On February 4, the House approved, by voice vote, a bill (H.R. 3030) to reauthorize the Community Services Block Grant (CSBG). The House Education and the Workforce Committee approved the measure on October 1, 2003 (see The Source, 10/3/03). Before final passage of H.R. 3030, the House also approved a six-month extension of unemployment benefits.
Sponsored by Rep. Tom Osborne (R-NE), the Improving the Community Services Block Grant Act would reauthorize the CSBG at current levels through 2009. H.R. 3030 would require organizations receiving CSBG funds to develop annual program goals and to demonstrate that they are meeting those goals in order to renew funding. The bill also would require states to provide justification to the Department of Health and Human Services as to why they continue to fund low-performing organizations.
H.R. 3030 would maintain current law that permits religious organizations receiving CSBG funds to hire only members of their faith to staff the programs. The measure would specify that in providing assistance under the CSBG, a religious organization could not discriminate against a beneficiary, or potential beneficiary “on the basis of religion or of a religious belief.”
During consideration of the bill, Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA) offered a substitute amendment that would have prohibited organizations from using CSBG funds to discriminate in hiring on the basis of religion. The substitute would have maintained all other aspects of H.R. 3030, including a provision under current law that promotes the participation of faith-based organizations in the CSBG program. The amendment was defeated, 183-232.
Speaking in support of the substitute, Rep. Betty McCollum (D-MN) stated, “Separation of church and state is not an opt-in or opt-out provision of the Constitution. Using tax dollars to promote discrimination on the basis of religion is just plain…un-American.”
Rep. Judy Biggert (R-IL) disagreed. “Faith-based providers cannot be expected to sustain their religious mission if they cannot employ individuals who share the tenets and practices of their faith. In many cases, it is that faith that motivates them to serve their community.”
The House also defeated the following amendments offered by Rep. Bobby Scott (D-VA):
|
On October 29 (see The Source, 10/31/03), the Senate approved a bill (S. 1786) to reauthorize the CSBG and increase the maximum eligibility level for the program from 125 percent of the federal poverty level to 60 percent of the state median income. The Senate bill does not include the faith-based provisions.
Also during consideration of H.R. 3030, the House approved, 227-179, an amendment by Rep. George Miller (D-CA) that would authorize funding for a six-month extension of unemployment compensation benefits through the CSBG program. The law (P.L. 108-26) providing an additional 13 weeks of unemployment benefits to jobless workers who have exhausted their regular unemployment benefits expired on December 31, 2003.
Rep. Darlene Hooley (D-OR) stressed the need for an extension and pointed out that unemployment benefits “are not used for luxury items. They are needed to pay the rent and mortgage, buy food, [and] pay utility bills.” She went on to add, “The President has talked about marriage promotion programs costing billions of dollars. But it is scientific fact that poverty and homelessness directly increase the rate of divorce. Therefore, unemployment benefits, which keep families experiencing temporary hardships off the street until they find a job, should be considered the best marriage promotion of all.”
Rep. Wally Herger (R-CA) argued that the amendment “would authorize an indeterminate amount of extra funds under the Community Service Block Grant program for states to use for more extended unemployment benefits. I stress that these funds would be authorized, but not appropriated. So everyone listening to this debate should know that this bill would have no effect, even if it were signed into law. It would require another bill, a supplemental appropriations bill, to actually make good on this supposed promise. The chances of that happening are about zero.”
