[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 127 (Tuesday, September 13, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: September 13, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
APPOINTMENT OF CONFEREES ON H.R. 4606, DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND 
HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
                                  1995

  Mr. SMITH of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from 
the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 4606) making appropriations for the 
Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and 
related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1995, and for 
other purposes, with Senate amendments thereto, disagree to the Senate 
amendments, and agree to the conference asked by the Senate.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Iowa?
  There was no objection.


                motion to instruct offered by mr. porter

  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct conferees.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Porter moves that the managers on the part of the House 
     at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses 
     on the bill, H.R. 4606, be instructed to insist on the House 
     position with respect to amendment number 152.

                              {time}  1330

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Mazzoli). The gentleman from Iowa [Mr. 
Smith] is recognized for 30 minutes.
  For what purpose does the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Waters] 
rise?
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that the gentleman 
from Iowa [Mr. Smith] is not opposed to the motion to instruct 
conferees as such. Pursuant to rule XXVIII, I request one-third of the 
time for debate.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Smith] 
opposed to the motion?
  Mr. SMITH of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I am not going to oppose the motion.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] 
will be recognized for 20 minutes, the gentlewoman from California [Ms. 
Waters] will be recognized for 20 minutes, and the gentleman from Iowa 
[Mr. Smith] will be recognized for 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter].
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. PORTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, this motion deals with the so-called 85-15 
student loan rule.
  The House bill contains a 1-year delay in implementation of this rule 
that was sponsored by Mr. Bonilla.
  The Senate bill has no provision.
  Mr. Speaker, the intent of the 85-15 rule is a good one--to eliminate 
student aid mills and reduce fraud and abuse.
  Unfortunately, the rule is poorly written, in my judgment.
  The regulation requires that schools participating in the student 
loan program derive no more than 85 percent of their revenue from the 
title IV student aid programs.
  That is the good part, Mr. Speaker.
  Unfortunately, the regulation then uses a very convoluted definition 
of what constitutes revenue.
  In addition, the regulation, which was originally scheduled to take 
effect July 1, would apply retroactively.
  As a result of these problems, the Department estimates that upon 
taking effect, the regulation would disqualify 30-50 percent of all 
proprietary institutions--many of which are doing a very fine job.
  For instance, schools which provide off-site training to employees of 
large businesses cannot count those revenues for the purpose of 85-15 
unless the training is exactly the same as that provided in their on-
site courses.
  In other words, the regulation inhibits schools in responding to the 
private sector and broadening their revenue base through private 
contracts. The very things the regulation is trying to encourage, it 
inhibits.
  Mr. Speaker, the chairman and ranking member of the Education and 
Labor Committee support the 1-year delay as do most members of the 
committee.
  During consideration of this bill, the House rejected an amendment to 
strike the 85-15 delay by a vote of 63 to 365.
  I ask that the House insist on its position on this matter in the 
conference, and retain the 1-year delay of the 85-15 rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this motion to instruct 
conferees.
  I have been involved in this fight against dishonest private, post-
secondary schools since long before I came to Congress. This issue is 
troubling for many reasons. What disturbs me most is that bad trade 
schools take advantage of low-income students who are trying to earn an 
education. The 85-15 rule is all about preventing bad schools from 
taking advantage of poor students and the federal treasury.
  What happens all over America is schools recruit low-income students, 
extend the maximum student loan, and then fail to provide an education 
and training that result in jobs for the student. Students then cannot 
afford to pay back their loan, they default, and a vicious cycle is 
continued.
  Let me tell the Members how it works, Mr. Speaker. We have these 
private post-secondary schools that go to our unemployment offices, 
they go to public housing projects, wherever there are poor people and 
desperate people. They are in the downtown sections of many cities. 
They are not recruiting the homeless.
  I call them the Joe Blow School of Computer Learning with no 
computers, and many of them really do not have teachers. Many of them 
are giving kickbacks to students who do not attend classes. They are 
all over America, and the complaints are many.
  Mr. Speaker, I would simply ask the Members of this Congress to poll 
their districts, and ask their constituents whether or not they have 
been ripped off by these schools. You know who they are. They have a 
lot of advertising on television. They are in all of the newspapers. We 
are watching about $5 billion of American taxpayer money just go down 
the drain.
  Mr. Speaker, I think the Members of Congress and others should ask 
why is it Maxine Waters spends so much time on this issue. Is she not 
the so-called progressive that is always talking about investment of 
government resources in our constituents in order to ensure that we 
have a decent quality of life for all of our citizens?
  Yes, Members will oftentimes find me on this Floor advocating 
investment in human potential, but when I take to this Floor and I say 
to the taxpayers and the Members of this body, ``You are literally 
giving away the taxpayers' money,'' who is getting trained?
  These schools talk about training truck drivers for $20,000. They 
talk about dental assistants. Nobody knows what a dental assistant is. 
They talk about technicians of all kinds. The fact of the matter is, 
Mr. Speaker, people are not being trained.
  Even for those companies who talk about the 85-15 rule will hurt 
them, why should we pay more to private industries for training when 
they have these training programs within their own companies? They pay 
decidedly less money, but we are willing to go in and give away the 
taxpayers' dollars to private companies for training that they would 
not pay for.
  Mr. Speaker, what happens when a student is ripped off by one of 
these fly-by-night institutions, and they have not learned anything? 
Let me tell the Members what happens.
  They have not gotten any training, they do not get a job, and they 
default on the loan. We have innocent young people who are defaulting 
on loans because they cannot get a job. They have not been trained for 
anything.

  When they do find a job, usually a minimum wage job, then their wages 
are garnished. They cannot qualify for the earned income tax credit. 
They cannot get public housing assistance. They cannot get any kind of 
Federal assistance, because they have defaulted on a loan from which 
they received no benefit.
  How can we as public policymakers claim that we are working on behalf 
of our constituents when we allow this type of abuse to continue?
  Mr. Speaker, many Members of Congress may not be familiar with the 
type of abuse I am describing. Again, I would ask the Members to poll 
their constituents through their newsletters, find out how many have 
been recruited by these private postsecondary schools, and what 
happened to them. I would bet many of the Members' constituents are 
being ripped off in ways Members are not aware.
  No matter what happens on the 85-15 rule this year, and I desperately 
hope we resist delay, there will be hearings next year, I am told, at a 
minimum, to explore problems of bad trade schools, but Members should 
not allow Congress to get off the hook on holding these hearings.
  They are going to be spectacular. Yes, Members are going to be 
surprised, because if they are advertised, if they are publicized, 
people are going to come out in large numbers, and we should force 
Congress to hold these hearings so that we can have those who have been 
ripped off come before our legislators and let them know what has 
happened.
  Mr. Speaker, my office has received correspondence from all across 
the country--mostly from lawyers representing low-income students--
describing waste, abuse and human tragedy. For example, the Legal 
Services of Miami sent a letter which reads as follows:

       Dear Congresswoman Waters: I represent several clients who 
     have been the victims of proprietary trade/vocational schools 
     * * * Our clients are particularly susceptible to the 
     recruitment tactics employed by these proprietary schools. 
     They are poor, mostly uneducated, and unemployed. Our clients 
     look to these schools for assistance in breaking out of the 
     cycle of poverty. These schools promise training, grants, job 
     placement, and stipends. They often deliver little or no 
     education, large student loan debts, and no assistance with 
     job placement.
       I represent a person who is disabled and was solicited by a 
     trade school recruiter while she stood in line to receive 
     public assistance. She was told her education would be paid 
     by grants. She quickly realized she was unable to understand 
     the material. She advised her teacher of this but was told, 
     oh, you can catch on but she never did. She graduated having 
     acquired only a large student loan debt but no marketable 
     skills.
       Homeless persons are also easy prey for proprietary 
     schools. One school went so far as to print fliers and hand 
     them to homeless people who stood outside a shelter in 
     downtown Miami. The education received is of no value and the 
     homeless people graduate into a condition which is worse than 
     before. No skills and large debts.

                              {time}  1340

  I could go on and on with these kind of stories, but at this time, 
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Waters] has 
performed a valuable service in bringing this matter to our attention 
and in pursuing it all this time. However, we did receive a letter from 
the chairman of the authorizing committee and also from the ranking 
member and other members of the committee asking us to delay the 
implementation of the rule for 1 year; the reason being that the rule 
only became effective July 1, and it was felt that there was not time 
between July 1 and the time that these schools, including the 
legitimate schools as well as the ones that we would like to close 
down, start their school year. So we did relent and include in the bill 
a provision that there would be a delay of 1 year in implementation of 
this provision. However, we have also made it clear in the conference 
report, and I expect it to prevail in the conference, that this is a 1-
year provision, we do not expect it to be renewed next year. I will be 
opposed to a renewing of it next year and I think other members of the 
subcommittee will, too. But under the circumstances, I felt that the 
thing to do was to permit it to be implemented a year from now instead 
of now. So that is the reason it is in the bill.
  We had a vote in the House on this when the bill passed the House. 
The vote was 63 in favor of not delaying the implementation of the rule 
to 365 against. So the House has spoken. I hope it is not necessary to 
have a long discussion about it. It would be the same discussion that 
we had when we were up in the House, but under these conditions I feel, 
as chairman of the committee, I should go to the conference and try to 
prevail on the provision that is in the bill.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Minnesota [Mr. Penny].
  (Mr. PENNY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PENNY. Mr. Speaker, the 85-15 rule is a good idea and its 
implementation should not be longer delayed. This is not a new idea. 
For many years under the original GI bill, we made it clear to 
educational facilities across the country that they had to obtain at 
least 15 percent of their operational funds from sources other than the 
Federal Government. We are simply suggesting that schools with programs 
of merit should be able to secure private sources of funding, tuition 
and fees, from their students, scholarships and grants and loans from 
entities other than the U.S. Government.
  I think it is reasonable to question the value of the programs 
offered at a school when the only funding source seems to be U.S. 
Government grants and loans. Quality schools should have a broader base 
of support and should be able to secure more than 15 percent of their 
total funding from sources other than the Federal Government.
  Mr. Speaker, this legislation was included in the recently passed 
Higher Education Act. These schools were given 2 years in order to get 
ready for this 85/15 policy. This did not catch anyone by surprise. The 
advance warning was offered 2 years back.
  The gentlewoman from California [Ms. Waters] offers a very reasonable 
argument. And who better to speak to this issue than someone who 
represents a district in which these for-profit proprietary schools are 
prevalent and a district in which the population is of such an income 
level that they are more likely to qualify for Federal financial aid? 
As she has testified here today, in far too many instances, the best 
interests of these students are being violated by these schools who 
churn them through a program largely to get the money, leaving them 
with no skills that result in meaningful employment, and also with the 
debts that accrue as they encumber sizable sums in Federal loan 
obligations.
  Mr. Speaker, this issue represents a classic example of the 
misallocation of Federal funds. We have limited dollars to help needy 
students secure educational services in order to be trained for a 
meaningful job. We cannot afford to waste a single dollar in this part 
of the budget and yet we are frittering away hundreds of millions of 
dollars on these for-profit trade schools who simply churn these 
students with no concern about the students' future employability.
  Mr. Speaker, this issue may have been resolved by an earlier vote of 
this House. But we should not compound the mistake of that vote by 
another vote today to instruct conferees to stick to the House 
position. I hesitate to say that the Senate is right, but on this 
issue, the Senate is right. They have had 2 years to get ready for the 
85-15 rule. They do not need another year. We should not delay the 
implementation of this rule. We should reject the motion from the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter].
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Durbin].
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in the strongest possible support of 
the position of the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Waters] and in 
opposition to the motion to instruct being offered by my colleague, the 
gentleman from Illinois.
  The gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Smith] stated earlier that on a vote on 
this question several weeks ago, the House registered its position by a 
vote of 63 to 365 in favor of the position being supported by the 
motion to instruct. I would hazard a guess after a few years in this 
institution that in very short order, many of the 365 Members of this 
House of Representatives who stood behind these proprietary trade 
schools will wish they had that vote to cast over again. Like rodents 
on the deck of a sinking ship, they will be scrambling to try to 
explain why they are defending institutions which in fact are 
exploiting the poorest people in America and exploiting taxpayers 
across the country. How many more cosmetologists, beauticians, and 
hairdressers do we need at a training cost comparable to what colleges 
and universities are charging to train engineers and medical 
specialists?
  In fact, the Federal Government is being dragged into this day in and 
day out. The young people are being dragged into it day in and day out 
by diploma mills and ripoff programs that promise these kids a job if 
they will just sign on the dotted line. The kids sign on, they go to a 
few courses, there is no job, but when it is all over, they are still 
holding the bag, a debt to the Federal Government which, if they cannot 
pay, has to be absorbed by taxpayers.
  This sort of thing is an outrage. Just a few weeks ago, we were 
engaged in a debate on this floor about a crime bill and the 
possibility of a prevention program. Some of the more conservative 
Members of this body stood up and ridiculed the idea of prevention 
programs when it came to fighting crime, calling it pure pork. I will 
tell Members what is pure pork, it is these proprietary schools which 
are not providing education to kids, which are ripping them off and 
exploiting them and doing the same thing to taxpayers. The 85-15 rule 
is sensible, the Senate is right, the motion to instruct should be 
defeated.

                              {time}  1350

  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I realize that much of what we say today may fall on 
deaf ears. The Career College Association is a very powerful lobby in 
Congress and they have done an effective job of organizing their 
members schools to make our Members believe that they cannot exist if 
the 85-15 rule is put into effect.
  Since the House last considered this issue, there have been several 
newspaper articles and editorials denouncing our action and advocating 
delay. The Washington Post editorialized against delay. The Los Angeles 
times also ran an editorial in opposition to a delay.
  Let me quote from that article:

       About 5 percent of the Nation's 15 million students in 
     higher education attend trade schools * * * trade schools 
     receive 25 percent of the $20 million the U.S. Government 
     spends each year on student aide * * * trade schools also 
     account for 76 percent of all student loan defaults.

  Let me repeat that:

       About 5 percent of the Nation's 15 million students in 
     higher education attend trade schools * * * trade schools 
     receive 25 percent of the $20 billion the U.S. Government 
     spends each year on student aide * * * trade schools also 
     account for 76 percent of all student loan defaults.
       The 85-15 rule was intended to give school owners incentive 
     to offer quality education. This requiremennt is more than 
     appropriate. But Congress has delayed its implementation for 
     2 years at the behest of the trade schools lobby * * * trade 
     school students, and taxpayer-funded Federal student loans, 
     should be protected from fraud and abuse. The 85-15 rule must 
     not be delayed further.

  This is a scandal, Mr. Speaker, about to happen. Let me quote from 
the inspector general of the U.S. Department of Education in the last 
paragraph of a letter to me.

       Because I believe this very valuable purpose is served by 
     the 85-15 rule, I am not convinced that it should be delayed 
     based on arguments by the proprietary trade schools that some 
     percentage of such schools will close if the rule takes 
     effect on schedule. We must be concerned first and foremost 
     about the students who are victimized by inflated tuition 
     prices for training for generally low-wage jobs, and end up 
     defaulting on their student loans. Second, we have not seen 
     data supporting the statistics for potential school closures 
     cited by the proprietary trade schools. Third, we do not know 
     whether schools that maintain they cannot comply with the 85-
     15 rule have made any serious efforts to do so in the 2 years 
     since the law became effective. Finally, based upon this 
     office's extensive experience auditing and investigating 
     proprietary trade schools in the Title IV programs, we 
     believe it likely that most schools that cannot meet the 15 
     percent rule have other serious programmatic problems such as 
     high default rates, late refunds and administrative 
     capability problems. I do not believe that good schools--
     those providing valuable training for reasonable prices--will 
     fall victim to the 85-15 rule.

  The inspector general said, ``I urge you to reject any attempt to 
delay or otherwise weakening the 85-15 rule.''
  Mr. Speaker, I close by saying this is a scandal. Many who are here 
today supporting not implementing the 85-15 rule and who are doing what 
they are told to do by this lobby will be the first ones who will try 
to extricate themselves when it really is known to the American public 
about our support of this industry, $5 billion or more that are 
literally being ripped off by this industry that those who are 
supporting it now are going to have to run and hide from in the future. 
This is not just pork. This is waste, it is fraud, it is abuse, and the 
Members of this Congress should not tolerate it.
  I ask Members not to support this motion to instruct the conferees to 
accept the House's actions on this measure. It is not in the best 
interests of our taxpayers to do so.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may 
consume to the able and distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Goodling], the ranking member of the Committee on Education and Labor.
  (Mr. GOODLING asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, first of all I am happy to say I have 
never taken any PAC money in 20 years so, I am not here defending any 
lobbyists. What I am defending is the opportunity to provide a good 
education for those people at a time when it is going to be critical, 
critical to have the best proprietary education we can possibly have.
  If we were talking about modern-day history, if we were talking about 
present-day history I would be right in the well with all three of my 
colleagues defending what they are saying. They are talking about past 
history because under the leadership of our chairman, the gentleman 
from Michigan [Mr. Ford], we have taken the necessary steps to make it 
past history.
  I am not here to defend what happened in the past. It happens in 
every good-meaning program we ever send out there. We get ripped off 
because we are not smart enough, and I guess we never could be, to make 
sure that the rip-off artists are not somehow or other ripped out 
before they ever get an opportunity.
  Asbestos, what a ripoff. It came before my committee. I said one, we 
better make sure that we allow the local districts to take 1 percent of 
their Federal dollars to implement whatever it is we are telling them 
to implement because they do not have any money to do it themselves. 
No. two, we better make very sure that there are not rip-off artists 
out there, the only people who are going to be out there telling 
country schools this is what they have to do. Was it a ripoff? Was it 
ever a ripoff. Now we are saying that is not right, we should not have 
done it that way and now we are ripping them off again.
  Let me tell Members what is happening in my community, four little 
towns in the area in which I live with the ADA. I am a strong 
supporter, a promoter, a pusher of the ADA in the Congress of the 
United States. What is happening in those small towns, and I suppose 
all over the country, they are going to every curb where there is a 
State road or a town road or a city road, and they are making ramps. 
Members say well, that sounds proper. Certainly it sounds proper. 
Unfortunately, one block down, two houses down there are no sidewalks, 
the roots have brought the sidewalk out if there ever was one, and a 
little bit further down there is a driveway that goes in, no ramp on 
those driveways, so great, I can now move in on my vehicle and I can go 
about a half a block, and then I have to turn around and come back. 
Some places they even have steps down on the private property.
  Talk about ripoff, that is exactly what it is. That is exactly what 
happened here.
  That is what happened in Medicare. As I have told hospitals, ``You 
ripped us off, now as a Congress we are ripping you off,'' and that is 
what we have done with them the last couple of years.
  So let us talk about present history. Let us talk about today. Let us 
talk about what is happening now as far as proprietary schools are 
concerned.
  First of all, I support the motion to instruct. I oppose the 
opposition to it because first of all the department was retroactive in 
the manner in which they handled it. It was to take effect July 1, 
1994. There was no 2 years to get ready, and do not tell me there was, 
because the regulations were not out. No one knew what was going to be 
in the regulations. They changed every minute down in the department.
  So they said, well, we are going to make this effective back to July 
1, 1993. Back to July 1, 1993, how could they prepare for that when the 
law was not to take effect until July 1, 1994?
  The rule has already, I might say, caused the closing of good 
proprietary schools, good proprietary schools, and many more will take 
place if we do not have the 1-year delay. They did not close because of 
bookkeeping and accounting practices as a result of fraud and abuse.

                              {time}  1400

  They closed because of the retroactivity of the rule. Let me give you 
one example: Western Medical College in Oregon. This school helped 
welfare recipients get an education, get jobs, and most importantly, 
get off of welfare. But the 85-15 rule caused it to close its doors. 
Now, who gets ripped off? The taxpayer gets ripped off, and all of 
those students who are enrolled and are halfway through the program, 
they are now out. They have lost everything, no opportunity for an 
education, no opportunity for a job, and no opportunity to get any 
money back from the money that was sent out by the Federal Government.
  The delay will allow quality institutions to organize their programs 
and finances to meet the requirements of 85-15. The delay will not 
cause or allow for rampant fraud and abuse.
  As I indicated, we have taken many steps in the last couple of years 
that are really proving that we moved in the right direction. First of 
all, and again under Chairman Ford's leadership, we have put 20 percent 
of those schools out of business, 20 percent already we have put out of 
business. How did we do it? We delayed disbursement. We should have 
done it in the first place. But we were not smart enough to see that 
far ahead; delayed disbursement, put them out of business in a hurry. 
They needed the money immediately. The way we were doing it, we were 
giving it to them immediately. The student did not even know what the 
program was and did not even know if they wanted it, 2 days later they 
were gone, the school had the money, and we should have been smart 
enough to see in advance, but we were not. We changed that. We now 
delay disbursement. We put caps on default rates, sent another bunch 
out. We put loan limits, sent another group out, and insisted on good 
placement statistics, which sent another group out of the program.
  But let us not get caught up in the business that all of this is the 
proprietary schools. Let me tell you, there are many 4-year 
institutions, and I know we do not want to debate those at this 
particular time, and we know who they are, whose default rate is far 
greater than even the worst default rates in many of these proprietary 
schools, and it was not $4 billion that we lost. It was $2 billion, $2 
billion, get your statistics right, and that is down from $3.6 billion 
in 1991. So it is working, from $3.6 billion down to $2 billion.
  But that includes everybody. That includes 4-year institutions, that 
includes 2-year institutions, and that includes proprietary schools. It 
is working because we, as an oversight committee, have done what we 
should have done earlier, and I will admit that, but we are doing it, 
and we are doing it well.
  Student loan default rates have decreased by more than 7 percent from 
1990 to 1992. The greatest decline in default rates has been in the 
proprietary sector, where there is a 10-percent decrease in that time. 
The actual number of students attending proprietary institutions 
defaulting on their student loans has decreased by 239,000 between 1990 
and 1992.
  Yes, more efforts are needed to curb default rates in all 
institutions. The committee is making those efforts, and we are going 
to build on what we have done in the last 2 or 3 years. But we have had 
a very, very effective beginning.
  Now, let us not throw the baby out with the bathwater. We need well-
trained people from proprietary schools. We cannot do it in 4-year 
institutions alone. We cannot do it in 2-year institutions alone.
  Twenty-five percent of our students, only 25 percent, ever graduate 
from a 4-year institution, only 25 percent, so when the Secretary of 
Labor had us bring before you a bill to make sure that we have people 
properly trained and prepared for the work force, we made that point 
clear, that we have to do more for the 75 percent. We have been doing 
it all for the 25 percent, and that is not going to help us in this 
very competitive world.
  I agree wholeheartedly and ask you to support the motion to instruct 
the conferees and delay this 1 year so that we do not throw out the 
good institutions that are out there that are preparing the workers 
that we need for a very competitive work force.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Mazzoli). All time has expired.
  The question is on the motion to instruct offered by the gentleman 
from Illinois [Mr. Porter].
  The motion to instruct was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the Chair appoints the 
following conferees: Messrs. Smith of Iowa, Obey, Stokes, and Hoyer, 
Ms. Pelosi, Mrs. Lowey, Mr. Serrano, Ms. De Lauro, Messrs. Sabo, 
Porter, and Young of Florida, Mrs. Bentley, Mr. Bonilla, and Mr. 
McDade.
  There was no objection.

                          ____________________