services, that this new 

language is sufficient to protect the religious freedom of beneficiaries. 

CSBG has a proud history of inclusion of faith-based organizations in the coordination of poverty reduction services, and having 

those organizations improve the lives of those in need. The Committee believes that this tradition of inclusion should continue and 

rejected attempts to add new barriers to faith-based organizations 

who are already serving under this program. The Committee believes that any federal legislation governing federal social service 

funds should continue to protect the rights of religious organizations to hire in accordance with their faith when they take part in 

federal social service efforts. 

Discretionary programs 

In addition to the block grant itself, the Community Services 

Block Grant Act authorizes several related national activities and 

programs that are funded at the discretion of the Secretary of 

Health and Human Services. These programs and activities include 

among others, community economic development, rural community 

facilities, and community food and nutrition. The Improving Community Services Block Grant Act of 2003 adds language to the community economic development program to clarify and codify policies 

for administrating the program. 

National Youth Sports program 

The National Youth Sports program is also a separate discretionary grant program authorized as part of CSBG. Under this program the Secretary is authorized to make an annual grant to a national, non-profit organization to provide summer recreational, 

sport, and educational enrichment services to youth from low-income families. The program includes high quality sports instruction 

and enrichment instruction and information on matters relating to 

the well-being of youth, including educational and study habits 

support. Instructional activities supported under this program 

must be carried out on the campus of an institution of higher eduVerDate jul 14 2003 07:10 Oct 11, 2003 Jkt 029006 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR310.XXX HR310
13

cation. No significant changes were made to the program under 

H.R. 3030 

The Committee wants to clarify that institutions of higher education are only required to treat medical conditions that have occurred because of the participants’ direct involvement in the program’s activities, i.e., sprained ankles or broken bones. It is not the 

Committee’s intent to require that institutions of higher education 

be responsible for medical conditions that are not a direct result of 

participation in the program. 

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS

Section 1. Short Title 

Cites the short title as Improving the Community Services Block 

Grant Act of 2003. 

Section 2. Community Service Block Grant Act amendments 

Amends the Community Service Block Grant Act in the following 

ways: 

Subsection 2(a). Purposes and Goals. Amends Section 672 of the 

Community Service Block Grant Act (42 U.S.C. 9901). Sets forth 

the purposes and goals of this bill, and outlines ways in which they 

are to be met. 

Subsection 2(b). Definitions. Amends Section 673(1)(A) of the 

Community Service Block Grant Act (42 U.S.C. 9902(1)(A)). Modifies and adds to the definitions under this act. 

Subsection 2(c). Authorization of Appropriations. Amends Sections 674 of the Community Service Block Grant Act (42 U.S.C. 

9903). Authorizes funds to carry out this act through updating the 

applicable fiscal years and adding language that includes training 

and technical assistance for monitoring in the Secretary’s assistance to states. 

Subsection 2(d). Uses of Funds. Amends Section 675C of the 

Community Service Block Grant Act (42 U.S.C. 9907). Eliminates 

outdated language and changes language from ‘‘neighborhoodbased’’ to ‘‘community-based.’’ 

Subsection 2(e). Application and Plan. Amends Section 676 of the 

Community Service Block Grant Act (42 U.S.C. 9908). Adds language to include mentoring programs as youth development programs, to include initiatives promoting self-sufficiency and removing obstacles to that goal, and to strengthen the accountability of 

eligible entities. Under this language, states must require eligible 

entities to meet locally determined goals and states also must take 

action against or explain a lack of action against low-performing eligible entities. Removes outdated language. 

Subsection 2(f). Training, Technical Assistance, and other Activities. Amends Section 678A(a)(1)(A) of the Community Service Block 

Grant Act (42 U.S.C. 9913(a)(1)(A)). Adds language to include dissemination of information and assistance in development of reporting and electronic data systems as allowable expenditures by the 

Secretary under this section. 

Subsection 2(g). Monitoring of Eligible Entities. Amends Section 

678B of the Community Service Block Grant Act (42 U.S.C. 9914). 

Adds locally determined performance goals as a consideration for 

14

the states when conducting reviews. Changes language to remove 

outdated nomenclature. 

Subsection 2(h). Corrective Action; Termination and Reduction of 

Funding. Amends Section 678C(a) of the Community Service Block 

Grant Act (42 U.S.C. 9915(a)). Removes language requiring ‘‘appropriate standards, goals, and other requirements,’’ as well as performance objectives and other guidelines that are used in judging 

deficiencies, to be determined solely by the state. 

Subsection 2(i). Accountability and Reporting Requirements. 

Amends Section 678E of the Community Service Block Grant Act 

(42 U.S.C. 9917). Removes outdated language. Adds language to include in the states’ report to the Secretary any corrective actions 

taken by the state and information on fund distribution timelines. 

Adds language encouraging the coordination of reporting requirements for those Department of Health and Human Services programs that are managed by eligible entities. Adds language requiring eligible entities to establish locally determined goals and reach 

those goals in order to receive a grant and continue eligible status. 

Subsection 2(j). Treatment of Beneficiaries. Amends Section 679 

of the Community Service Block Grant Act (42 U.S.C. 9920). Adds 

new language preventing an eligible entity that receives federal 

funds under this act from discriminating against a beneficiary or 

prospective beneficiary on the basis of religion. 

Subsection 2(k). Discretionary Authority of the Secretary. 

Amends Section 680 of the Community Service Block Grant Act (42 

U.S.C. 9921). Adds language to clarify community economic development activities. Adds language to allow grantees to retain assets 

obtained as long as such assets are being used for the same or 

similar purposes. Adds language allowing the grantee more flexibility in the use of funds provided that the funds are used for substantially similar activities. Adds language to include water and 

waste water treatment as community facility needs, and changes 

outdated language. 

Subsection 2(l). Community Food and Nutrition Programs. 

Amends Section 681 of the Community Service Block Grant Act (42 

U.S.C. 9922). Changes outdated language. 

Subsection 2(m). National or Regional Programs Designed to Provide Instructional Activities for Low-Income Youth. Amends Section 682 of the Community Service Block Grant Act (42 U.S.C. 

9923). Changes outdated language, adds language to suggest mentoring as a technique to increase the well-being of youth, and to include improved academic achievement as a desired outcome of 

these programs. 

Section 3. Effective date 

Sets forth the effective date of the act and amendments made to 

the act as the first day of the first fiscal year beginning after the 

date of enactment of the act.

EXPLANATION OF AMENDMENTS

The Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute is explained in the 

body of this report. 

15

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. H.R. 3030 reauthorizes the Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) by building 

upon improvements made to the program during the last reauthorization to promote increased quality and accountability for CSBG 

programs. The bill does not prevent legislative branch employees’ 

coverage under 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. 

3030 reauthorizes the Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) by 

building upon improvements made to the program during the last 

reauthorization to promote increased quality and accountability for 

CSBG programs. As such, the bill does not contain any unfunded 

mandates.

16


Insert offset folio 17 here HR310.001
17


Insert offset folio 18 here HR310.002
18


Insert offset folio 19 here HR310.003
19

CORRESPONDENCE

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

Washington, DC, October 7, 2003. 

Hon. JOHN BOEHNER, 

Chairman, Committee on Education and the Workforce, 

Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Due to other legislative duties, I was unavoidably detained during Committee consideration of H.R. 3030, 

‘‘Improving the Community Services Block Grant Act of 2003.’’ Consequently, I missed roll call number 3, the vote on final passage of 

the bill. Had I been present, I would have voted against the bill. 

I would appreciate your including this letter in the Committee 

Report to accompany H.R. 3030. Thank you for your attention to 

this matter. 

Sincerely, 

RUBE ́ N HINOJOSA, 

Member of Congress. 

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. 3030 from the Director 

of the Congressional Budget Office:

U.S. CONGRESS, CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE, Washington, DC, October 7, 2003. 

Hon. JOHN A. BOEHNER, 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. 3030, the Improving the 

Community Services Block Grant Act of 2003. 

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased 

to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Donna Wong. 

Sincerely, 

DOUGLAS HOLTZ-EAKIN, 

Director. 

Enclosure. 

20

H.R. 3030—Improving the Community Services Block Grant Act of 

2003

Summary: H.R. 3030 would reauthorize programs created under 

the Community Services Block Grant Act. These programs are currently authorized through October 31, 2003, by the Continuing Appropriations Act (Public Law 108–84). 

CBO estimates that authorizations under the bill would total 

$679 million in 2004 and about $4.3 billion over the 2004–2009 period, assuming that annual levels are adjusted for inflation when 

specific amounts are not provided. (Without such inflation adjustments, the authorizations would total about $4 billion over the 

2004–2009 period.) CBO estimates that appropriations of the authorized levels would result in outlays of $3.9 billion over the 

2004–2009 period, if inflation adjustments are included (and about 

$3.6 billion without inflation adjustments). 

H.R. 3030 does not contain any intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) and would impose no significant costs on state, local, or 

tribal governments. 

Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated budgetary impact of H.R. 3030, with inflation adjustments, is shown in 

the following table. The costs of this legislation fall within budget 

function 500 (education, training, employment, and social services).

By fiscal year, in millions of dollars—

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION

Spending Under Current Law: 

Budget Authority 1 ............................................................ 670 0 0 0 0 0 0

Estimated Outlays ............................................................ 669 321 34 7 0 0 0

Proposed Changes: 

Community Services Block Grant: 

Estimated Authorization Level ................................. 0 657 670 684 698 714 729

Estimated Outlays ................................................... 0 342 631 670 690 705 721

Community Food and Nutrition Programs: 

Estimated Authorization Level ................................. 0 7 8 8 8 8 8

Estimated Outlays ................................................... 0 4 7 8 8 8 8

Youth Sports: 

Authorization Level .................................................. 0 15 15 15 15 15 15

Estimated Outlays ................................................... 0 8 14 15 15 15 15

Total Proposed Changes: 

Estimated Authorization Level ................................. 0 679 692 707 721 737 752

Estimated Outlays ................................................... 0 353 652 692 713 728 744

Total Spending Under H.R. 3030: 

Budget Authority/Authorization Level 1 ............................. 670 679 692 707 721 737 752

Estimated Outlays ............................................................ 669 674 686 699 713 728 744

Note.—Components may not sum to totals because of rounding. 

1 The 2003 level is the amount appropriated for that year for the Community Services Block Grant, Community Food and Nutrition, and Youth Sports program. 

Basis of Estimate: For this estimate, CBO assumes H.R. 3030 

will be enacted this fall and that the estimated authorization 

amounts will be appropriated for each fiscal year. The estimated 

outlays reflect CBO’s current assumptions about spending patterns 

in the authorized programs. 

H.R. 3030 would reauthorize programs created under the Community Service Block Grant Act. Both the Community Services 

Block Grant (CSBG) and Community Food and Nutrition programs 

would be reauthorized at such sums as may be necessary for 2004 

21

through 2009. In the CSBG and Community Food and Nutrition 

programs, CBO’s estimate of authorized levels is the 2003 appropriated amount inflated in later years. The Youth Sports program 

has a specified authorization level of $15 million annually. 

CBO estimates that H.R. 3030 would authorize the appropriation of $679 million in 2004, assuming that the 2003 amounts for the 

CSBG and Community Food and Nutrition programs are adjusted 

for inflation. CBO estimates that the bill would authorize total 

funding of $4.3 billion over the 2004–2009 period, assuming inflation adjustments. Appropriation of the authorized amounts would 

result in outlays of $353 million in the first year and $3.9 billion 

over the six-year period. (Without inflation adjustments, the increased authorizations would result in outlays of $3.6 billion over 

the six years.) 

Community Services Block Grant program 

The CSBG program provides grants to states to provide a range 

of services to reduce poverty, including employment assistance, 

education, housing assistance, nutrition, energy, emergency services, health, and substance abuse assistance. CBO estimates the 

authorization of such sums as necessary for the CSBG program 

would be about $657 million in 2004 and $4.2 billion over the 

2004–2009 period, with resulting outlays of $3.8 billion over the six 

years. Funding for the program in 2003 is $646 million. 

Community Food and Nutrition program 

The Community Food and Nutrition program provides grants to 

private and public agencies at the state and local level to coordinate existing food assistance resources and to develop innovative 

approaches to meet the nutrition needs of low-income people. CBO 

estimates the authorization of such sums as necessary for this program would be $7 million in 2004 and $47 million over the 2004–

2009 period, with resulting outlays of $42 million over those six 

years. The program is funded at $7 million in 2003. 

Youth Sports 

The Youth Sports program provides an annual grant to a national, nonprofit organization to operate the National Youth Sports 

program. The grantee contracts with colleges and universities to 

provide sports instruction and enrichment activities (career and 

education counseling, study skills, and drug abuse and nutrition 

services) to low-income youths in a summer program. The bill 

would reauthorize the current program at $15 million annually for

the 2004–2009 period. Total funding for the six-year period would 

be $90 million, with resulting outlays of about $82 million over 

that period. The program is funded at $17 million in 2003. 

Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: H.R. 3030 does not 

contain any intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in UMRA. States would need to continue to monitor eligible 

entities and assist them in developing local goals, but any costs incurred by state, local, or tribal governments would result from complying with grant conditions. 

Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Donna Wong. Impact on 

State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Sarah Puro. Impact on the 

Private Sector: Meenakshi Fernandes. 

22

Estimate approved by: Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis. 

STATEMENT OF GENERAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

In accordance with Clause (3)(c) of House rule XIII, the goal of 

H.R. 3030 is to reauthorize the Community Services Block Grant 

(CSBG) by building upon improvements made to the program during the last reauthorization to promote increased quality and accountability for CSBG programs. The Committee expects the Department of Health and Human Services to comply with H.R. 3030 

and implement the changes to the law in accordance with the 

changes. 

CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY STATEMENT

Under clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 

Representatives, the Committee must include a statement citing 

the specific powers granted to Congress in the Constitution to 

enact the law proposed by H.R. 3030. The Committee believes that 

the amendments made by this bill, which authorize appropriations 

for Community Service Block Grant programs, are within Congress’ 

authority under Article I, section 8, clause 1 of the Constitution. 

COMMITTEE ESTIMATE

Clauses 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. 

3030. 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): 

COMMUNITY SERVICES BLOCK GRANT ACT 

Subtitle B—Community Services Block 

Grant Program 

SEC. 671. SHORT TITLE. 

This subtitle may be cited as the ‘‘Community Services Block 

Grant Act’’. 

øSEC. 672. PURPOSES AND GOALS. 

øThe purposes of this subtitle are— 

ø(1) to provide assistance to States and local communities, 

working through a network of community action agencies and 

other neighborhood-based organizations, for the reduction of 

23

poverty, the revitalization of low-income communities, and the 

empowerment of low-income families and individuals in rural 

and urban areas to become fully self-sufficient (particularly 

families who are attempting to transition off a State program 

carried out under part A of title IV of the Social Security Act 

(42 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)); and 

ø(2) to accomplish the goals described in paragraph (1) 

through—

ø(A) the strengthening of community capabilities for 

planning and coordinating the use of a broad range of Federal, State, local, and other assistance (including private 

resources) related to the elimination of poverty, so that 

this assistance can be used in a manner responsive to local 

needs and conditions; 

ø(B) the organization of a range of services related to the 

needs of low-income families and individuals, so that these 

services may have a measurable and potentially major impact on the causes of poverty in the community and may 

help the families and individuals to achieve self-sufficiency; 

ø(C) the greater use of innovative and effective community-based approaches to attacking the causes and effects 

of poverty and of community breakdown; 

ø(D) the maximum participation of residents of the lowincome communities and members of the groups served by 

programs assisted through the block grants made under 

this subtitle to empower such residents and members to 

respond to the unique problems and needs within their 

communities; and 

ø(E) the broadening of the resource base of programs directed to the elimination of poverty so as to secure a more 

active role in the provision of services for—

ø(i) private, religious, charitable, and neighborhoodbased organizations; and 

ø(ii) individual citizens, and business, labor, and 

professional groups, who are able to influence the 

quantity and quality of opportunities and services for 

the poor.¿

SEC. 672 PURPOSES AND GOALS. 

The purpose of this subtitle is to reduce poverty—

(1) by strengthening and coordinating local efforts to expand 

opportunities for individuals and families to become economically self-sufficient and to improve and revitalize low-income 

communities in urban and rural areas, by providing resources 

to States for support of local eligible entities, including community action agencies and other community-based organizations—

(A) to plan, coordinate, and mobilize a broad range of 

Federal, State, local, and private assistance or investment 

in such a manner as to use these resources effectively to reduce poverty and in initiatives that are responsive to specific local needs and conditions; 

(B) to coordinate a range of services that meet the needs 

of low-income families and individuals, that support strong 

and healthy families, and that assist them in developing 

24

the skills needed to become self sustaining while ensuring 

that these services are provided effectively and efficiently; 

and 

(C) to design and implement comprehensive approaches 

to assist eligible individuals in gaining employment and 

achieving economic self-sufficiency; 

(2) by improving and revitalizing the low-income communities in urban and rural areas by providing resources to States 

for support of local eligible entities and their partners—

(A) to broaden the resource base of initiatives and 

projects directed to the elimination of poverty and the redevelopment of the low-income community, including partnerships with nongovernmental and governmental institutions 

to develop the community assets and services that reduce 

poverty, such as—

(i) other private, religious, charitable, and community-based organizations; 

(ii) individual citizens, and business, labor, and professional groups, that are able to influence the quantity 

and quality of opportunities and services for the poor; 

and 

(iii) local government leadership; and 

(B) to coordinate community-wide resources and services 

that will have a significant, measurable impact on the 

causes of poverty in the community and that will help families and individuals to achieve economic self-sufficiency 

and to test innovative, community-based approaches to attacking the causes and effects of poverty and of community 

breakdown, including— 

(i) innovative initiatives to prevent and reverse loss 

of investment, jobs, public services, and infrastructure 

in low- and moderate-income communities; and 

(ii) innovative partnerships to leverage the assets and 

services that reduce poverty, as provided in subparagraph (A); and 

(3) by ensuring maximum participation of residents of low-income communities and of members of the groups served by 

grants made under this subtitle in guiding the eligible entities 

and in their programs funded under this subtitle, to ameliorate 

the particular problems and needs of low-income residents and 

to develop the permanent social and economic assets of the lowincome community in order to reduce the incidence of poverty.

SEC. 673. DEFINITIONS. 

In this subtitle: 

(1) ELIGIBLE ENTITY; FAMILY LITERACY SERVICES.—

(A) ELIGIBLE ENTITY.—The term ‘‘eligible entity’’ means 

an entity—

(i) that is an eligible entity described in section 

673(1) (as in effect on the day before the date of enactment of the Coats Human Services Reauthorization 

Act of 1998) as of the day before such date of enactment or is designated by the process described in section 676A (including an organization serving migrant 

or seasonal farmworkers that is so described or designated); øand¿

25

(ii) that has a tripartite board or other mechanism 

described in subsection (a) or (b), as appropriate, of 

section 676Bø.¿; and

(iii) that successfully develops and meets the locally 

determined goals described in section 678E(b)(1), as determined by the State, and meets State goals, standards, and performance requirements as provided for in 

section 678B(a).

* * * * * * *

SEC. 674. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—There are authorized to be appropriated such 

sums as may be necessary for each of fiscal years ø1999 through 

2003¿ 2004 through 2009 to carry out the provisions of this subtitle 

(other than sections 681 and 682). 

(b) RESERVATIONS.—Of the amounts appropriated under subsection (a) for each fiscal year, the Secretary shall reserve— 

(1) * * *

(2) 11⁄2 percent for activities authorized in sections 678A 

through ø678F¿ 678E to assist States, eligible entities, and 

their partners in projects supported by this subtitle, of which— 

(A) * * *

(B) 1⁄2 of the remainder of the amount reserved by the 

Secretary under this paragraph shall be used by the Secretary to carry out evaluation and to assist States in carrying out corrective action activities and ømonitoring (to 

correct programmatic deficiencies of eligible entities)¿

monitoring (including technical assistance and training to 

correct programmatic deficiencies of eligible entities), as described in sections 678B(c) and 678A; and 

* * * * * * *

SEC. 675C. USES OF FUNDS. 

(a) GRANTS TO ELIGIBLE ENTITIES AND OTHER ORGANIZATIONS.— (1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(3) RECAPTURE AND REDISTRIBUTION OF UNOBLIGATED

FUNDS.—

(A) AMOUNT.—øBeginning on October 1, 2000, a¿ A

State may recapture and redistribute funds distributed to 

an eligible entity through a grant made under paragraph 

(1) that are unobligated at the end of a fiscal year if such 

unobligated funds exceed 20 percent of the amount so distributed to such eligible entity for such fiscal year. 

* * * * * * *

(b) STATEWIDE ACTIVITIES.— (1) USE OF REMAINDER.—If a State uses less than 100 percent of the grant or allotment received under section 675A or 

675B to make grants under subsection (a), the State shall use 

the remainder of the grant or allotment under section 675A or 

675B (subject to paragraph (2)) for activities that may include—

(A) * * *

* * * * * * *

26

(F) supporting innovative programs and activities conducted by community action agencies or other øneighborhood-based¿ community-based organizations to eliminate 

poverty, promote self-sufficiency, and promote community 

revitalization; 

* * * * * * *

SEC. 676. APPLICATION AND PLAN. 

(a) * * *

(b) STATE APPLICATION AND PLAN.—øBeginning with fiscal year 

2000, to¿ To be eligible to receive a grant or allotment under section 675A or 675B, a State shall prepare and submit to the Secretary an application and State plan covering a period of not less 

than 1 fiscal year and not more than 2 fiscal years. The plan shall 

be submitted not later than 30 days prior to the beginning of the 

first fiscal year covered by the plan, and shall contain such information as the Secretary shall require, including—

(1) an assurance that funds made available through the 

grant or allotment will be used—

(A) * * *

(B) to address the needs of youth in low-income communities through øyouth development programs that support¿ youth development programs, which may include 

mentoring programs, that support the primary role of the 

family, give priority to the prevention of youth problems 

and crime, and promote increased community coordination 

and collaboration in meeting the needs of youth, and support development and expansion of innovative communitybased youth development programs that have demonstrated success in preventing or reducing youth crime, 

such as—

(i) * * *

(ii) after-school child care programs; øand¿

(C) to make more effective use of, and to coordinate 

with, other programs related to the purposes of this subtitle (including State welfare reform efforts); and

(D) initiatives to improve economic conditions and mobilize new resources in rural areas to eliminate obstacles to 

the self-sufficiency of families and individuals in rural 

communities;

(2) a description of how the State intends to use discretionary funds made available from the remainder of the grant 

or allotment described in section 675C(b) in accordance with 

this subtitle, including a description of how the State will support innovative øcommunity and neighborhood-based¿ community-based initiatives related to the purposes of this subtitle; 

(3) øinformation provided by eligible entities in the State, 

containing¿ an assurance that the State will provide information, including— (A) * * *

* * * * * * *

(D) a description of how the local entity will use the 

funds to support innovative øcommunity and neighborhood-based¿ community-based initiatives related to the 

purposes of this subtitle, which may include fatherhood 

27

initiatives and other initiatives with the goal of strengthening families and encouraging effective parenting; 

* * * * * * *

(9) an assurance that the State and eligible entities in the 

State will, to the maximum extent possible, coordinate programs with and form partnerships with other organizations 

serving low-income residents of the communities and members 

of the groups served by the State, including religious organizations, charitable groups, øand community organizations¿ and 

community-based organizations; 

(10) an assurance that the State will require each eligible entity in the State to establish procedures under which a low-income individual, øcommunity organization¿ community-based 

organization, or religious organization, or representative of 

low-income individuals that considers its organization, or lowincome individuals, to be inadequately represented on the 

board (or other mechanism) of the eligible entity to petition for 

adequate representation; 

* * * * * * *

(12) an assurance that the State and all eligible entities in 

the State will, not later than fiscal year 2001, participate in 

the Results Oriented Management and Accountability System, 

another performance measure system for which the Secretary 

facilitated development pursuant to section 678E(b), or an alternative system for measuring performance and results that 

meets the requirements of that section, and a description of 

outcome measures to be used to measure eligible entity performance in promoting self-sufficiency, family stability, and 

community revitalization; øand¿

(13) an assurance that the State will take swift action to improve performance or, when appropriate, to terminate the funding under this subtitle of low-performing eligible entities that 

do not meet the applicable locally determined goals described in 

section 678E(b)(1) or do not meet the State goals, standards, 

and requirements as provided for in section 678B(a); 

(14) an assurance that the State will provide a justification 

to the Secretary if it continues to fund persistently low-performing eligible entities; and

ø(13)¿ (15) information describing how the State will carry 

out the assurances described in this subsection. 

(c) FUNDING TERMINATION OR REDUCTIONS.—For purposes of 

making a determination in accordance with subsection (b)(8) with 

respect to—

(1) * * *

(2) a termination, the term ‘‘cause’’ includes the failure of an 

eligible entity to comply with the terms of an agreement or a 

State øplan, or to meet a State requirement, as described in 

section 678C(a).¿ plan, to meet a State requirement, as described in section 678C(a), or to meet the locally determined 

goals as described in section 678E(b)(1).

* * * * * * *

ø(f) TRANSITION.—For fiscal year 2000, to be eligible to receive a 

grant or allotment under section 675A or 675B, a State shall preVerDate jul 14 2003 07:10 Oct 11, 2003 Jkt 029006 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR310.XXX HR310
28

pare and submit to the Secretary an application and State plan in 

accordance with the provisions of this subtitle (as in effect on the 

day before the date of enactment of the Coats Human Services Reauthorization Act of 1998), rather than the provisions of subsections (a) through (c) relating to applications and plans.¿

* * * * * * *

SEC. 678A. TRAINING, TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE, AND OTHER ACTIVITIES. 

(a) ACTIVITIES.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall use amounts reserved 

in section 674(b)(2)— 

(A) for training, technical assistance, dissemination regarding best practices, planning, evaluation, and performance measurement, to assist States in carrying out corrective action activities and monitoring (to correct programmatic deficiencies of eligible entities), and for reporting and data collection activities (including to assist in the 

development of reporting systems and electronic data systems), related to programs carried out under this subtitle; 

and 

* * * * * * *

SEC. 678B. MONITORING OF ELIGIBLE ENTITIES. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—In order to determine whether eligible entities 

meet the performance goals, administrative standards, financial 

management requirements, and other requirements of a State and 

the locally determined performance goals described in section 

678E(b)(1), the State shall conduct the following reviews of eligible 

entities: 

(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(3) Followup reviews including prompt return visits to eligible entities, and their programs, that fail to meet the appropriate goals, standards, and requirements øestablished by the 

State¿. 

* * * * * * *

(c) EVALUATIONS BY THE SECRETARY.—The Secretary shall conduct in several States in each fiscal year evaluations (including investigations) of the use of funds received by the States under this 

subtitle in order to evaluate compliance with the provisions of this 

subtitle, and especially with respect to compliance with section 

676(b). The Secretary shall submit, to each State evaluated, a report containing the results of such evaluations, and recommendations of improvements designed to enhance the benefit and impact 

of the activities carried out with such funds for people in need. On 

receiving the report, the State shall submit to the Secretary a plan 

of action in response to the recommendations contained in the report. The results of the evaluations shall be submitted annually to 

the øChairperson of the Committee on Education and the Workforce of the House of Representatives and the Chairperson of the 

Committee on Labor and Human Resources of the Senate¿ appropriate congressional committees as part of the report submitted by 

the Secretary in accordance with section 678E(b)(2). 

29

SEC. 678C. CORRECTIVE ACTION; TERMINATION AND REDUCTION OF 

FUNDING. 

(a) DETERMINATION.—If the State determines, on the basis of a 

final decision in a review pursuant to section 678B, that an eligible 

entity fails to comply with the terms of an agreement, or the State 

plan, to provide services under this subtitle or to meet appropriate 

standards, goals, and other requirements øestablished by the 

State¿ (including performance objectives), the State shall— 

(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

SEC. 678E. ACCOUNTABILITY AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS. 

(a) STATE ACCOUNTABILITY AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.— (1) PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT.— (A) IN GENERAL.—øBy October 1, 2001, each¿ Each State 

that receives funds under this subtitle shall participate, 

and shall ensure that all eligible entities in the State participate, in a performance measurement system, which 

may be a performance measurement system for which the 

Secretary facilitated development pursuant to subsection 

(b), or an alternative system that the Secretary is satisfied 

meets the requirements of subsection (b). 

* * * * * * *

(2) ANNUAL REPORT.—Each State shall annually prepare and 

submit to the Secretary a report on the measured performance 

of the State and the eligible entities in the State including any 

activities under section 678C. øPrior to the participation of the 

State in the performance measurement system, the State shall 

include in the report any information collected by the State relating to such performance.¿ Each State shall øalso¿ include in 

the report an accounting of the expenditure of funds received 

by the State through the community services block grant program, including information on the timeliness of the distribution of block grant funds to eligible entities as provided in section 675C(a), an accounting of funds spent on administrative 

costs by the State and the eligible entities, and funds spent by 

eligible entities on the direct delivery of local services, and 

shall include information on the number of and characteristics 

of clients served under this subtitle in the State, based on data 

collected from the eligible entities. The State shall also include 

in the report a summary describing the training and technical 

assistance offered by the State under section 678C(a)(3) during 

the year covered by the report.

(b) LOCAL ACCOUNTABILITY AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.—

(1) LOCALLY DETERMINED GOALS.—In order to be designated 

as an eligible entity and to receive a grant under this subtitle, 

an eligible entity shall establish locally determined goals for reducing poverty in the community, including goals for—

(A) leveraging and mobilizing community resources; 

(B) fostering coordination of Federal, State, local, private, 

and other assistance; and 

(C) promoting community involvement. 

(2) DEMONSTRATION THAT GOALS WERE MET.—In order for an 

eligible entity to receive a second or subsequent grant made 

under this subtitle after the effective date of this paragraph, 

30

such entity shall demonstrate to the State that it has met the 

goals described in paragraph (1).

ø(b)¿ (c) SECRETARY’S ACCOUNTABILITY AND REPORTING REQUIRE- MENTS.—

(1) * * *

(2) REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.—At the end of each fiscal 

year øbeginning after September 30, 1999¿, the Secretary 

shall, directly or by grant or contract, prepare a report containing—

(A) * * *

* * * * * * *

(3) SUBMISSION.—The Secretary shall submit to the øCommittee on Education and the Workforce of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Labor and Human Resources of the Senate¿ appropriate congressional committees

the report described in paragraph (2), and any comments the 

Secretary may have with respect to such report. The report 

shall include definitions of direct and administrative costs used 

by the Department of Health and Human Services for programs funded under this subtitle. 

* * * * * * *

(5) COORDINATION OF REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.—To the 

maximum extent possible, the Secretary shall coordinate reporting requirements for all programs of the Department of Health 

and Human Services managed by eligible entities so as to consolidate and reduce the number of reports required about individuals, families, and uses of grant funds.

* * * * * * *

SEC. 679. OPERATIONAL RULE. 

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(f) TREATMENT OF BENEFICIARIES.—In providing assistance under 

a program described in subsection (a), a religious organization shall 

not discriminate against a beneficiary, or a potential beneficiary, of 

such assistance on the basis of religion or of a religious belief.

SEC. 680. DISCRETIONARY AUTHORITY OF THE SECRETARY. 

(a) GRANTS, CONTRACTS, ARRANGEMENTS, LOANS, AND GUARANTEES.—

(1) * * *

(2) COMMUNITY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT.—

(A) ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES.—The Secretary 

shall make grants described in paragraph (1) on a competitive basis to private, nonprofit organizations that are community development corporations to provide technical and 

financial assistance (including financial assistance for construction or substantial rehabilitation of buildings and facilities, and for loans or investments in private business enterprises owned by community development corporations)

for economic development activities designed to address 

the economic needs of low-income individuals and families 

by creating employment and business development opportunities.

31

(B) FEDERAL INTEREST.—The Secretary shall establish 

procedures that permit funds provided under a grant made 

under this paragraph, or intangible assets acquired with 

such funds, to become the sole property of the grantee before 

the expiration of the 12-year period beginning after the fiscal year for which such grant is made if such grantee 

agrees to use such funds or such property for purposes and 

uses consistent with the purposes and uses for which such 

grant is made. 

(C) REPLACEMENT ACTIVITIES.—The Secretary shall establish procedures to allow a grant made under this paragraph to be used by a grantee to carry out activities substantially similar to the activities for which such grant is 

made if, due to no fault of such grantee, such grantee cannot carry out the activities for which such grant is made. 

Such procedures shall require that the substantially similar activities serve the same impact area and have the same 

goals, objectives, and outcomes as the activities for which 

such grant is made.

ø(B)¿ (D) CONSULTATION.—The Secretary shall exercise 

the authority provided under subparagraph (A) after consultation with other relevant Federal officials. 

ø(C)¿ (E) GOVERNING BOARDS.—For a community development corporation to receive funds to carry out this paragraph, the corporation shall be governed by a board that 

shall consist of residents of the community and business 

and civic leaders and shall have as a principal purpose 

planning, developing, or managing low-income housing or 

community development projects. 

ø(D)¿ (F) GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION.—In making grants 

to carry out this paragraph, the Secretary shall take into 

consideration the geographic distribution of funding among 

States and the relative proportion of funding among rural 

and urban areas. 

ø(E)¿ (G) RESERVATION.—Of the amounts made available 

to carry out this paragraph, the Secretary may reserve not 

more than 1 percent for each fiscal year to make grants to 

private, nonprofit organizations or to enter into contracts 

with private, nonprofit or for-profit organizations to provide technical assistance to aid community development 

corporations in developing or implementing activities funded to carry out this paragraph and to evaluate activities 

funded to carry out this paragraph. 

(3) RURAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES.—The Secretary shall provide the assistance described in paragraph (1) 

for rural community development activities, which shall include providing—

(A) * * *

(B) grants to multistate, regional, private, nonprofit organizations to enable the organizations to provide training 

and technical assistance to small, rural communities concerning meeting their community water and wastewater facility needs. 

(4) NEIGHBORHOOD INNOVATION PROJECTS.—The Secretary 

shall provide the assistance described in paragraph (1) for 

32

neighborhood innovation projects, which shall include providing grants to øneighborhood-based¿ community-based private, nonprofit organizations to test or assist in the development of new approaches or methods that will aid in overcoming special problems identified by communities or neighborhoods or otherwise assist in furthering the purposes of this 

subtitle, and which may include providing assistance for 

projects that are designed to serve low-income individuals and 

families who are not being effectively served by other programs. 

* * * * * * *

(c) ANNUAL REPORT.—The Secretary shall compile an annual report containing a summary of the evaluations required in subsection (b) and a listing of all activities assisted under this section. 

The Secretary shall annually submit the report to the øChairperson of the Committee on Education and the Workforce of the 

House of Representatives and the Chairperson of the Committee on 

Labor and Human Resources of the Senate¿ appropriate congressional committees. 

SEC. 681. COMMUNITY FOOD AND NUTRITION PROGRAMS. 

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(c) REPORT.—For each fiscal year, the Secretary shall prepare 

and submit, to the øCommittee on Education and the Workforce of 

the House of Representatives and the Committee on Labor and 

Human Resources of the Senate¿ appropriate congressional committees, a report concerning the grants made under this section. 

Such report shall include—

(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(d) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There are authorized to 

be appropriated to carry out this section such sums as may be necessary for each of fiscal years ø1999 through 2003¿ 2004 through 

2009. 

SEC. 682. NATIONAL OR REGIONAL PROGRAMS DESIGNED TO PROVIDE INSTRUCTIONAL ACTIVITIES FOR LOW-INCOME 

YOUTH. 

(a) * * *

(b) PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS.—Any instructional activity carried 

out by an eligible service provider receiving a grant under this section shall be carried out on the campus of an institution of higher 

education (as defined in section 1201(a) of the Higher Education 

Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1141(a))) and shall include—

(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(5) enrichment instruction and information on matters relating to the well-being of youth (which may be accomplished 

through mentoring), to include educational opportunities and 

information on study practices to improve academic achievement, education for the prevention of drug and alcohol abuse, 

33

and information on health and nutrition, career opportunities, 

and family and job responsibilities. 

* * * * * * *

(g) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There are authorized to 

be appropriated $15,000,000 for each of fiscal years ø1999 through 

2003¿ 2004 through 2009 for grants to carry out this section. 

* * * * * * *

(34)

MINORITY VIEWS 

The Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) is a relatively 

small—but extremely important program for more than one thousand communities nationwide and millions of families. Its purpose 

is to alleviate poverty by funding initiatives that fight the causes 

of poverty, such as unemployment, inadequate housing, poor nutrition, and lack of educational opportunity. The unifying characteristic of CSBG-funded programs is that they provide people and 

communities with the resources and skills they need to become 

self-sufficient. CSBG is designed to give local entities flexibility to 

design innovative programs that respond to individual family needs 

and help people to self-sufficiency by providing the core funding for 

local delivery systems to help low-income individuals and families 

with services such as employment and training programs, microbusiness development, family development, senior services, local 

community and economic development projects. Local communities 

use CSBG to help individuals obtain employment skills, access to 

home ownership and health insurance. It is also used to increase 

a community’s new housing facilities, economic development and 

job creation, and public service improvements such as safer streets, 

lighting, parks, senior centers and recreation facilities. 

Employment and living conditions are extremely difficult for 

America’s poor. According to Census data, the nation’s poverty rate 

is rising so that now more than 12% of Americans live in poverty—

that means more than 34 million people. Child poverty rose by 

more than 600,000 last year and the depth of poverty is at its highest rate since statistics were first kept in 1979. Recent unemployment figures are equally troubling. The Department of Labor reports that nearly 100,000 workers lost their jobs just last month 

and 3.3 million workers have lost their jobs since January 2001. 

The value of work also continues to decline. The value of the minimum wage will soon be at its lowest value in 50 years. Working 

full-time at the minimum wage places families in poverty. Given 

the current economic situation in this country, the reauthorization 

of a program whose central purpose is to minimize the effects of 

poverty and to maximize self-sufficiency of millions of people in 

poverty is critically important. 

H.R. 3030, ‘‘Improving the Community Services Block Grant Act 

of 2003’’, as reported strengthens and improves the CSBG program. 

H.R. 3030 enhances accountability on the local, State and Federal 

levels, and gives extra emphasis to CSBG’s top priority—reducing 

poverty. The provisions’ improving accountability should mean better service delivery and higher quality services for people and communities. The Minority strongly supports the CSBG program and 

the provisions in the reported legislation and believes they will 

help improve the quality of services to low-income individuals and 

35

1Woolsey et al Amendment offered October 1, 2002. 

2Dodge v. Sullivan.

families so that communities can more effectively move people toward self-sufficiency. 

However, because H.R. 3030 fails to correct provisions in current 

laws that allow discrimination against beneficiaries of services 

based on religion and permits religious organizations receiving 

funds under this Act to discriminate in employment based on religion, the Minority opposes the reported bill. While we agree with 

the Majority that these provisions have existed in current law for 

five years, we cannot condone the continuation of discriminatory 

policies in any context. 

Representative Woolsey, Van Hollen, Payne and Andrews offered 

a three-part amendment during the full Committee markup of H.R. 

3030 that would have provided the appropriate protections for 

beneficiaries and employees. first, the amendment ensured that 

beneficiaries of services and employees would be protected against 

religious discrimination through the insertion of ‘‘religion’’ in Sec. 

678F(c). Second, the amendment deleted the offending provisions in 

current law that extends the exemption in Title VII of the Civil 

Rights Act to faith-based organizations participating in the Community Services Block Grant. The exemption in Title VII exempts 

religious organizations from the prohibition on discriminating in 

employment based on religion. Lastly, the amendment reinforced 

the requirement that religious organizations receiving funds under 

this Act, ‘‘carry out such program, or shall provide such assistance, 

in a lawful and secular manner.’’ 1

The Majority’s interpretation of the Title VII exemption for religious organizations, as well as their reliance on Bowen v. Kendrick

to support their position, is unfortunately misguided. The Civil 

Rights Act of 1964 clearly states that religious organizations otherwise covered by Title VII may use religion as a criterion in their 

hiring, firing, promotion, and other employment practices; and they 

may do so not only with respect to employees engaged in religious 

activities but also those engaged in purely secular activities. For 

example, when a Catholic church hires a priest, it can of course require that the job applicant be Catholic. The exemption is a common sense provision for religious organizations within the context 

of positions that are paid for with private funds. We contend that 

this exemption is not valid when it applies to employment in social 

service programs that are directly funded by taxpayers such as the 

Community Services Block Grant. This view is consistent with current jurisprudence on this issue.2

Similarly, Bowen does not support the application of the Title VII 

exemption for federally funded employment positions. The Majority 

cites the decision in Bowen v. Kendrick to make their claims:

Faith-based organizations cannot be expected to sustain 

their religious mission without the ability to employ individuals who share the tenets and practices of their faith 

because it is that faith that motivates them to serve neighbors in trouble. In Bowen v. Kendrick the United States 

Supreme Court upheld a program allowing federal funds to 

be given to faith-based organizations for family counseling, 

36

3 House Committee Report—Majority Views.

including faith-based organizations that required their employees to follow religious directives. Without the right to 

continue to hire on a religious basis, religious organizations are likely to simply withdraw from federal social 

service efforts altogether, to the detriment of people in 

need everywhere.3

The Majority consistently has declined to recognize the question 

at issue in Bowen v. Kendrick—whether the adolescent Family Life 

Act was unconstitutional under the Establishment Clause. Indeed, 

the Majority wrongly interprets Bowen v. Kendrick by suggesting 

it affirms a religious organization’s ‘‘right to hire on a religious 

basis.’’ However, the Court did not consider employment practices 

in its deliberations. The Court did find that religious organizations 

could participate in government-funded programs and explicitly upholds the Supreme Court’s proscription against using government 

money to fund any services that are not provided in a ‘‘lawful, secular manner.’’ The Woolsey amendment is almost word-for-word 

from the majority opinion in which the court held that religious organizations could participate in the federal program only if they 

carry out their functions ‘‘in a lawful, secular manner’’. Such a provision is necessary to ensure that services of the Community Services Block Grant program are administered in a constitutional 

manner. We continue to have serious concerns about this Administration’s ability to fund faith-based organizations in a way that 

meets current constitutional standards as set out in Bowen. The Majority claims that the extension of the exemption in Title 

VII is necessary to prevent faith-based providers from withdrawing 

from the program. We disagree. Faith-based providers of social 

services have participated in CSBG and other federally funded programs prior to the application of the Title VII extension. Indeed, 

we strongly support the right of religious institutions to preserve 

the integrity of their own religious character when it comes to religious activities. We disagree, however, that it is healthy for American society, or in conformance with basic American principles of 

fairness and equal treatment under the law, for the federal government to provide funds for secular purposes to any organization that 

would then use these funds in a discriminatory fashion on religious 

grounds. In fact, in a poll conducted in 2001 by the Pew Research 

Center and the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life on President Bush’s faith-based initiative, 78% of those polled shared this 

view. 

The Majority points out in their views that former President 

Clinton signed four other laws which include provisions that extend 

the exemption in Title VII to faith-based providers of federally 

funded services. However, the legislative history of this provision 

reveals that his endorsement of this Act is not indicative of the 

views of that Administration relating to this provision. It is important to note that the previous Administration questioned the legality of Sec. 679 at the time of enactment, in particular commenting, 

‘‘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 

37

4President’s Message. 

construed to permit governmental funding of ‘‘pervasively sectarian’’ organizations, as that term has been defined by the courts.4

In other words, pervasively sectarian organizations, by definition 

exempted from Title VII and permitted to discriminate in hiring 

based on religion, were considered ineligible to participate in programs funded by the Community Services Block Grant by the previous Administration. Moreover, there was little debate in Congress 

on this provision on the whole. This Committee did not vote on this 

provision in 1998 when CSBG was last authorized. The House did 

not vote on this provision during its consideration. Ultimately, it 

was inserted during conference negotiations between the House 

and the Senate, which gave the House no opportunity to take a 

separate vote on this issue. 

The Majority rejected the Woolsey et al amendment by a vote of 

22–24. 

Representative Andrews offered a second-degree amendment to 

the Woolsey amendment to codify recently released Federal regulations for Sec. 678F and Sec. 679 of the Community Services Block 

Grant. While the amendment contained legislative language similar to statutory provisions in the 1996 law authorizing the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Grant (P.L. 104–193), the 

Children’s Health Act (P.L. 106–310) and the Community Renewal 

Tax Relief Act (P.L. 106–554), prohibiting discrimination against a 

beneficiary of services ‘‘on the basis of religion, a religious belief, 

a refusal to hold a religious belief, or to actively participate in a 

religious practice’’, the Majority rejected this amendment, 22–23. 

The Boehner amendment to prohibit discrimination against beneficiaries based on religion or religious belief was accepted by the 

Committee, yet it falls short of the Andrews amendment in several 

important ways. The Boehner amendment fails to cover a range of 

actions and activities that restrict religious freedom. For example, 

requiring a participant to listen to a sermon or Bible story as a 

condition for receiving services in CSBG programs would not explicitly violate the CSBG statute, but would violate the Constitution and the holding in Bowen v. Kendrick.

The Community Services Block Grant continues to serve as a 

critical resource for families and communities in need. It provides 

crucial seed money for activities such as assisting low-income families with employment skills, senior services and community economic development programs. We believe it is unconscionable that 

the majority would permit thousands of dedicated hard-working 

community service employees to be dismissed or refused employment based solely on their religious affiliation or beliefs.

GEORGE MILLER. CHRIS VAN HOLLEN. SUSAN DAVIS. BETTY MCCOLLUM. RUSH HOLT. TIM RYAN. CAROLYN MCCARTHY. 

RAU ́ L M. GRIJALVA. 

DONALD M. PAYNE. 

38

ROBERT E. ANDREWS. DENISE L. MAJETTE. RON KIND. DANNY K. DAVIS. TIMOTHY BISHOP. DALE E. KILDEE. DENNIS J. KUCINICH. JOHN F. TIERNEY. ED CASE. LYNN WOOLSEY. RUBE ́ N HINOJOSA. MAJOR R. OWENS.

Æ